A Trump Thanksgiving: 5 Things To Talk About Over Dinner

Posted on by
Reply

Oh boy! Are you ready for this? First big holiday get together since Trump has had some major time in office and now you’re getting together with Mom, Dad, Aunt Sally, Crazy Uncle Lou, your super radical liberal brother-in-law Roger who voted four times for Hillary, Grandpa Fred who only wears clothing with the American flag on it, cousin Bonnie who will wear her “Still Feeling the Bern” sweatshirt.

Thanksgiving 2017 is set to be the most political Thanksgiving dinner in recent memory, and it just might make many families rethink whether or not the Chanukkah, Christmas, Kwanza holiday will even happen! Trump is a hot button on all sides, there’s no way around it. People love him. People hate him. The one thing for sure is everyone has an opinion!

Getting together with family you haven’t seen since last Thanksgiving or holiday season is hard enough each year without adding additional gas to the fire! So, I’m here to help guide you with some other topics to talk about during your Thanksgiving holiday dinner. The key to great holiday conversations is to make sure you’re talking about stuff that isn’t controversial.

Here are some great holiday day conversation topics to keep you and your family and friends off the Trump topic:

1. Talk about your kid’s accomplishments!  Nothing family loves more than Uncle Tom talking about how great a football season Tommy Jr. had! Especially when Tom’s sister, Peggy’s kid is fat, in the band, and has asthma. Just wait until you get an hour of how Tommy Jr. will also lead his basketball team in scoring and rebounding. Once Peggy brings up academic accomplishments and third-place showing at the state band competition, the entire family will be so grateful for all of these high young achievers in the family. Just don’t bring up Uncle Tom’s daughter who got knocked up last year.

2. Talk about the Hollywood Sexual Harassment cases! Nothing like talking about creepy sexual harassment stories of famous people when Uncle Charlie is sitting at the table and still can’t go within 500 yards of an elementary school. I like to play the game “Who’s Next” where everyone at the table has to say who do they think will be the next aging creepy Hollywood star who will be outed (oh, sorry, Kevin).

3. How the Turkey was cooked this year! After Tommy, Sr. got second-degree burns from the Turkey fryer two years ago, the family has been experimenting. Last year was the cheesecloth turkey, this year was the turkey bag. Grandma still thinks her old roaster does it best. But, hey, you’re going to get a solid fifteen minutes of turkey cooking conversation by just saying the way that wasn’t used this year, is the best way. Aunt Betty might start crying, but just put a little extra gravy on it and ask “what’s up with the mash potatoes?”

4. Directions!  So, Dad which way to did you come down this year? Did you take Highway 10 or did you come the back roads? You know they opened up the new overpass on county road 17 this year. Took it last Friday and it cut five minutes off! Men talk for thirty minutes about directions, you just need to keep bringing up locations and how you go there. Nothing dudes like talking about more than how they can get somewhere faster than someone else!

5. Health issues. When families get together it’s like the worst episode ever of The Doctors! The best part is watching relatives one-up each other on who’s dying faster. It’s a real competition in many families. Uncle Paul got a case of the Gout! Oh, really, well Aunt Jane has Shingles! You don’t say, I had that in the spring before my Cancer flared up. I’m not sure what it is about families and health issues, but everyone loves being the most unhealthy at holiday time!

I have to be honest. I won’t be using any of these topics. I like to look at who’s attending and then make a determination at who is most likely to lose their minds and on which side of the Trump debate. Then, right after grace is said, I’ll throw that grenade in the middle of the table and sit back and enjoy the show!

Nothing says Thanksgiving like Uncle Mark blowing a gasket at why the hell that wall isn’t built yet!

Have a great Thanksgiving, my friends! 🙂

T3 – Google for Jobs Doesn’t Care if Employers Like Them or Not!

Posted on by
Reply

Okay, first let me say, I love Google for Jobs, mostly. Please, Google, don’t end my online life or anything! Remember, Don’t Be Evil! Okay, I know it’s now “Do the Right Thing!”

So, Google for Jobs (GFJ) was started with the best intentions to help candidates find jobs easier. Simple. Candidates want to know where the job is located. Cool! GFJ says to put the ‘exact’ address in your job posting. Okay. Candidates want to know how much a job pays. Cool! GFJ says to put the salary range of your job into your job posting. Got it.

Candidates want to apply for a job with one click. Okay, I’m not sure how I’m going to make that happen with this dinosaur of an ATS I’m running, but gosh darn it, we’ll find a way GFJ! Done!

