Category Archives: Uncategorized

Exceptional or Average?

Posted on by
Reply

With fall comes HR and TA conference season. From October through December, there are events happening every week around the globe. These conferences are packed with vendor booths, big-name speakers, and the chance to step away from the office for a bit. But there’s a common strategy behind these events that keeps people coming back year after year.

The secret? They won’t tell you that your processes are bad. Instead, they show you how far ahead everyone else seems to be, making you feel like you’re behind.

Picture this: You’re at a session, and they’re talking about how a company like Google has created the perfect, diverse workforce. Now, you’re thinking, “How can we ever compete with that?” That’s when you start looking at the expo booths for tools to help you “catch up.”

The truth is, no company is perfect, even if it seems like it at these conferences. The reality is that everyone is trying to improve, and most companies are far from flawless.

“Exceptionalism” is this idea that every company has achieved greatness. But if everyone is “great,” doesn’t that just make “great” average? The cool new tools you see at a conference today will be standard practice for everyone else tomorrow.

In HR and TA, we see this all the time. A new trend or tool spreads fast, and before you know it, everyone’s doing the same thing. You’re not paying all that money to be just like everyone else, but that’s often what happens.

What Really Builds a Great HR or TA Team?

Here’s what they don’t always talk about:

  • It’s about small, consistent improvements: Great HR and TA teams aren’t built overnight. Instead, they grow through steady progress that matches what your company actually needs.
  • Chasing the top 1% isn’t always the answer: It’s tempting to try to be like the few companies doing amazing things, but leadership often doesn’t want to make those big changes. Pushing too hard for this can lead to burnout or frustration.
  • Real greatness takes sacrifice: Reaching the highest levels of success requires both vision and hard work, but not everyone has the desire or resources to make those sacrifices.

But let’s be honest, this isn’t what sells conference tickets. What sells is the idea that you can be just as great if you invest in the latest tools or strategies.

At the end of the day, it’s not about being perfect. It’s about making steady improvements that move your company forward. So instead of feeling like you’re always behind, focus on what really matters for your team’s success.

Does “Overqualified” Really Mean “Too Old”?

Posted on by
3

I recently spoke with an incredibly talented woman. She’s 49, a college graduate, and has a solid work portfolio. She’s been applying for jobs, but keeps hearing the same thing in interviews: “You’re overqualified.”

Now, sure, she does have more experience than the role requires, but she knows what the job involves and wants to do it. She’s not expecting anything more, unless she proves herself and the company needs her to move up.

Let’s be honest: “Overqualified” is often just code for, “You’re too old for us.”

Prove me wrong!

Why is someone labeled overqualified when they clearly understand what the job is and want to do it?

Let’s say I’m a heart surgeon, but I want less stress, so I decide to switch to a cardiac rehab role. It still involves working with heart patients, but it’s less demanding and pays less. I don’t need as much education for the job either. So, am I overqualified for the rehab job just because I used to be a surgeon? Only if you say I am! I’ve got the skills and I want the role, so why wouldn’t I be a great fit?

Hiring managers often say someone is “overqualified” when they can’t come up with a real reason not to hire someone with lots of experience.

It’s an excuse. A bad one too.

Here’s an example: “Oh, Susan has too much experience. She wouldn’t be happy reporting to me long-term, especially since she has more experience than I do!” Did Susan say that? “Well, no…”

This happens a lot with older folks who don’t want to retire yet. They’ve got years of valuable experience, but 32-year-old Steve won’t hire them because he thinks they won’t take his direction. That’s Steve’s problem, not the candidate’s.

And it’s not just guys. Women do it too! Turns out we all love discriminating against older workers.

Tech companies are the worst for this, thinking only young people understand technology. Creative companies are just as bad, acting like the only people who matter are 26-year-olds on Instagram.

Then there’s the classic: “I don’t want to hire someone who’s going to retire in five years!”…

How long do people usually stay at your company? “About 4.2 years.” Yeah, having someone for five years would be awful, right?

