Category Archives: Recruiting

3 Highly Effective Habits of Annoying Candidates!

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve noticed a run on ‘Highly Effective’ list posts lately!  It seems like everyone has the inside scoop on how to be highly effective at everything! Highly Effective Leaders. Highly Effective Managers. Highly Effective Productive People. Highly Effective Teacher.  If you want a post worth clicking on, just add an odd number, the words ‘highly effective’ and a title.  It goes a little something like this (hit it!):

– The 5 Highly Effective Habits of Crackheads!

– The 7 Highly Effective Traits of Lazy Employees!

– The 13 Highly Effective Ways To Hug It Out at Work!

Blog post writing 101.  The highly effective way to write a blog post people will click on and spend 57 seconds reading.

I figured I might as well jump on board with some career/job seeker advice with the 3 Highly Effective Habits of Annoying Candidates!

1. They don’t pick up on normal social cues. This means you don’t know when to shut up or start talking.   Most annoying candidates actually struggle with the ‘when to stop talking piece’.  Yes, we want to hear about your job history. No, we don’t care about your boss Marvin who managed you at the Dairy Dip when you were 15.

2. They live in the past. Usually, annoying candidates are annoying because they were annoying employees and like to share annoying stories about how great it was in the past when they weren’t thought of as annoying.  I guess you can’t blame them. If there was ever a possibility they weren’t annoying, I’d probably try and relive those moments as much as possible.

3. They lack a shred of self-insight.  That’s really the core, right?  If you had any self-insight, you would understand you’re just a little annoying and you would work to control that, but you don’t.  “Maybe some would say spending a solid ten minutes talking about my coin collection in an interview wouldn’t be good, but I think it shows I’m passionate!” No, it doesn’t.

You can see how these highly effective habits start to build on each other.  You don’t stop rambling on about something totally unrelated to the interview because you don’t notice Mary stopped taking notes ten minutes ago and started doodling on her interview notes, but you plow on because you told yourself during interview prep to make sure you got out all of your bad manager stories.

Highly effective annoying candidates are like a Tsunami of a lack of emotional intelligence.  Even if I was completely unqualified for a job I think the feedback afterward from the interviewers would be: “we really liked him, too bad he doesn’t have any the skills we need.”   Highly effective annoying candidates have the opposite feedback: “if this person was the last person on earth with the skills to save our company, I would rather we go out of business!”

What annoying candidate habits have you witnessed?

Through the Eyes of the Hiring Manager

Posted on by
Reply

On Wednesday I was sitting on The Talent Fix Book Club webcast with one of my Recruiting Managers, Zach Jensen, and Zach made the comment that great recruiters do something a bit different, they look at applications and resumes through “the eyes of the hiring manager”. It’s a brilliant piece of advice, but what does it mean!?

New, or lesser experienced, recruiters look at candidates like a checklist:

  • Do they meet the minimum qualifications? Check.
  • Can they work when we need them to work? Check.
  • Will they fit the compensation band we have for the position? Check.
  • Are they interested in our company? Check.

Get enough checks and you send this candidate over to the hiring manager.

The hiring manager receives this candidate and immediately looks at this person completely different from the recruiter who was checking boxes. The hiring manager will look at the candidate and immediately think, can this person do the job I have, and do it well? Will this person fit into my team? Do I think I can manage this person? Will this person be challenged by my position, or will they be bored? Is this person better than me or someone on my team? Does this person make me/us better? Etc.

Great recruiters have enough of a relationship with their hiring managers that they are less concerned with checking boxes, and more concerned about these questions that are in the hiring manager’s head. They want to have those answers, so when the hiring manager asks, “What do you think?” What they will respond with is not checked boxes, but strategic explanations that help the hiring manager make a decision.

It’s a transition we usually see happen around year 3 with our recruiters. Checking boxes isn’t all bad, it’s how we all start. The reality is we don’t know much, so we have to go on something. Some, though, never make the transition. They just think recruiting is about checking boxes.

It’s the one reason I’m not concerned about ‘technology’ taking my job, and why the best recruiters I speak with aren’t concerned either. In fact, they welcome it. Technology will eliminate box checkers. A.I. can check boxes faster and better than you or I. A.I. can’t get into the head of a hiring manager and know what she really needs for her team. I can. Zach can.

Great recruiting happens when you build relationships with your hiring managers where they trust you know what they are really looking for. How do you get that? Mostly time and consistency. Keep showing up. Show them you have some interest in helping them improve their talent. Be persistently annoying. Rinse. Repeat.

