AI interviews in hiring: What candidates actually want – and how to get it right

For a growing number of candidates across Europe, the first “interviewer” they meet isn’t a person.

Six months ago, AI interviews were still being tested. Now, AI interviews are already part of the hiring experience across the UK, Ireland and Germany – with adoption varying by market.

That shift is backed by the Greenhouse 2026 Candidate AI Interview Report, based on a survey of 2,950 jobseekers across the US, UK, Ireland, Germany and Australia.

But across markets, the bigger story isn’t adoption. It’s how candidates are responding to the experience.

Here’s what the data shows across candidates in Europe and globally – and where hiring teams need to adjust.

‍

Transparency is where things start to break down

Across Europe, candidates consistently report low visibility into how AI is used.

In Ireland, only 9% of candidates who completed an AI interview say they were clearly told upfront that AI would be used. The UK is also low at 13%, while Germany sits at 18%.

This isn’t isolated to one country. Among candidates with relevant experience, only 10%–22% say most employers have explicit, clear AI policies.

At the same time, transparency expectations are already high. Across global markets, candidates are asking for upfront disclosure, clearer explanations of what AI is measuring and stronger accountability around how AI affects decisions.

The gap is clear: AI is being used widely, but it’s not being explained clearly.

‍

Candidates are opting out – at different rates across markets

Withdrawal behaviour varies across Europe, but the pattern is consistent: candidates will leave when the experience feels unclear or uncomfortable.

Germany stands out with the highest withdrawal rate of any surveyed market at 42%, alongside relatively high AI interview exposure (57%).

In Ireland, non-disclosure is the top reason candidates abandon the process, at 26%, which aligns with its low upfront disclosure rate.

Across markets, the same themes show up. Candidates point to pre-recorded interviews with no human interaction, unclear use of AI and monitoring during the process as reasons to disengage.

And then there’s what happens after the interview.

The UK records the highest ghosting rate of any surveyed market: 42% of candidates who completed an AI interview never heard back. Australia and Ireland follow at 39%, while Germany is lower at 32%.

That kind of silence reinforces the sense that the process is automated and difficult to navigate.

‍

Bias concerns are consistent across regions

Across Europe and global markets, candidates continue to report bias concerns in AI-enabled hiring.

The US data shows the clearest comparison: candidates report nearly identical rates of perceived bias from AI and human interviewers, including 36% for age bias and 27% for race or ethnicity bias across both.

That pattern shows up globally as well. Age bias in AI evaluation is consistent across markets, ranging from 27% in the UK to 36% in the US.

For European hiring teams, this reinforces a broader point: candidates aren’t seeing AI as inherently fairer. They’re evaluating it based on how it’s implemented.

Without clear criteria and consistent evaluation, AI doesn’t improve outcomes – it makes existing issues harder to see.

‍

Trust looks different by market

Trust in AI varies across Europe, but scepticism is widespread.

Germany is the only surveyed market where trust in AI is closest to parity – 50% of candidates say they trust AI equally to or more than human interviewers. Ireland is the most sceptical, with 67% favouring human interviewers and 37% saying most employers lack sufficient oversight.

The UK sits between those markets, but trust remains a challenge there as well.

Across all five markets, between 63% and 70% of candidates do not believe most employers are using AI responsibly.

This makes one thing clear: AI isn’t just a workflow change. It’s something candidates experience directly, and it shapes how much they trust your process.

‍

This is shaping how candidates see your company

AI interviews are influencing employer perception.

In the US, 38% of candidates say a positive AI interview improved their impression of the employer, while 34% say a negative one made it worse. The report points to a broader pattern: candidate experience with AI can influence how candidates perceive employers.

Across Europe, there are clear signs of strain: 35% of candidates in the UK, 35% of candidates in Germany and 40% of candidates in Ireland say AI has made job searching more stressful.

Those experiences don’t stay contained to one interaction. They influence whether candidates continue, how they talk about your company and whether they apply again.

‍

What you can actually do about it

Across European markets, candidates are consistent in what they expect from AI-driven hiring. While adoption varies by country, the improvements are similar – clearer communication, more consistency and visible accountability.

Transparency is the starting point. Disclosure rates are low across Europe, especially in Ireland, where only 9% of candidates were clearly told upfront that AI was being used in the interviewing process. Being explicit about where AI is used helps reduce confusion and sets expectations early.

Candidates also want to understand how they’re being evaluated. This shows up across European and global data. A simple explanation of what AI is measuring helps make the process feel fairer and more predictable.

Human involvement remains critical. Candidates want to know AI outputs are reviewed and that decisions are made by people. Making that visible reinforces trust, especially in markets where scepticism is higher.

Flexibility also matters. Offering the option to request a human interview changes how the process is perceived. It gives candidates a sense of control, even if they don’t use it.

Communication is still a major gap. Ghosting and delayed responses remain common, particularly in the UK, where 42% of candidates who completed an AI interview never heard back. Clear follow-up and timely updates are essential to maintaining engagement.

At a broader level, these issues come back to structure. Across Europe and globally, stronger outcomes come from consistent, well-defined hiring processes. AI works best when it’s built on that foundation.

‍

The bottom line

AI adoption looks different across European markets, but candidate expectations are converging.

Across the UK, Ireland, Germany, Australia and global markets, candidates are looking for transparency, fairness, consistency and accountability.

The challenge isn’t whether to use AI. It’s whether the process around it is clear enough, structured enough and human enough to earn candidate trust.
‍

‍FAQs

1. Do candidates actually want AI in the hiring process?
Yes – globally, candidates are open to AI as long as it’s transparent, clearly explained and supported by human decision-making at key points.

2. What’s causing candidates to drop out of AI-driven hiring processes?
The biggest drivers are lack of transparency, unclear evaluation criteria and limited human involvement – especially when AI feels like the sole decision-maker.

3. What can hiring teams do to build trust when using AI?
Be upfront about where AI is used, explain what’s being evaluated, keep humans visibly involved in decisions and communicate outcomes clearly and consistently.
‍

See how candidates are experiencing AI interviews – and where trust is breaking down. Download the full Greenhouse 2026 Candidate AI Interview Report directly from this page.