🧭 Grass Brief

AI in the Swiss application process: what 6’000 job seekers and 700 companies actually experience

May 26, 20268 min readDennis Gorican

There is a story that most executives in transition believe about AI and recruitment. It goes roughly like this: companies use AI to screen applications, algorithms filter candidates out before a human ever sees the CV, and if your documents are not perfectly optimised for the machine, you are eliminated before you get a chance.

It is a persuasive story. But according to the most comprehensive Swiss data we have, it is largely wrong.

In April 2026, AMOSA, the labour market observatory acting on behalf of the cantons of Zurich, Zug, Aargau, St.Gallen, Thurgau, Schaffhausen, Graubünden, Glarus and both Appenzell, published the results of the largest Swiss study to date on AI in job search and recruitment. Just under 6'000 job seekers and around 700 companies were surveyed on how they actually use AI in the application and hiring process.

The findings challenge several assumptions that dominate the current debate. And for executives in career transition, they contain both reassurance and a warning.

The asymmetry: candidates are running, companies are walking

The headline figure is striking. 65% of Swiss job seekers have already used AI at least once in their job search. One third use it regularly. Among those with a tertiary qualification the figure rises to 83%, with more than half using AI on a consistent basis.

The most common use case is exactly what one would expect: preparing and improving application documents. 61% of AI-using job seekers employ it to write, correct, translate or tailor CVs and covering letters for a particular position. Smaller proportions use it for job research (35%), interview preparation (29%) and communication with prospective employers (28%).

On the employer side, the picture is entirely different. Only 13% of the Swiss companies surveyed use AI in their recruitment process at all. Among large companies with more than 250 employees the figure is just under a quarter. And the usage that does exist is concentrated almost entirely at the start of the process: 11% use AI to create or improve job advertisements. When it comes to the decisive stage, screening or shortlisting applications, the figure falls to 3.6%.

That is the gap that matters. Job seekers assume that AI decides their fate. In reality, it is almost certain that a human being reads their application. The fear of "being filtered out by the algorithm" is unfounded for the vast majority of Swiss applications in 2026.

AI opens doors but does not close deals

The AMOSA data show a clear correlation between regular AI use and application success, at least up to a point. Job seekers who use AI regularly apply for more positions and receive around 48% more interview invitations than those who do not use AI at all. Statistical models confirm that this effect holds even when differences in education, sector and background are taken into account.

However, and this is the decisive finding, regular AI use does not lead to faster re-employment. A follow-up analysis six months after the survey found no indication that regular AI users return to the labour market more quickly than non-users.

AMOSA's own interpretation is instructive: AI currently functions as a door opener, not as a guarantee of a shorter job search. It helps candidates secure an invitation to interview. What happens in the interview room, the personal impression, the judgement displayed, the credible account of one's career, remains entirely human.

The study's author, Miriam Hofstetter, put it plainly in a media interview: it would be more valuable to use AI to prepare for the interview and to engage genuinely with the position, rather than merely to polish the documents.

For executives in transition, this is a distinction worth internalising. AI can sharpen your documents. It cannot replace the conversation that decides.

What companies actually see

From the employer perspective, the AMOSA data paint a picture of growing uncertainty. On average, companies estimate that 39% of incoming applications were produced partly or wholly with the help of AI. Among large companies the estimate rises to 49%.

The reported effects are consistent. 52% of companies encountering AI-assisted applications say that application documents increasingly appear standardised. 51% say that authenticity and the applicant's own contribution are harder to assess. 35% observe a higher overall quality of documents, coupled with a reduced ability to identify genuine motivation.

One company quoted in the study captures it well: identifying candidates who are genuinely interested has become more difficult because of the standardisation and professionalisation brought about by AI, and for companies with substantial recruitment needs this represents an additional burden.

55% of companies state that they can recognise AI-assisted applications by linguistic or formal characteristics. But only 10% actively check for them. This suggests that detection still rests largely on instinct and experience rather than on systematic screening.

