Asynchronous (async) video interviews, which were once considered a niche experiment in hiring, have been moving into the mainstream. In this format, candidates record answers to preset questions on their own schedule, allowing employers to review submissions later (thus not requiring synchronicity in time or location). Tools like HireVue, Jobma, and Willo provide async options, and the appeal for employers is obvious. But as the practice spreads, a more complicated story is emerging. While the technology clearly delivers efficiency, candidate buy‑in is far from guaranteed.

Why Employers are Leaning In

For many organizations, the draw is speed. Async interviews cut out the back‑and‑forth of scheduling and allow recruiters to process large applicant pools without clogging calendars. This is especially attractive in high‑volume hiring, where early screening often slows things down. Industry observers note that these tools are increasingly replacing the traditional phone screen, becoming the new default first step in the hiring funnel.

Standardization is another advantage. Every candidate gets the same questions in the same format, which helps make early evaluations more consistent. When companies use clear scoring guides or incorporate AI tools, they can make more uniform decisions, even when hiring at scale. Recent research suggests these systems can pick up more detail in candidate responses than human reviewers usually notice.

Where the Candidate Experience Falters

The efficiency story doesn’t tell the whole tale. Candidate reactions to async interviews remain mixed.

A key complaint is the absence of human connection. A one‑way video exchange offers no chance to ask questions, “read” the room, or get a feel for the people behind the job description. Some candidates describe the experience as impersonal; others say it leaves them unsure about the company’s culture or expectations. Recruiters themselves have acknowledged that overreliance on async tools can make the hiring process feel transactional.

Fairness is another sticking point. Many candidates say they don’t understand how their videos are evaluated – particularly when AI is involved. Without transparency, trust erodes. When employers pile on too many questions or require multiple rounds of recordings, “interview fatigue” can set in, prompting some applicants to self-select out of the process.

What Improves Acceptance

Despite the friction, organizations thoughtfully using async interviews report far better candidate reception. Several practices stand out.

• Keep them short. Limiting the number of questions to a reasonable amount (typically three to five) is better received and shows respect for the applicant’s time.   
• Explain the process. Candidates respond more positively when they know how their responses will be reviewed and what happens next.
• Use async as a replacement, not an add‑on. When these interviews take the place of phone screens rather than adding them as an additional step, they are less likely to be perceived as redundant, leaving candidates more willing to participate. 
• Bring humans in quickly. Moving qualified candidates into live conversations restores the two‑way dynamic that job seekers expect.

A Balanced Model

The most effective hiring model appears to avoid choosing between technology and human interaction but rather blending and sequencing the two. Async interviews serve as an efficient front‑end filter, capturing consistent data early in the process. Later stages shift back to live dialogue, where rapport, nuance, and relationship‑building matter most.

This hybrid approach reflects a broader trend in talent acquisition: using automation to streamline the mechanics of hiring while preserving the human elements that shape candidate perception.

Dan Van Slambrook leads ASE’s Staffing Services. For more information about how ASE can support your hiring efforts, please contact him at 248.223.8014 or dvanslam@aseonline.org.

Sources: Arxiv.org, LinkedIn