Candidates want to work for companies with excellent reputations. Oh, okay. So, now we have to worry about and manage our online reputation on sites like Glassdoor, etc. Ugh, okay. But what about people who are lying on these sites? GFJ doesn’t care, candidates want this, so it’s going into the algorithm.

Okay Google, I’ll do it. I’ll do it because I want your candidate traffic. I’ll jump through your hoops, just like we used to make candidates jump through our hoops. You win almighty and powerful Google!

Wait, what? You, GFJ, want to allow Candidates to now choose how they apply for a job via a drop-down list of places that are all showing the same job? Now, wait just a god damn minute Google! So, a candidate finds my job on Google for Jobs that was listed there by CareerBuilder, but you will let that candidate apply to the job by just selecting “Monster” or “Career Page” or some other site which they didn’t find the job from?

Yeah, that’s happening, folks. Google for Jobs just discovered a major way to screw up your “Source of Hire” metrics! You might be investing major dollars in a certain site(s) to post your jobs. Google will scrap and find those jobs. If they’re duplicate, it will list the job that most highly fits its algorithm, but then it gives the choice of how to apply back to the candidate.

That sounds nice and everything, but it majorly screws up actual Source of Hire metrics for employers. If your job postings on CareerBuilder are working great, you want to see that candidate come through CareerBuilder, or whatever site the candidate actually found the job from. Here’s why. Candidates always think that applying for a job on the company’s career site somehow gives them a magical leg up on getting hired.

It’s not true, but we love to think it actually works. Google thinks this gives candidates choice to apply on the site that’s easiest for them to apply, but in reality, all that will happen is we’ll all see “Source of Hire – Company Career Page” shoot through the roof and think somehow we’ve really gotten a better at our career site hires!

You haven’t. It’s just Google screwing with your metrics, and not in a good way for any one – candidate or employer.

If ‘perceived’ applicants go up via company career page, you will invest less in other sources, but those are fake metrics! If you invest less in posting in other places, the chances a candidate will find your job will lessen. By Google making this change, they are actually hurting candidates in their ability to easily find your job. Not to mention hurting other vendors in the space for no real reason.

Do the right thing, Google!

Google for Jobs is designed to help candidates. This one change doesn’t help candidates or employers, it hurts both. I’m not sure how that’s good for anyone involved in the industry of job search. Companies actually need to know where candidates are really finding their jobs. Great, they found it on Google, but where did Google find it? That’s actually really important to how we fund our job marketing!

Also, Google please don’t hurt me. This is just one man’s opinion. I’m not even a big man. I have really small hands, and no one even reads this blog. I’ll take it down if you want!

Wait, what!? You want me to actually work…

Posted on by
Reply

I took this job because you guys have a rocking careers website…

I took this job because of your awesome culture…

I took this job because your employees wear whatever they want…

I took this job because you serve unlimited gourmet coffee, all day…

I took this job because you give unlimited time off…

I took this job because you offered me more than anyone else…

I took this job because you have the coolest office with a ping pong table…

I took this job because you take your staff to Vegas each year…

I took this job because I don’t have to pay anything for my benefits…

I took this job because you buy beer and pizza on Thursday’s after work…

I took this job because you allow me to bring my dog with me…

I took this job because so I could work from home in my pajamas…

I took this job because of the free dry cleaning service…

I took this job because everyone is on the same level…

I took this job because, oh wait, you have to do work here…

Is not being anonymous on Glassdoor really a bad thing?

Posted on by
5

If you didn’t see it this week Glassdoor got some bad news from the U.S. Court of Appeals:

Glassdoor, an online job-rating site, must unmask anonymous users who posted damaging reviews about a company under investigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled Wednesday.

A federal grand jury in Arizona served the Mill Valley company with a subpoena in March, demanding the names and IP addresses of reviewers who wrote on the site that a Department of Veterans Affairs contractor was committing fraud.

 The unnamed company, which administers two veterans health care programs, is under investigation by the federal government for “alleged fraud and abuse.” In court documents, the federal government maintained that there is no other way for it to identify the employees who claim the company was committing the fraud.

Glassdoor, which allows people to post anonymous comments about what it’s like to work at a company, said that unmasking the reviewers would violate its users’ First Amendment rights. But in the Wednesday decision, the court said Glassdoor reviewers have a “limited right to speak anonymously.”

