Everyone in government agrees that civil service recruitment needs to be improved. It’s a marketplace after all, and HR leaders are watching their best candidates disappear mid-process, lured by private sector employers not only because of higher pay but also thanks to their speedy hiring processes. But even if government turns to AI-powered recruitment to reap the benefits of modern recruitment, the civil service finds itself trapped between fairness principles designed before the digital era and a talent market transformed by technology.
At a recent Civil Service World roundtable, held in partnership with recruitment platform Indeed, HR professionals from across government discussed this very challenge. They reflected on the push for smaller, more productive workforce, the call for AI adoption and digital transformation, and shared their experience with a system that continues much as it has for decades – slow, complex, and increasingly out of touch with candidate expectations.
The event highlighted operational issues. Participants said that security clearance, sometimes stretching beyond six months, is the most visible bottleneck. But these challenges are a symptom of deeper issues. Fundamentally, the group agreed, government needs to reimagine what fair recruitment means in the AI era.
The civil service recruitment principles, designed to ensure merit-based selection, now create what one participant called “rigidity” throughout the system. Multiple approval stages, standardised testing, panel interviews – each element adds weeks whilst candidates drift away. Participants agreed that the aim of fair and open recruitment on merit must be protected, but in a way that meets the needs of the modern civil service.
To use or not to use AI
There was hope but also scepticism on the table. Attendees reported that some hiring managers dislike CVs they suspect had been touched by artificial intelligence, viewing it as evidence of laziness or deception. Others challenged this position, arguing that departments desperately need staff with digital skills and shouldn’t dismiss candidates who demonstrate those very abilities in their applications.
Managers are also worried about being flooded with generic applications as candidates use AI to apply at scale, which could jeopardise their ability to assess genuine interest and culture fit.
On the positive side, participants thought that AI tools could help candidates from non-traditional backgrounds decode civil service jargon and present their skills effectively. For example, one official shared how their department had experimented with a system allowing external candidates to upload CVs and find which civil service roles matched their skills. Similarly, another talked about a recently developed AI assistant that generates complete recruitment campaigns – adverts, success profiles, interview questions – all within civil service principles.
But the most radical opportunity wasn’t linked to technology but the user. Indeed’s data shows 40% of jobseekers don't even specify what role they want; they simply leave the search bar empty to bring up as many jobs as possible. These blank searches represent untapped potential to find people who might never think to apply for civil service roles, but who have exactly the transferable skills government needs.
Participants shared their career paths, proving the point. Their stories showed how a skills-based approach might be the key to attract the flexible, curious people government needs.
Exploring how AI could identify transferable skills that human reviewers might miss, it was suggested that rather than filtering for specific degrees or previous job titles, AI-assisted systems could assess problem-solving ability, communication skills, and adaptability. This shift could particularly benefit social mobility, helping those without civil service connections understand how their experience translates to government roles.
Managing the risks
But even as participants recognised AI's potential, they voiced concerns about AI amplifying bias. The technology learns from historical data, potentially embedding past discrimination into future decisions. So, if previous hiring favoured certain universities or backgrounds, AI might perpetuate these patterns at scale.
One participant acknowledged this risk, but argued that AI systems could be more transparent than human decision-making. Unlike human minds, algorithms can be audited, their training data examined, and guardrails built to prevent discriminatory outcomes. They agreed that the key lies in choosing what data to use and what outcomes to optimise.
Indeed’s experience suggests the solution involves combining artificial and human intelligence. Their data shows that when AI-driven recommendations are combined with human intervention, the likelihood of making a successful hire jumps 17 times compared to either approach alone. The technology does a really good job at processing volume and identifying patterns, while humans provide context and culture assessment. As one participant noted, “it's that human touch that makes all the difference”.
Participants also identified another key challenge. Most civil service recruitment involves internal moves between departments, but these processes treat existing employees like strangers. Performance reviews, training records, project experience – all sit in different systems and get ignored when staff join the recruitment process.
One participant described their experience with the internal recruitment machinery, noting staff move between departments through formal application processes despite years of documented performance. This represents not just wasted effort but missed opportunity. With AI, however, the system could locate existing information to identify internal talent for new roles.
The discussion highlighted how this fragmentation prevents strategic workforce planning if departments can’t easily identify who has specific language skills, technical expertise, or international experience. However, AI could create dynamic talent maps, matching internal capabilities to emerging needs without lengthy recruitment campaigns.
Humans to the front
For all the talk about algorithms and automation, the discussion kept circling back to the human element of judgment, culture, and connection. This point, however, revealed a generational divide. While senior decision-makers who are shaped by pre-digital experiences value traditional markers of commitment – handwritten applications, formal interviews, lengthy processes that demonstrate serious intent – younger candidates expect streamlined digital experiences and see lengthy processes as old-fashioned red tape.
HR leaders need to help bridge this divide. One participant who spent 25 years in the civil service shared how their department had only recently started asking managers to book interview slots online – a shift that seemed to them revolutionary but overdue to external candidates. The challenge is not only in adopting new tools but in shifting this culture.
One director shared an experience which had led him to think deeply about the potential of AI. In their recent deputy director recruitment, five of six candidates who reached the final interview failed to meet the standard, despite passing all previous screens. 'Could AI have done better for me?' they asked.
The event might not have found the answer to this question, but the sentiment across the table was not on whether to embrace AI-enabled recruitment, but whether the civil service will lead this change or be dragged into it by necessity.