Suppose HR finds this suite of tools to be an effective method of managing the hiring process. Stats get reported as they always do to support or modulate decisions made for software and applicant acquisition. Since HR has this cool tool at the front end of the hiring process it could be adapted to post-hiring, i.e. counseling and dispute resolution and other unpleasant HR functions that make an autmoated solution more attractive. You know how hard it is to get an IT position filled because HR doesn’t understand it, so all the other business units get their positions filled first. How far will this go? Yes, I read the other posts that state this is intended only as a tool in a suite, but we all have been there when something that smells successful gets morphed into something that blots out the landscape. My question is not only the limits of the application, but also the ethics of those tempted to use it as the sole hiring tool and additional application in pshychmetric measurement and selective response to other HR issues that HR would rather not deal with because its “too hard” like dispute resolution, negative counseling, and difficult issues like retirement and Guard/Reserve problems that are complex, lengthy and detailed with little daily interaction that keeps HR fluent in policy and procedure. Just having the software is a temptation to reduce HR staffing levels. So, this isn’t just “Hiring without Humans”, its also “Retention, Moderation and Termination without Humans”. I wouldn’t work for that company, and have walked out of interviews (EDS, IBM) where it was clear the company wasn’t fully behind its front-line staff with all the hiring game-playing and showmanship.