Should You Put a Rank and File Employee on Your Board?

Posted on by
2

Most boards of companies are made up of current company executives and/or executives from other companies are former executives from other companies. Almost never will you find a “regular Joe” on the board of directors.

Last week, a worker’s rights organization, United for Respect, presented to Congress and then to Walmart’s board the idea of adding hourly Walmart workers to its board, with full voting privileges. From the New Yorker:

“The practice of constantly cutting costs and squeezing workers often stems from the short-term-profit-oriented mind-set that has come to dominate corporate America over recent decades, in which moves to boost a company’s stock price are given priority over longer-term investments in infrastructure and employees. Murray believes that, if there had been a meaningful number of people with a stake in Walmart’s longer-term health—such as store associates—involved in the business decisions, some of these changes wouldn’t have happened, and the company would be better off. This led Murray, with the help of a worker’s-rights organization called United for Respect, to join in drafting a resolution that she plans to present to Congress on Tuesday—and, later, at Walmart’s annual shareholders’ meeting—urging the company to place a significant number of hourly retail employees on its board of directors so that they might have input on major corporate decisions.”

I love the idea. The only way it works is if the hourly employees who are on the board, have full voting rights as other board members, and they are not compensated in a way that makes them vote differently than they would as a normally compensated hourly worker. Basically, you couldn’t allow management to game the system by making it financially rewarding to those hourly employees that incentives them to make decisions in ways they normally wouldn’t.

So, would it be better for organizations to have hourly employees on their board? That’s the real question! More from the article:

“Because workers have so rarely been invited to participate in board-level decisions at companies in the U.S., there are few domestic examples to look to for a sense of how it would play out. In Germany and a handful of other European countries, however, having worker representation on boards is required. Baldwin’s office found research that showed that companies with worker representation invest twice as much in their businesses as those without; wages are higher, and profits are distributed more evenly. These firms also performed better. None of this is surprising. Low-level employees are deeply invested in a company’s long-term success, because their families depend on it in ways that top executives waiting for a bonus may not.” 

I’m definitely one of those people who believe we have an issue with executive compensation. Sure you see examples that are grotesque, but for the most part, executive compensation is market driven, and if organizations want to find effective leadership that has the ability to lead on a giant scale, it costs money.

I think what we are missing is the re-investment piece. Most boards and executives are concerned with financial performance, but in the short-term, not long. Quarter to quarter earnings drives short-term decision making that many times doesn’t include re-investment into the business to ensure long-term, steady success.

The market doesn’t reward steady success, so boards make decisions that are many times counterintuitive to long term success. Hourly employees, in turn, would tend to make better long-term business decisions because this business success long-term has a much bigger impact on their life, versus short-term business gains.

I’m not sure I want to see this regulated, I tend to believe the market will show companies how to run. That being said, in the past few decades the market has led many strong companies down the wrong path.

What do you think? How would you feel about having hourly employees on your board of directors?

Talent Pros! You are not alone! #SHRMTalent

Posted on by
2

I’m in Nashville, TN this week attending and speaking at the SHRM Talent Conference. SHRM Talent has quickly become one of my favorite conferences to attend and speak at because I love being surrounded by TA Pros and Leaders who are in the weeds! Actual real folks, making real placements, with real stories and pain of running corporate TA operations every day! My Peeps!!!!

I was speaking to attendees this week as I was getting ready for my presentation and guess what!?! Every single one had the exact same issue! We all need more people! And, AND, “we” – every freaking one of us – is struggling to find those people to fill our jobs. From San Fran to Dallas to Tampa to Kansas City to Detroit to New York and every small, medium, and large city in between, we are struggling.

So, you are not alone. I am here with you. And though you are far away. I am here to stay. (it’s lyrics to a song I couldn’t get out of my head as I started writing this post!) But it fits!

The cool part of knowing you are in the same boat as everyone else is since we are all in this together, we can help each other. We almost now are in a position where we have to help each other. It’s not okay to what our brothers and sisters in the grind fail.

So, how can we do this? I’ve got a couple of ideas:

1. Local Partnership Candidate Sharing – You have applicants and candidates you are not using. They are unused inventory that for whatever reason you don’t need and won’t hire. You have a peer in your city that is also sitting on an unused inventory of candidates. Go meet for lunch and take those unused, new candidates, and swap. They might be able to use some of yours and you might be able to use some of there candidates. The reality is, this is costing you nothing, and helping both of you! Ramp it up by inviting four or five other leaders from other organizations, and now you’re changing the game!