Despite these concerns, only 7% of companies have adapted their selection process in response. Those that have are doing something very specific: they give greater weight to references, conduct additional aptitude assessments, examine diplomas and employment references more closely, and use the probationary period more deliberately to evaluate suitability.

The signal is clear. The less informative application documents become, the more companies shift their trust to signals that are harder to fabricate: personal references, verified qualifications, demonstrated performance and the quality of the conversation itself.

What this means for senior executives

For executives in transition, the AMOSA findings carry specific implications that differ from those affecting the broader job-seeking population.

First, the fear of AI screening can be set aside. At executive level, the hiring process has always been more personal, more referral-driven and more dependent on direct relationships than at junior or mid-career level. The AMOSA data confirm that even in the broader market, AI screening is barely used. For senior positions, the decision is made by a person who knows your name, has seen your profile or has received a recommendation. That has not changed.

Second, polished documents are now a basic requirement, not a differentiator. When 65% of job seekers use AI to improve their applications, a well-written CV and a clean covering letter no longer stand out. They are expected. What does stand out is specificity: quantified results, contextual detail, evidence of decisions taken under real constraints, and language that sounds like a particular person rather than a template. This reinforces what we have written in earlier Grass Briefs: clarity and voice are the scarce goods today, not polish.

Third, references matter more than ever. The AMOSA finding that companies place greater weight on references, assessments and probationary evaluation is directly relevant to executives building their transition strategy. Your Right 100 network is not only valuable for generating leads. It is valuable because it contains the people who will vouch for you when the hiring process reaches the trust-verification stage. Cultivating those relationships is not merely good networking. It is a practical response to a market that is recalibrating how it evaluates candidates.

Fourth, interview preparation is the area where AI should in fact be used more. The AMOSA data show that most job seekers use AI for documents (61%) but considerably fewer for interview preparation (29%). At senior level, the interview is where the decision is made. Using AI to simulate difficult questions, to test your positioning and to practise explaining career transitions is a far more strategic application of the technology than having your profile section rewritten for the fourth time.

The transparency question

One of the most interesting AMOSA findings concerns transparency. 75% of job seekers want companies to disclose when they use AI in recruitment. 57% of companies want candidates to disclose when they use AI in preparing their documents. Both sides want honesty from the other.

For executives, the practical answer is straightforward. Use AI openly. There is no weakness in using a tool to sharpen your language, structure your thinking or prepare for a conversation. But be ready to stand behind everything in your documents as your own. If someone asks whether you used AI, you should be able to say: "Yes, as a tool. The thinking, the decisions and the experience are mine."

That answer is honest, confident and exactly what the market is looking for.

Where we stand

The AMOSA study confirms what our coaching practice has been showing for months. AI accelerates the early stages of the application process. It makes documents more polished, more numerous and more uniform. But it does not change what ultimately decides: the human assessment of fit, judgement and trust.

For executives in transition, the temptation to concentrate on perfecting the documents is considerable. The AMOSA data suggest the opposite priority. Bring the documents to a strong, clear, professional standard, AI can help with that in a matter of hours, and then invest your time where it genuinely counts: in building relationships with your Right 100, in preparing for the conversations that decide, and in ensuring that when a decision-maker looks at your profile or sits across from you, they meet a person, not a template.

AI has made decent applications cheap to produce. It has not made outstanding candidates easier to find. In a market where everyone's documents look good, the executives who sound like themselves will continue to be the ones who are remembered.

Sources: AMOSA (labour market observatory for Eastern Switzerland, Aargau, Zug and Zurich), "KI in Jobsuche und Recruiting", April 2026; SRF, "KI für die Bewerbung nutzen: was ratsam ist und was nicht", April 2026; NZZ, "Chat-GPT, such mir einen Job: wie KI Bewerbungen verändert", April 2026; Netzwoche, "KI öffnet Stellensuchenden mehr Türen zu Bewerbungsgesprächen", April 2026; Canton of St.Gallen, "Künstliche Intelligenz verändert den Bewerbungsprozess", May 2026.