I once had a hiring manager say they needed someone for the long term when talking about a 52-year-old candidate. 13-15 years isn’t long term?!

I’ve found that calling hiring managers out—saying, “You’re being ridiculous”—works wonders. It cuts right through the bias.

So tell me, what’s the real reason you won’t hire someone “overqualified”?

The Need For Proof

Posted on by
Reply

As an experienced HR pro and leader, I’ve seen a troubling pattern in workplaces: we often wait for solid proof before addressing problems, even when it’s clear something is wrong.

Malcolm Gladwell said it best: “Sometimes ‘proof’ is just another word for letting people suffer.”

Think about that.

We often know something isn’t right, but without concrete evidence, we hesitate to act. This hesitation means people continue to suffer because we don’t have undeniable proof.

HR pros and leaders are trained to rely on proof to minimize risk. This cautious approach can lead to inaction, even when we know someone is being wronged.

Here’s my challenge to you:

Stop hiding behind the need for proof. Your employees are suffering, and using the lack of evidence as an excuse is wrong.

Yes, acting without proof can be risky. Yes, it might backfire. But we have a responsibility to help those who are suffering, even if it means taking a risk.

I’m willing to get fired for doing what’s right. I can’t stay in a job where people suffer because I can’t ‘prove’ something. Think about these examples:

  • Hundreds of athletes were abused by a doctor because there was no proof.
  • A hiring manager’s racism goes unchecked due to lack of proof.
  • A co-worker harasses another employee, but there’s no proof.
  • The CEO’s misogynistic behavior is ignored because there’s no proof.

“Sometimes ‘proof’ is just another word for letting people suffer…”

Look around your organization. Who is suffering today, and what can you do about it?

You all are sleeping on Paradox.ai!

Posted on by
Reply

One of the biggest developments in HR technology in the last decade was the advent of high-volume hiring technology. I’m a huge fan of this technology because it seems obvious, yet traditional ATSs and large HCM recruiting modules never went down this path to develop something for hiring low-skill/no-skill workers. The expectation was that these hourly workers would jump through the same hoops we make salaried workers jump through, and they’d like it.

The leader in this space is Paradox.ai. When they launched using machine learning with their chat-to-apply and on-demand interview scheduling, it was groundbreaking. For the first time, we actually had technology built specifically for low-skill/no-skill hiring that was fast, efficient, and reduced cost per hire. It was a technology that seemingly allowed everyone an equal chance, or at least many more, to make it through the hiring pipeline than we saw from traditional hiring practices.

While they still use conversational AI automation for hiring, they have also launched their next-gen generative AI chat, which literally blew me away. Paradox is way out in front when it comes to using generative AI in a safe, ethical way that delivers an advanced candidate experience. Paradox found an architecture that I think will blow most legal teams away in terms of how it protects both the brand and the candidate.

Here’s the thing: you don’t really even know what Paradox is today!

Paradox has quickly evolved into a full-feature hiring suite for all of your hiring, not just high-volume hiring. Don’t get me wrong, it still kicks ass on high-volume hiring. Here’s all that they have right now:

  • Conversational Career Site
  • Conversational CRM
  • Conversational ATS
  • Contextual Q&A
  • Video Interviewing
  • Conversational Interview Scheduling
  • Conversational Events (Career Fairs, Campus, etc.)
  • Employee Chat Assistant (think hourly worker has an HR need during a shift or after hours)
  • They also have fully built-out integrations with Workday, SAP, and Oracle.

I hesitate to call Paradox an ATS because they’ve taken what we thought an ATS or hiring process was and completely flipped it upside down. In this new world of AI, Paradox has discovered a new way, dare I say a better way, to hire people. The companies I know who are using it are seeing measurable positive results, and the candidate experience is also very high.

It’s like we’ve had this wheel in hiring for decades. Everyone had a wheel. The wheel worked fine. It was way better to have a wheel than not have a wheel. Then Paradox came around and said we can reinvent the wheel! And they actually did it. They built a better mousetrap.