2. Stop Traditional Employee Referral Programs – Well, Tim, we pay $250 after 90 days of employment. Great, that’s like telling someone you’re giving them $1 Million in Monopoly money! It’s not real to them. They don’t truly believe they’ll ever get that. Start rewarding the behaviors and activities that lead to hires. Hey, here’s a $20 bill for giving us the name and phone number of a candidate, Thank You! Here’s a $50 bill for when the person actually shows up for the interview! Here is a $100 bill when they show up day 1! THANK YOU! Here’s another $50 bill when they are still here on Day 90, or whatever. This will lead to more referrals and cash money in the hand will make this real to your employees and you’ll get more referrals!

3. Stop Making Candidates Jump Through Your Hoops – Well, Tim, if the candidate really wants the job they will come into our office and fill out the application. No, no they won’t. Because your competition isn’t making them, and you’re an idiot! I’ve got 3 Gen Z sons who would all be great hires for any company. Work hard, care about their job, look your customer in the eye and treat them with kindness and respect, but they won’t walk in an fill out your stupid app. But, if you allow them to text you their interest, they will be all in. There is absolutely zero correlation that a candidate who jumps through your hoops will be a good hire, and there is absolutely zero correlation that a candidate who won’t jump through your hoops will be a bad hire. Stop it!

Stop doing this alone. Go invite one peer from another company to meet for lunch or coffee. Start building your local talent network of peers who you can work with to rise all of our boats. There is a time for competition and there is a time for cooperation. Today we need to be working together to solve this talent crisis.

Your Weekly Dose of HR Tech: @HireOnLinkedIn Launches New “Help Wanted” Service for SMB!

Posted on by
Reply

At LinkedIn Talent Connect last year, LinkedIn talked about how they weren’t satisfied with just helping white-collar workers network and find jobs. They spoke specifically of things in the pipeline that would help SMB employers hire blue collar workers as well. I think we all wondered what that looked like since those who network on LinkedIn’s main platform are not hourly workers for the most part.

This past week LinkedIn launched a “Help Wanted” job posting service aimed at SMB employers:

“Job seekers are looking both online and offline, but managing the flow of applicants — from job-seekers walking directly into your business and those applying online– can be a burden. That’s why we’re excited to roll out a new way to promote your roles offline and help you streamline incoming applications digitally. Now, when you create a LinkedIn Job Post, you can download and print out a “Help Wanted” sign to post in your business window. It directs potential candidates passing by your business to apply to your open positions on LinkedIn.”

If you take a look at the picture above you see what they are talking about. It’s the old school ‘Help Wanted’ signs that many employers would place in their store and business fronts.

I have a feeling there will be some that will make fun of this. It’s not modern. It’s not digital. It speaks to an era long gone by.

The reality is, I think it’s brilliant Recruitment Marketing!

Our job as HR and TA leaders, especially in SMB companies, is to make sure we let as many people as possible that we are hiring. We can do that through modern avenues like digital marketing and social media, but we can’t forget how to capture eyeballs in the environments where people know us best – our own businesses!

I’m a huge fan of old school marketing. When everyone is going one way, the best value and opportunity, many times is to go the opposite. What we know now is to attract talent we have to use every avenue at our disposal and LinkedIn just made it super easy for an organization that might have a modern recruiting platform can now advertise to applicants in a very modern way that allows them to apply to jobs via mobile, with a low cost of entry to make it happen.

Is it perfect? No. Will hourly candidates folk to traditional LinkedIn and build profiles? I don’t think so. But, it shows LinkedIn is serious about helping “all” job seekers and “all” employers in their hiring. First steps are rarely great, but this is a solid start in the understanding of what SMB employers need.

SMB Employers need simple. Post a job. Print a poster. Place it in your window and let your foot traffic work for you. When you lack a sexy employment brand and expensive technology, you have to use what you can afford and what will work in your environment. I think this new focus on SMB employers by LinkedIn is a great step for the industry.

 

Hiring Alone – The Biggest Failure of Talent Acquisition!

Posted on by
3

It takes a village. That’s what Hillary told us in her famous children’s book. You can’t raise a child by yourself, it takes a village to raise a child fully. At least that’s our hope and ideal.

I think it takes a village to hire correctly as well, and I’m not talking about the village of TA and HR. I’m talking about the village of our entire organization.

