Revolutionizing Job Hunting! Who Reads Your Motivation Letter? "AI Writes, AI Chooses" - The Current State of Recruitment

When you're struggling to articulate your motivation for applying, want to organize your work history for better readability, or need to craft a self-promotion tailored to the company you're applying to, generative AI can be a reliable advisor.

However, the company to which you submit your polished documents might also be using software or AI to screen applications. Moreover, if the hiring manager concludes that "this is a document entirely written by AI," you might be excluded from the selection process.

Both applicants and selectors are seeking efficiency. As a result, the very premise of what is evaluated through documents at the gateway to hiring is beginning to waver.

An article by the German news site "op-online," published on October 14, 2026, based on a survey commissioned by the job service Indeed, reports on this change. It includes questions that cannot be overlooked when considering job hunting and career changes in Japan.

Is "good writing" proof of one's ability?

The survey was conducted by the market research company Censuswide, targeting decision-makers involved in hiring at 300 companies.

56% of respondents said the number of applications per job posting increased compared to the previous year, and 21% said it increased significantly. They estimated that, on average, about one-third of the applications received were created with the help of AI.

However, this is the perception of hiring managers. It is not a technically verified figure confirming the rate of AI usage in application documents. Also, this survey alone cannot determine to what extent the increase in applications is due to AI.

What is noteworthy is the change in the evaluation of documents.

Regarding the "Anschreiben," or cover letter, which conveys the motivation for applying and one's strengths, 54% said it is not as much of a deciding factor as before. As for the phrasing in resumes, 46% felt its value has decreased, 43% for written responses in application forms, and 33% for selection tasks undertaken at home.

As AI becomes capable of crafting polished text, it becomes harder to link the quality of the writing with the applicant's comprehension and experience. Hiring managers want to see the applicant, but what might be visible from the documents is the performance of text generation tools.

However, it is important to note that the survey targeted 300 people and does not represent all German companies. It is not appropriate to broadly interpret it as "more than half of German companies no longer prioritize motivation."

"Using AI" is not the same as "delegating everything to AI"

In the survey, 41% said they would exclude applications they clearly judged to be entirely written by AI from the selection process.

What needs to be distinguished here is the use of AI itself and entrusting the entire content of the application to AI.

Correcting typos, shortening overly long sentences, and asking questions to organize experiences are different from submitting generated text without fact-checking. The degree of personal involvement is significantly different.

The figures do not mean that "using AI even slightly will result in rejection by 41% of companies." The responses pertain to cases where hiring managers judged the entire text to be AI-generated, and it does not provide data on whether that judgment was correct.

Just because the writing is polished or the expression is generic, it does not reveal who wrote it or how.

What should be confirmed is whether the experiences are factual, whether the applicant possesses the skills required for the job, and whether they can explain themselves in their own words. If the judgment of "AI-like" takes precedence, there is a risk of losing sight of this purpose.

Companies also use AI for selection—time spent on initial review is "within one minute"

On the other hand, hiring companies may not be able to read through a large volume of applications solely with human effort.

In the survey, 35% said they spend less than one minute on the initial review of application documents. 42% officially use software or AI for preliminary screening.

This 42% includes processing by software, so not all of it involves evaluating individuals through generative AI. It is necessary to consider specific uses separately, such as organizing application information, narrowing down by conditions, and evaluating documents.

Even so, while applicants are asked for "thoughtful, personal writing," the structure on the company side is moving towards quick reviews and automated processing, which might feel dissonant to some.

If applicants can shorten the time spent on preparation, it becomes easier to apply to more companies. As the number of documents received by companies increases, there is a tendency to advance the automation of selection. This is one cycle that can be considered from this survey, but the extent to which it occurs requires separate verification.

Does efficiency lead to more opportunities for conversation between people, or does it only speed up selection before mutual understanding? The results vary depending on the system introduced.

On social media, voices of "invisible content" and "efficiency for applicants"

This issue is also being discussed on social media.

What is introduced here is not a direct reaction to the current German report, but a public post and comments on LinkedIn addressing the same theme. It is a discussion from 2025 and does not represent the overall opinion distribution on social media.

Simon Jones, who was involved in hiring, posted that cover letters that seem AI-generated often lack specificity. On the other hand, he also disclosed in an addendum that he distinguishes between full text generation and text assistance and replaced the submission of cover letters with concise question responses.

In the comments section, there was a counterargument that applicants also need means to save time, considering the burden of mass applications. There were also points made that for non-native speakers and those with difficulties in reading and writing, AI can be a tool to aid expression.

Jones himself explained that he does not use AI for selecting applicants. It is inaccurate to treat this individual poster as an example of "companies using AI while prohibiting it for applicants."