I spoke to a Fortune 200 TA leader recently who said this about Paradox: “Tim, it just works!” When was the last time you were able to say that about your hiring technology?

I recommend Paradox so much that I tease I should be on their sales team, but that’s how much I think what they are doing is the right thing. If I were running an enterprise TA function, I would buy and implement Paradox. In fact, I wouldn’t even take the job unless I had assurances I could do that. They are a game changer for our industry, and everyone else is currently playing catch-up.

So, what are the negatives?

I see two for TA leaders:

1. It’s expensive. They can charge a lot because it works. From the shops using it, I know the ROI is high. You probably need to make 1,000+ hires a year to even consider using them to get the value.

2. To get full maximum value it will supplant your ATS or Recruiting module, and that can be a hard sell to your CFO, CIO, and CHRO. But it’s worth the fight.

In ten years of covering TA Technology, I’ve never found a better, more complete hiring tool. I don’t know what else to tell you.

Go demo and give them the discount code: “Tim’s a Fanboy”! Just kidding, they didn’t give me a code.

Should Companies Pay for Interviews?

Posted on by
3

It’s Re-Run Friday! This post originally ran in May 2014.

Would You Pay A Candidate To Interview?

Last week I got my ass handed to me for daring to consider that those who interview with a company, should pay for interview feedback.  Not just normal interview feedback, like thanks, but no thanks, but something really good and developmental.  Most people think that idea is bad.  Interview feedback should be free.  It’s not that I really want to charge people who interview a fee to get feedback, it’s just I think we could do so much better in terms of candidate experience, but we have to get out of our current mindset to shake things up a bit.

This all leads me to the next idea (hat tip to Orrin Konheim @okonhOwp) what if companies paid interviewees for their time?

Cool, right!?

We’ve built this entire industry on shared value.  Organizations have jobs, candidates want jobs, let’s all do this for free.  What happens when the equation isn’t equal?  What if candidates didn’t want your jobs?  Could you get more people to come out an interview if you paid them?  How much would it be worth?  It’s a really cool concept to play around with, if we can get out of our box for a bit.

Let’s say you’re having a really, really hard time getting Software Developer candidates to even consider your jobs and your organization.  It’s a super tough market, and you just don’t have a sexy brand.  You also don’t have the time to build a sexy brand, you need the talent now!  How much would it take to entice great candidates to give you an hour?  $100? $500? $1,000?  What if I told you I could have your CIO interviewing 5 top Software Developers tomorrow for 5 hours for $5,000?  Would you do it?

I hear the backlash of questions and concerns already forming in your head!

– People would just take the money, but not really want the job!

– How would you know these people were serious?

– Why would you pay to have someone interview when others will for free?

– Did you get hit on your head as a child?

– This might be the dumbest idea since your idea last week.

When we think about really having a great candidate experience, shouldn’t compensation be a apart of the conversation.  For most interviews you’re asking someone to take time off work, losing salary, time off, putting themselves at risk of their employer finding out, etc.  At the very least, you would think that we might offer up some kind of compensation for their time.  I’m not talking about interview expenses, but real cold hard cash, we appreciate your time and value it!

If you started paying candidates to interview, do you think you would get and have better or worse interviews?

When you put value to something, i.e., an interview, people tend to treat it as such.  Now that interview that they might go, might not go, becomes something they have to prepare for, because, well, someone is paying me to do this.  To interview.  I’m guessing if you paid your candidates to interview, you would get a higher level of candidate, and have a higher level of success in hiring.  It’s just a theory, wish I had the recruiting budget to test it out!

Staying True to Your Game

Posted on by
Reply

The saying “Stay true to the game” pops up all the time. It’s been around in sports and pop culture for ages. Basketball especially! (Side note: who do you have winning tonight?) Anyway, I feel like I keep hearing it more and more.