My team constantly finds themselves searching for talent for clients who struggle to understand that just because we are third party, it still takes a village to hire the best talent for your organization. We still need the insight from TA and HR on why your organization is the one our candidate will want to work for. We need the hiring manager to tell us why her job and her team are the right fit for our candidate, etc.

The exact same thing has to happen when you do talent acquisition in-house as well.

For me, this starts with the hiring manager and the team that has the need for additional talent. While TA will take the lead on the project and do most of the heavy lifting, the single most critical person in recruiting is the person who will ultimately make the hire decision.

Too many leaders want TA to just hire on their own. To hire alone. This doesn’t work well, if at all. “Just go find me some candidates!”

The best hiring managers I have ever worked with always took ownership of this process and did a few things that set them apart from every other hiring manager:

1. They made sure everyone involved in the process knew exactly what they needed in a candidate. Crystal clear.

2. They made sure that the team had every piece of information needed to do this as quickly as possible. “Oh, the job description is crappy, let’s build a new one, right now!”

3. They got involved in sourcing potential candidates for the position, and got their team involved in doing this as well, and didn’t stop until the position was filled.

4. They made filling the position a priority in their schedule for all things related to filling this position.

5. They crafted a communication strategy to ensure they knew, easily, what was going on with this position on an ongoing basis. No judgement, just facts, and how can they help at each bottleneck.

If we all worked with leaders who did these five simple things, hiring in our organizations would be simple! I could argue hiring would be enjoyable, in this state!

Too often in talent acquisition, we are asked to hire alone. Just go out and fill positions and stop bitching. That is usually coming from leaders who actually don’t know how to help, so their frustration comes out in these types of behaviors. They are feeling the pressure and pain as well.

I find if we can give them these five steps, these five deliverables, they actually become a great teammate in getting the job done. If they understand what their role is, and what your role is, everything can move along rather well, in most cases.

Don’t allow yourself to be put in a position where you are constantly being asked to hire alone. While you might feel like that’s your job, it’s not, your job is to lead a dynamic process that involves many people. The biggest job of TA is to deliver great project management on each position they are working and ensure everyone knows the role they are playing.

 

IN 2025, APPLICATIONS WILL BE accepted for the job of a lifetime—literally!

Posted on by
1

Swedish artistic duo Simon Goldin and Jakob Senneby recently announced their next project which they are calling “Eternal Employment”. The project is fully funded and they have even started to write a job description for this ‘artistic’ endeavor.

What is “Eternal Employment“?

“A fair starting salary, with annual wage increases that match those for Swedish government workers, vacation time, even a pension, and the job is yours for as long as you do it. So what’s the job? Anything you want.

Each morning, the chosen employee will punch a clock in Korsvägen train station, currently under construction in Gothenburg, Sweden, which will turn on a bank of bright fluorescent lights. Other than that, “the position holds no duties or responsibilities besides the fact that the work should be carried out at Korsvägen. Whatever the employee chooses to do constitutes the work,” reads the job description. The employee can also choose how publicly visible or anonymous they would like to be while on the clock.”

So, how is this art?

“As Gothenburg’s working class finds itself marginalized, Goldin and Senneby see a job that gives total control to the worker as an act of economic imagination.”

It’s an interesting concept, even more so as we move into the world of A.I. knowing so many tactical jobs we do now will go away and many economists are already talking about these concepts of people being given a living wage to basically just live, but not work.

This is truly art potentially mimicking life. We can already foresee a time when we don’t need most of the workers we have today, yet we still have to provide for the population and understand a new kind of productivity when ‘work’ isn’t apart of the equation.

So, what would you do in this job?

It’s a great question to think about. If you didn’t have to worry, every, for the rest of your life, about finances, and you couldn’t be fired. What would you do in this train station each day on your shift?

I want to hope that I would find ways to brighten the day of others. To welcome them to the day, to wish them the best on their way home, and everything in between, but it’s such a far-out concept it’s really hard to even imagine.  It kind of reminds me of the movie with Tom Hanks, The Terminal. While he had to stay in the airport and couldn’t leave, he basically had to figure out how to spend his time in this pass-through public space.

I have a feeling this ‘job of a lifetime’ would probably get super boring for most people. Most of us would start out with the best intentions, but eventually, fall into the trap of not really doing anything productive. Maybe that’s part of the “art” to select someone who actually would take full advantage of this opportunity. I would love to be on the selection committee!