The discussion highlights the disconnect between hiring sides seeking specificity and job seekers wanting to reduce the burden of applications. The presence or absence of AI use alone cannot capture the circumstances of both sides.

"Rejected without being seen" questions human responsibility

There are more concerning figures in this survey.

Among respondents using technical means for preliminary sorting, 11% said they proceed to send rejection notices without human re-evaluation of automatically excluded documents.

This 11% is not a proportion of the entire survey target but within the layer that utilizes technical means.

The original article explains such operations as prohibited, but institutional supplements are necessary. The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) generally restricts fully automated decision-making that has legal effects or similarly significant impacts on individuals. However, there are application conditions and exceptions, and not all automated processing is uniformly illegal.

What should be considered in hiring is not merely whether a human opens the screen at the end, but whether the decision can be substantively reviewed.

What if the necessary experience was described in different words? Can people with skills useful for the job, even if they deviate from a typical career path, be identified? As automation progresses, a mechanism to verify excluded applications becomes important.

How should "completeness of motivation" be handled in Japanese job hunting?

German cover letters and Japanese entry sheets or work history documents are not the same. However, there is a common challenge in trying to read motivation, personality, and understanding of the job from free-form writing.

For example, a well-crafted motivation applicable to any company makes it difficult to understand why the person applied. Conversely, even if the writing is somewhat awkward, an application that understands the job and specifically explains the connection with one's experience provides useful information for judgment.

Guidance on fair selection by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare clearly states the need to keep doors open to applicants and to select based on aptitude and ability, including when using AI.

Considering this principle, companies should explore methods to verify the abilities required for the job, not just the appearance of the text.

One example is preparing short work-related tasks and having candidates explain their reasoning during interviews. If the task allows AI usage, clarify the conditions, verify the output, and ask what was corrected.

This way, in addition to whether AI was used, the ability to utilize tools and take responsibility for the results can also be confirmed. However, if too many tasks are added, it becomes a burden for applicants, so it is important to limit them to the necessary scope for the job.

What applicants need are experiences and facts they can explain

For applicants, the choice of whether to use AI or not is not an easy one.

First, check the usage rules indicated by the prospective employer. If the use of AI is specified in home assignments or written exams, it must be followed.

Even when receiving assistance in writing, it is important to prepare the starting facts oneself. The work undertaken, challenges faced, personal decisions, results, and what did not go well—having these materials helps organize what should be communicated to the employer.

Instead of a generic statement like "I contributed to the team," it is more informative for interviews to specify what you undertook, who you coordinated with, and how you progressed the work. Even without numerical achievements, roles and actions can be demonstrated concretely.

Finally, verify whether you can explain everything written yourself. It is also important to review whether any career achievements added by AI or skills not actually possessed have slipped in.

As the ability to refine writing becomes widely accessible, the experiences and judgments supporting that writing become more important.

Can the efficiency of hiring be connected to more time for dialogue?

The survey indicates that AI is changing both the creation and selection of application documents, prompting a reassessment of evaluation methods.

There is value in applicants being able to reduce writing time. There is also value in hiring managers reducing the burden of information organization. If this leeway can be used for explaining job details and engaging in dialogue with candidates, both parties benefit.

Conversely, if applicants send automatically generated texts and companies automatically exclude them without verifying the reasons, only the number of processed cases increases.

Companies need to clarify what they evaluate, how much AI is permitted, and how it is used in selection. Applicants need to convey their experiences based on facts.

Now that AI has entered the gateway to hiring, the question is how to verify the ability of the individual in front of us while using convenient tools.

Source

1. op-online/dpa:
   Published on October 14, 2026. Figures and considerations from a survey conducted by Censuswide targeting 300 hiring managers, commissioned by Indeed.
   https://www.op-online.de/wirtschaft/kuenstliche-intelligenz-veraendert-bewerbungsverfahren-im-job-zr-94539784.html

2. LinkedIn: Post and public comments by Simon Jones
   Discussion on dissatisfaction from the hiring side with AI-generated application texts, the burden on applicants, and the significance of writing assistance. Not a direct reaction to the current report, but referenced as a related discussion from 2025. Simon Jones
   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/simonrjones_jobs-ai-activity-7312526100763410434-YPRT

3. European Data Protection Board (EDPB): Official guide on individual rights
   Used to confirm rights regarding fully automated decision-making under GDPR and considerations for application. European Data Protection Board
   https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sme/be-compliant/respect-individuals-rights_en

4. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: FAQ on fair selection
   Confirmation of the necessity to keep doors open to applicants and judge based on aptitude and ability, even in AI-utilized selection. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
   https://kouseisaiyou.mhlw.go.jp/question.html