“The game” stands for your thing, whether it’s sales, accounting, basketball, you name it. For me, it’s recruiting. Whether third-party, corporate, or RPO, we’re all in the same boat.

Being true to recruiting is kind of subjective. What does it even mean?

If you zoom out from recruiting and think about staying true to something you’re passionate about, how do you do it? How do you make sure it’s a priority? What do you do to show you’re committed?

This way of thinking sets the stage for understanding what it means to stay true to recruiting.

Recruiting is my thing. To keep it real, I stick to a few key things:

  1. I soak up as much recruitment info as I can.
  2. I connect with top-notch recruiters.
  3. I swap stories and tips with fellow recruiters.
  4. I’m always looking for ways to improve my skills.
  5. I know that staying loyal to recruiting is a choice I make.

Staying true to recruiting means always aiming higher, personally and professionally.

Sure, it’s not always easy, but it’s about staying true to the game.

So, here’s the deal this Monday. Share what your thing is in the comments below. Then, let us know how you’re staying true to it this week. Go for it.

LinkedIn’s 2024 Future of Recruiting Report #FutureOfRecruiting @LinkedInTalentSolutions

Posted on by
Reply

This week, LinkedIn released its latest Future of Recruiting Report, and as always, it was packed with great data for TA pros and leaders. LinkedIn has an absolute treasure trove of recruiting data, so this is always one of the reports I can’t wait to dig into.

What were their predictions?

  1. AI will supercharge recruiting.

This isn’t surprising as AI is on everyone’s mind across the entire enterprise. AI is changing work, and it will change how we recruit talent. Interestingly, we are still in the early days, so while it’s the #1 prediction, there still isn’t a lot of meat on this bone around how. That’s really the billion-dollar question everyone in TA is working to answer, including LinkedIn, which will have a giant advantage because of their parent, Microsoft, and Microsoft’s massive investment into OpenAI, which is out in the lead on GenAI. Stay tuned. I’m very interested in seeing what the LinkedIn product team is working on!

2. Recruiting will help build the skills-based workforce of the future.

This kind of gives you a bit of an answer to the first prediction. If recruiting is going to change, LinkedIn believes skills will be the answer to what recruiters will be shifting to in the future. Skills are definitely evolving, but it’s another massive understanding for organizations. Also, it’s just about skills. We still must consider the whole person and their fit into the culture. Just because someone has the skills to do the job doesn’t mean they’ll succeed at the job or within your unique culture. It’s still a work in progress.

3. Quality of Hire is top of the recruiting agenda.

As it has been for two decades! And yet, we still do not have an industry standard to measure QoH, nor do most organizations actually use it as a measure of success. Nor is it actually a recruiting metric! Here is where I think LinkedIn could espouse a measure and even build it for the industry. Currently, CrossChq is the closest to making this a reality within their product and consistently delivering a QoH metric that is reliable to the business (Editor’s note: CrossChq isn’t paying me – neither is LinkedIn – which seems like an opportunity!). The reality is that QoH can be a fantastic measure of success around talent for an organization, but you actually have to do it!

4. Agility will be a must-have for recruiting teams.

Again, see number 1. As the great Ferris Bueller once said, “The world moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” Agility in TA means we need to stop guessing and be more data-driven in our decision-making. This means you have to stop using archaic measures like Time to Fill to understand talent acquisition.

5. Recruiting teams will advocate for flex work policies.

And higher wages. And better benefits. And managers that don’t suck. In the future, recruiters will advocate for anything and everything that will help them attract the best talent.

6. Attracting GenZ will require a new playbook.

Yes! And that playbook is as follows (Tim’s words, not LinkedIn!):

  • Good pay and benefits for the work
  • A chance to learn and grow within their role
  • An organization that cares about them
  • A manager and leaders they can trust
  • To be treated like an adult around work and life.