Turns out you can’t go online and destroy someone’s reputation without being held accountable! That’s a very good thing for employers who have for years argued that employees, past employees and people who have never worked there but might have ulterior motives to bash a company online, shouldn’t be allowed to do and say whatever they want without recourse.

You can’t run into a theater and yell ‘fire’! You can’t go online and say a company is committing fraud and not expect to back up those allegations and stand behind them.

My question: Why are we even listening to anonymous feedback, to begin with?

If you had your annual performance review and it was given to you, but you had no idea who it was coming from, would you really listen? “Hey, Tim, we just let anyone in the company make some comments about your performance, hope you like it!” You would totally discredit anything that was said you didn’t agree with because you have no idea where it’s coming from.

Employee reputation sites, like Glassdoor, are basically doing the same thing. Now, if someone put their name and title behind those comments, we all would actually listen to those words with a much more credible ear. Would less people leave comments if they knew it wouldn’t be anonymous? Yes. Would it make the feedback less valuable? No.

I’m a big fan of believing in what someone says when they put their name and personal reputation to the words they want to share. I’m much less of a fan when someone wants to hide behind being anonymous to give me that same feedback.

Okay, I get it, people are fearful of retribution if they say something negative. Can you imagine how that would look if you said something negative and your organization fired you?! That would be even a bigger slam to the organization’s reputation.

One issue I see with anonymous reputations sites moving forward is the whole Google for Jobs schema. GFJ has said that a company’s reputation matters, so they will now include your ‘reputation’ into their algorithm in ranking your jobs. Which means anonymous feedback is going to impact how well your jobs perform on Google’s search results. That sucks!

Do you really want some ex-employee who sucked and got fired, impacting your Google for Jobs search results!? Heck no! It makes no sense that any organization thinks that is a good thing. I say take away anonymity on reputation sites and then hold me accountable to my reputation. Right now, the current system is too flawed in allowing misinformation to be public.

So, I know I’m taking a minority stance on this issue, but tell me why you believe employer reputation sites should allow anonymous reviews?

She Said/He Said is Becoming Even More Problematic for HR!

Posted on by
Reply

“I was harassed!”, said an employee.

What do you do?

The media would have everyone believe that we support this statement and believe this person 100%. It’s very in vogue right now to support claims of harassment 100% without hearing the other side of this story.

Here’s what I know in HR. If I investigated 1000 sexual harassment claims (and I’m probably close to that in my HR career!) about 997 of those claims are completely true! That’s almost 100%, but not exactly 100%, and that’s a problem for HR!

Let’s face it, from the beginning of Human Resources, She Said/He Said has been one of the hardest things for organizations to investigate and get a true story. Very rarely do you get a ‘smoking gun’ in she said/he said allegations. At best, what you get is one side claiming another party is guilty, and the other party claiming it just isn’t like it’s being told.

I think what’s even more problematic is the American legal system of innocent until proven guilty. Right now in America in terms of sexual harassment, you are guilty and we don’t care if you can prove yourself innocent, which you probably can’t because neither side can actually prove guilt or innocence in many of these cases. It’s she said/he said.

What’s more problematic for HR is that these cases change lives in a very major way. If one party is found to be guilty, most likely they’re losing their job and it will be a giant black mark on their ability to get another job. If one party is not found guilty, you have an employee who doesn’t feel supported and probably others in the organization that figure it’s not worth bringing future claims forward.

The world is getting to see famous people go down for bad behavior right now. Most of which is completely legitimate, a tiny portion of which is not. The world is getting a peek behind the HR curtain in what we’ve been trying to deal with for decades, and it’s not pretty or clean. It’s complicated and messy, and it’s really hard to make the correct decision when all you have to go on is one story over another story.

It’s key as HR professionals that we do what is needed to give each employee the benefit of the doubt and investigate to find the truth. To not let positions of power influence our duty and our ethics, and we are brave enough within our organizations to put our careers on the line to do the right thing.

Yes, brave. I had a leader who loved to say, “If you rake shit, it’s going to stink”. In she said/he said cases you’re going to be raking a lot of shit, and it’s going to stink. It takes bravery to see something that is not right and won’t be a popular decision in an organization and do the right thing, but that’s the gig, that’s the profession.

Welcome to the show kids! It’s a tough job, but our employees, all employees, need us as advocates!

What is the right diversity mix of employees for your organization?

Posted on by
8

This is a question I think many executives and HR and TA leaders struggle with. SHRM hasn’t come out and given guidance. ATAP has not told us at what levels we should be at with our diversity mix. So, how do we come up with this answer?