What would you do if you were given this job? Hit me in the comments.

 

Your Weekly Dose of HR Tech: I Failed @SHRM’s new Talent Acquisition Credential!

Posted on by
5

So, you guys know I wrote a book, right? A book on talent acquisition! I truly believe I actually know something about Talent Acquisition and Recruiting! So, it came as a pretty big shock when I took SHRM’s new TA Specialty Credential and Failed It! Well, kind of…

I’m the President of the Association of Talent Acquisition Professionals (ATAP), so I have a real interest in training and learning programs for talent acquisition. Also, because I’ve been in the TA space for a couple of decades I wanted to take the TA credential cold. No studying. Don’t even look at the materials or what it involves. If I’m good, I should still be able to pass it, right?

Right away I knew I made a mistake. Part of it is just simple word usage. What I might call something, the instructional designers at SHRM call it something else. Another part of it is how the material is taught. What’s the most important of the following four….? Well, I might believe something is more important based on my experience and situation, but if I actually studied the material and took the two-day course, I would know what was ‘the’ most important based on how the material was put together.

All of that being said, I was really impressed with the questions! 

Every single question (there’s 50 that you take for the test) were really legitimate TA questions, and the questions were designed around a really modern, up to date talent acquisition function. The questions spanned a broad area of TA from workforce planning, to recruitment marketing, to sourcing, to technology.

Now, you also have to put this into perspective. SHRM didn’t launch this believing a micro-certification was the answer to educating someone to take the credential course, pass the test, and then go run a Fortune 500 TA shop. The credential is meant to help educate an HR professional who is moving into TA, or works as the sole HR pro/leader of a company that also has TA responsibility. So, you might only be doing TA as part of your role.

I’m actually teaching one of these SHRM TA credential courses in San Francisco May 13-14th. That was the main reason and desire for me to take the exam, I wanted to see what those going through the program would experience, and I can confidently say that if someone goes through and does the self-paced modules, does the two-day workshop, studies, and passes the exam, I would feel very comfortable that they have a working knowledge of how a modern-day TA department functions!

The reality is no one certification, credential, training course, etc. is going to make you an expert. You become an expert by doing many of these things and becoming a continual learner. What I love about SHRM Speciality TA Credential is that it exposes HR pros to a new world in a way that lets them know what’s important in talent acquisition, some baseline knowledge, and teaches them how to pursue each part further for expertise.

So, who should take the SHRM TA Credential?

  1. HR Pros who don’t have TA background, but want to expand their tools across HR.
  2. HR Pros/leaders who have TA as part of their function and they don’t feel comfortable in the modern world of recruiting
  3. Corporate TA pros/leaders who feel behind and want some freshening up of their skills.

I think this is a great development opportunity for HR Pros who are looking to develop themselves for future promotion. Having a Talent Acquisition skill set, with your HR skill set, is a differentiator when it comes to hiring HR leaders. Modern organizations are desperate for great TA, and for HR Leaders who understand how to leverage the TA function to drive business success.

So, for all those who love to dump on SHRM for being dated or behind the times, Kudos SHRM! Your TA Specialty Credential is something that is really helpful to individuals and organizations looking to modernize their TA practices!

It’s International Women’s Day! Is Your CEO Female? #ReferHer #BalanceForBetter #IWD2019

Posted on by
3

6% of CEOs in the S&P 100 are female. 50.8% of the population is female.

I’m not super at math, but that seems like a disconnect, right?

Today is International Women’s Day and a young lady (Tatiana Hollander-Ho) reached out to me this week. She’s an entry level marketing pro for The Ladders, 2018 grad from NYU and she said, “Hey, you have a passion around women in the workplace and I want to get this #ReferHer going and make a difference. Can you help?” (FYI – go connect with her – she’s going to be a great one in our industry!)

I can do what I do, which is write about and socialize it and support it! #ReferHer is an awesome idea. We need to refer more women to leadership positions, period.

I’m not one of these dudes who just goes out and flies the female flag because it’s the politically correct thing to do. I’m also not one that buys into the bullshit studies that say “Female CEOs return better financial returns!” – those are bad studies with flawed data – you can’t run a regression on companies run by women and the financial performance and call that good data.

There might be a correlation, but there is absolutely no causation. If you believe in those studies, you also believe in the study that says if your name is Mike and you’re over six foot and you are the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you will have higher financial returns than anyone else, not named Mike. Those two studies say the exact same thing.