Okay, so maybe it’s not a totally new playbook…

You might look at the six predictions and think, “these could have been the same last year, and the year before” and you probably wouldn’t be wrong. Also, they might be the same next year. That’s what happens when you have a major technology shift happening. It’s hard to predict. But, these are six strong strategy pillars for TA leaders to build around for the years to come.

Go download the report – there’s a massive amount of arts and charts, and data in it!

HR and Recruiting: The Unspoken Rules

Posted on by
Reply

Some unsaid rules guide us through HR. They’re not really hard and fast rules, just practical tips that we’ve learned along the way. Let’s break them down:

  1. Stay away from personal questions in interviews.
  2. Keep reference checks simple – just confirm dates of employment.
  3. Guard employee files like they’re top-secret.
  4. If it’s important, put it in a policy.
  5. Take every accusation seriously and look into it.
  6. “Mutual decision to leave” usually means otherwise.
  7. Measurement gets things done.
  8. Be careful about setting precedents.
  9. Expect things to go haywire on day 2 of your vacation.
  10. A candidate hasn’t really accepted the job until they show up to work on Day 1.
  11. If it’s on the ‘roadmap’ of your HR or Recruiting technology vendor, it means it’s not actually built and might never be built.
  12. Employees tattling on others probably have their own issues.
  13. Employee harassment stories are rarely simple.
  14. Open enrollment meetings need cookies.

We love our rules in HR! Ironically, I love the profession so much because I’m a low-rules kind of person. The reality is, in my couple decades of HR and recruiting work there really has only been one Rule of Thumb that has been the same at every organization I’ve worked in. Big and small. Public and private. Across all industries…

– Things change.

This basic principle reminds us that flexibility is crucial in the ever-shifting HR landscape. What’s your go-to rule in HR and recruiting?

The Good Ole Inbox Zero Metric

Posted on by
2

This holiday season, I’m stepping away from my usual writing to bring you some of the top-read posts from 2023. Enjoy!

Inbox Zero as a Measure of Performance for Talent Acquisition!

I have a new #1 question I get asked by Talent Acquisition Leaders! My old number one question was, “Which ATS should we be using?” That stood the test of time for almost a decade! But I now have a new number one.

“How should we be measuring success in Talent Acquisition?”

That question comes in a lot of versions:

  • What is the best metric in recruiting?
  • What do you use to measure the productivity of your recruiters?
  • How do you show your organization that TA is doing its job?
  • What are the metrics you use to measure TA?

I like using “Measures of Success” terminology primarily because of how I want to live my life. I never want our metrics, analytics, and data to be used as a hammer to obtain performance. I want to hire people who want to be successful in what they decide to do in life. Once they make that decision, I want to treat them like adults and help them obtain that success. I use data to help them track outcomes and measures of success to lead them on this journey.

Does that sound like a load of B.S. hustle culture or what?! LOL!

But, honestly, I genuinely believe in this philosophy, even though it’s sometimes hard to follow.

If a recruiter wants to be successful, I know there is a specific set of measures that will help them be successful if they follow the process, use the technology, and are diligent in their follow-up. They don’t have to work over 40 hours per week. They just have to work the 40 hours they work.

Every company could have a varied set of metrics that will make them successful. Most will have some similarities, but the actual numbers within the measures will be uniquely yours.

Inbox Zero is a measure a few TA Teams are using as a measure of success.

First off, I don’t necessarily believe that “Inbox Zero” has a high correlation to TA Team or Individual success, but herein lies the problem with measuring the success of TA teams today. The measures most of us use, suck! Time to fill = awful, zero correlation, you should be fired as a leader. (Editor’s note: Okay, Tim, breathe in, we know you’ll die on this hill.)

I find about 90% of TA Leaders work to build measures of success that look good without really having any real impact on actual recruiting success in their organization. That hurts, I know, but it’s true. Inbox Zero is just another sexy attempt at measuring sh*t with little accountability to success, but you can actually measure it, so it must be important. (sarcasm alert)

Just because you “can” measure it, doesn’t mean you “should” measure it.