Seems like we should probably be roughly 50/50 when it comes to male and female employees. Again, that’s a broad figure, because your customer base probably makes a difference. If you’re selling products and services mostly women buy, you probably want more women on your team.

The more difficult mix to figure is when it comes to race. Should we be 50/50 when it comes to race in our hiring? Apple has taken it on the chin the last few years because of their demographic employee mix, and even as of this week, are still catching criticism for having only 1/3 of their leadership team is female, and only 17% of their entire team being black and Hispanic. 55% of Apple’s tech employees are white, 77% are male.

So, what should you diversity mix be?

The most recent demographics of race in America show this:

  • 61.3% are white
  • 17.8% are Hispanic/Latino
  • 13.3 are black
  • 4.8% Asian

Some other interesting facts about American race demographics:

  • 55% of black Americans live in the south
  • White Americans are the majority in every region
  • 79% of the Midwest is white Americans
  • The West is the most overall diverse part of America (where 46% of the American Asian population live, 42% of Hispanic/Latino, 48% of American Indian, 37% of multi-race)

So, what does this all mean when it comes to hiring a more diverse workforce? 

If 61.3% of the American population is white, is it realistic for Apple to hire a 50/50 mix of diversity across its workforce? I go back to my master’s research project when looking at female hiring in leadership. What you find in most service-oriented, retail, restaurants, etc. organizations are more male leaders than female leaders, but more female employees than male employees.

What I found was as organizations with a higher population of female employees hired a higher density of male employees as leaders, they were actually pulling from a smaller and smaller pool of talent. Meaning, organizations that don’t match the overall demographics of their employee base have the tendency to hire weaker leadership talent when they hire from a minority of their employee base, once those ratios are met.

In this case, if you have 70% female employees and 30% male, but you have 70% male leaders and only 30% female leaders, every single additional male you hire is statistically more likely to be a weaker leader than hiring from your female employee population for that position.

Makes sense, right!

If this example of females in leadership is true, it gives you a guide for your entire organization in what your mixes should be across your organization. If you have 60% white employees and 50% female. Your leadership team should be 60% female leaders.

But!

What about special skill sets and demographics?

This throws are demographics off. What if your employee population is 18% black, but you can’t find 18% of the black employees you need in a certain skill set? This happened in a large health system I worked for when it came to nurse hiring. Within our market, we only had 7% of the nursing population that was black, and we struggled to get above that percentage in our overall population.

Apple runs into this same concept when it comes to hiring technical employees because more of the Asian and Indian population have the skill sets they need, so they can’t meet the overall demographics of their employee population, without incurring great cost in attracting the population they would need from other parts of the country to California.

Also, many organization’s leaders will say instead of looking at the employee base we have, let’s match the demographic makeup of the markets where are organizations work. At that point, you are looking at market demographics to match your employee demographics. Again, this can be difficult based on the skill sets you need to hire.

If I’m Apple, I think the one demographic that is way out of whack for them is female hiring. 50% of their customers are female. 77% of their employees are male, but only 33% of their leadership is female. It would seem to make demographic sense that 50% of Apple’s leadership team should be female.

Thoughts? This is a really difficult problem for so many organizations, and I see organizations attempting to get more ‘diverse’ in skin color without really knowing what that means in terms of raw numbers and percentages.

What are you using in your own shops?

T3 – @Uber is jumping into HR!

Posted on by
6

This week on T3 I take a look at the ‘uber’ popular ride-sharing company Uber. Uber for Business made its debut at the HR Technology Conference this year selling itself as a legitimate HR technology company for HR and TA pros. So, how does the Uber we all know, make that jump over to the HR and TA side of technology?

Uber figured that all of us in HR and TA have to get our candidates and employees from point A to point B. One part of the Uber HR platform is a simple interface to help you and your employees manage the expense part of your employees using Uber and getting reimbursed or work-related rides. This side of the platform also allows you to award employees with rides as well.

The other part of the software allows HR and TA to manage candidate rides. You have a candidate coming in from their airport at 9am, it’s easy to schedule an Uber to pick them up and bring them to your office, and well as take them back to the airport when they’re done. Traditionally, this most likely done through a car or taxi service where you called and set this up manually. Now it can be done through the platform.

The industry analysts have panned Uber’s entry into the HR space as basically a non-technology play. I love the analysts, but most haven’t worked a real HR job in years, if ever, so how practitioners would use Uber’s platform is probably very different than what analysts believe HR really needs.