That’s the problem, right!? You see it, right!? You can’t just throw out garbage and expect smart people not to get it and just blindly support females. The opposite actually happens. Smart people see that and go, that’s not what that says, so now I don’t buy any of it. Smart people – both women and men.

I’ve worked for great women. Strong women who are great leaders. These women, in my opinion, had many traits that most of the male leaders I’ve worked for didn’t have. In most cases, these traits made them leaders employees wanted to follow, not forced to follow.

We have this awful bias that says white dudes over six feet make better leaders. It’s literally been drilled into us for 100 years. Look at the Presidents all the way up to Obama and after. White dudes over six foot have nothing buy stature. We are betting that the trait of stature is the most important thing for running a high functioning organization. It’s insanity, right?

The reality is we can solve this. We can. Not overnight, but little by little.

It starts with flooding your leadership ranks with women. That means we have to give opportunities to women to move into leadership in ways we haven’t before. We have to develop Women Leadership Councils in our organizations who can tap on the shoulders of female employees and invite them in and mentor them into leadership roles. We have to purposeful about doing this. It won’t happen organically, we’ve been waiting for a hundred years for it to happen organically.

So, how do you start?

It’s super simple!

Step 1 – Tell your c-suite you are starting a Women’s Leadership Council in your organization and you need their support. 100% will give their support because if they don’t the backlash would be tremendous.

Step 2– Be inclusive, not exclusive. If a woman in your organization shows any sign of potential leadership you pull them into your council.

Step 3– Focus on hard leadership skills, not soft skills. Give them the inside information around how the company makes money or doesn’t make money. Show them how to budget and write a budget. Teach them how to performance manage. Show them how to balance themselves for great success. Show them how to support each other in this drive upward.

Step 4 – Make your C-suite come, present, participate, and watch. They need to see your smart females in action.

Step 5 – Draft your high potential leader internal mobility charts and scoreboard it publicly within the c-suite. Tell them the minimum goal is 50/50. Show it to them monthly.

Step 6 – Make female leadership goals/hires part of your c-suite annual bonus. At least 30%.

It can be done. This isn’t hard. But it has to be purposeful.

Check out LinkedIn’s Gender Insights Report as well it’s loaded with great information on helping solve this problem!

The Rise of the Super Star Employee

Posted on by
Reply

Artificial Intelligence is changing the future of work, but there’s one thing that AI won’t be able to do. AI will not be able to create more ‘geniuses’.

A recent study by MIT professors found that as the digital versions of labor grow and will continue to grow, and labor will be able to reproduced cheaply in a number of industries and positions, but the one thing that can’t be duplicated by digital technologies are genius employees. Those employees who are your truly lift your organization to another level.

We all know those rare superstar employees. The one person who has built a product for your organization that will be the future of what you do. The one person who sells 40%+ more than any other person on your team, consistently, year after year. The one person on your team that consistently attracts A players to your team and great talent from other organizations want to work for.

These aren’t your 20/80 employees. 20% of your employees do 80% of the work. These are your employees who are above that. They would rank as your number one employee out of that top 20%. These are the employees that if you had an employee draft on who starts a new company, these folks would always be number one pics.

Our reality as HR leaders, TA leaders, organizational leaders is we will have to start focusing on how do we keep and attract superstar employees. Right now we really work to fill roles with solid hires. Basically, that’s the goal. With the rise of AI-driven automation of transactional work, it will be critical for us to hire a few superstars, more than a bunch of rank and file.

I have a feeling the future of TA team design will have a component of superstar recruiting. In college athletics, the superstar recruit is a 5-star kid. There are very few 5 stars. If you get one, you hit a grand slam in recruiting. Very few schools get 5-star kids. Most schools will be fighting for 3-star and 2-star kids.

I had a feeling that Sourcing automation was going to kill sourcing as a function, but I now see this design where really high-level sourcers will continue to have a very valuable role in finding not just ‘a’ person to fill a position, but finding ‘the’ person to fill a position. Where it will be the job of a part of the TA team to discover who are truly the superstars in certain skill sets across an industry and then work to attract those few potential 5-star employees.

AI will take away a big subset of work that can be easily automated. It won’t be able to take away genius-level, superstar work because those individuals create the future and make things work that aren’t working. They solve unsolvable problems. They predict the unpredictable. You need them more than most of your other employees.

The future of TA is your ability to find, attract and hire superstars. Not everyone will get one. Some will get more than one. The real value of great TA in the world of AI is your ability to hire 5-stars.