Okay, what the hell is “Inbox Zero”?

It’s basically what it sounds like.

As a recruiting measure, some brilliant TA lead believes if every recruiter ended their day with zero emails in their inbox, they must be more successful than someone who didn’t end their day with email in their inbox.

There is some science behind inbox zero, although not a measure of recruiting success, just life success. It was developed in 2006, and here are the tenets of this email management strategy:

  • Some messages are more equal than others. On any given day, only a handful of emails are important and timely. Stop treating every email “like a Christmas present that must be savored.”
  • Your time is priceless and wildly limited. Few people have time to respond to every email they receive or even read them in detail. Accept that your workload exceeds your resources and slavishly guard your time.
  • Less can be so much more. Quit thinking that one-line email responses are rude — you’re not helping anyone by sending wordy responses. When it comes to email, economy is key, at least for most messages.
  • Lose the guilt. Out-of-control email is bad enough. Don’t make it worse by beating yourself up because of your overflowing inbox. Forget the guilt and just get busy cleaning up the mess.
  • Lying to yourself doesn’t empty an inbox. Learn to be honest and realistic about your true priorities and time expectations, while developing a “baseline gut check on what you really intend to do about any given message.”

The reality is we are addicted to data that we can measure that is clean. We love “time to fill” because we can accurately measure it. We like things like Inbox Zero because we can accurately measure it. We can show the business the black-and-white numbers we are confident in. No matter if they actually matter or not!

Inbox Zero is a time management strategy. The hope is if you can manage your inbox well, you’ll be a better recruiter. It’s a hope. That is all it is. It’s not a measure of success for talent acquisition. That being said, I need to manage my inbox better!

Posted on  by Tim Sackett

The Quest for Simplicity!

Posted on by
Reply

Ever wondered why HR Departments insist on tangled processes? Truth is, we all crave simplicity. But peek into our organizations and complexity rules the roost. The harder we try to simplify, the messier it gets. Surprisingly, the culprit’s closer than you think—it’s you. Yes, YOU. Yup, making things complicated? It’s kind of your thing. Go ahead and pick up that red pencil in the photo and circle “Complicate” instead, you know you want to!

Harvard Business Review dropped some knowledge bombs:

“There are several deep psychological reasons why stopping activities are so hard to do in organizations. First, while people complain about being too busy, they also take a certain amount of satisfaction and pride in being needed at all hours of the day and night. In other words, being busy is a status symbol. In fact a few years ago we asked senior managers in a research organization — all of whom were complaining about being too busy — to voluntarily give up one or two of their committee assignments. Nobody took the bait because being on numerous committees was a source of prestige.

Managers also hesitate to stop things because they don’t want to admit that they are doing low-value or unnecessary work. Particularly at a time of layoffs, high unemployment, and a focus on cost reduction, managers want to believe (and convince others) that what they are doing is absolutely critical and can’t possibly be stopped. So while it’s somewhat easier to identify unnecessary activities that others are doing, it’s risky to volunteer that my own activities aren’t adding value. After all, if I stop doing them, then what would I do?”


Ron Ashkenas. “Why Organizations Are Afraid to Simplify.” March 28, 2013. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/03/why-organizations-are-so-afraid-to-simplify

Turns out, people love complaining about being swamped, but secretly, they enjoy it. Being busy is like a gold star.

Managers cling to tasks like lifelines. Admitting something they do is low-value or unnecessary? Terrifying. Especially when job cuts loom large. They’d rather sell the idea that what they do is crucial, even if it isn’t.

Here’s the kicker: you can break this cycle. How? Reward people for axing pointless work. Right now, we hail the overworked, perpetually busy folks like heroes. But let’s not forget the silent achievers—the ones who nail it in half the time. Somewhere down the line, ‘working smarter’ morphed into ‘work smarter and longer.’ Truth is, most folks can’t work smarter, so they pile on hours and glorify every task as vital.