I can imagine most recruiting coordinators will love the Uber for Business platform. It’s a pain in the butt constantly calling and setting up transportation for candidates each and every week. To be able to do this through a dashboard is a significant time saver and it has the added benefit of being charged to one place.

On the HR expense side of the function, Uber of Business might be helpful to some, but probably a little less so, since it’s not just managing your ‘ride’ expenses, it’s about managing all business travel expenses. But, there are other functions for the HR pros like Uber’s ability to help you offer and manage employee commute perks. That would allow you to offer new employees or awards to current employees to pay a certain number of rides per week, month, etc.

Uber also allows HR to set up specific ride rules to match your internal travel policies, so you can be assured those are automatically followed by technology. No, Jimmy won’t be able to tell you he had to take Uber Black when in reality Uber X was available! Also, it allows employees to let you know when a normally non-approved ride is with a client, so it should be approved.

The reality is Uber is branching into many areas outside of just its normal ride-sharing service. Will Uber be a big player in the HR and TA tech space? Probably not, with its current offering, but it’s more intriguing that they are looking at the HR Tech marketplace, to begin with. Uber has the money and resources to do just about anything they want, so they will be someone to keep an eye on.

T3 – Talent Tech Tuesday – is a weekly series here at The Project to educate and inform everyone who stops by on a daily/weekly basis on some great recruiting and sourcing technologies that are on the market.  None of the companies who I highlight are paying me for this promotion.  There are so many really cool things going on in the tech space and I wanted to educate myself and share what I find.  If you want to be on T3 – just send me a note – timsackett@comcast.net Also, I advise HR and TA tech companies. Interested? Let’s talk. 

The Recruiter Name Generator! What’s Your Recruiter Name? @atapglobal

Posted on by
5

I’ve noticed that certain recruiters have it easier than others. If you have a ‘unique’ name, you know what I’m talking about! You might spend the first two minutes on your conversation trying to get the candidate to say your name correctly! If you leave a message and they call back to your office it’s often hilarious at what name they ask for.

It’s a real problem for our industry, especially in America, where we tend to only want to respond to names we know we can pronounce. Think this isn’t a problem? Go out on LinkedIn and search for recruiter working for Indian RPO services. You’ll find a ton of these recruiters have changed their name to a more ‘American’ version because it helps get higher responses.

The thought process is, from the candidate’s perspective, is that if a recruiter’s name is “Paul Raja” vs. “Praveen Raja” that “Paul” probably speaks great English, so I’ll call him back, but “Praveen” might not speak as well. Is that dumb logic? Yes! Is that happening? YES! (By the way, this has happened for decades with Chinese engineering students as well, who will take very American first names because recruiters are more likely to call “Joe Lee” then “Huang Lee”)

So, what does it take to the have the perfect Recruiter name to get candidates to call you back?

First, you need a name that is recognizable and easy to say for the population you’re trying to recruit, and usually, one syllable is better. Thus, if you’re recruiting traditionally Hispanic employees, you would want a traditional Hispanic name, etc.

– In America: Mary, Mark, John, Jill, Jose, Maria, etc.

– In England: Holly, Simon, Henry, Olivia, etc.

Second, you shouldn’t have a name from a TV show or movie:

– Theon, Skyler, Tristen, Miley, etc.

Third, you want a last name that is common, but not too common, like it’s made up:

– Smith is out, but Brown is okay, as long as Brown isn’t paired with Charlie

– Bonernose is out, as would be Newbutt.

Finally, you don’t want to be the person with two first names or two last names. It’s too confusing for candidates:

– Kevin Johns or Mary George

– Turner Wilcox or Lee Nelson

That’s why I put together this easy to use Recruiter Name Generator! All you need to know is the month you were born in, and your favorite color, and BAM! You’ve got your very own, easy to use, will probably get a callback, new Recruiter Name:

So, using the easy to use charts above my new Recruiter name is: Mark Wilson!

Wouldn’t you want a call from “Mark Wilson”? Doesn’t “Mark Wilson” sound official, while also being competent and kind? Of course, he does!

What’s your new Recruiter name?

The Recruiter Nation Live Hangout Series – With Jobvite and Fistful of Talent!

Posted on by
Reply

Our first hangout is at 1 pm ET on Tuesday, November 14th 

Google for Jobs/ROI of Recruitment Marketing Spend! What You Need to Know to Look Smart!!

 REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!

If you’re a client or follower of Jobvite, you know the Recruiter Nation Live series.  It started with the Recruiter Nation Live Conference in San Francisco last June and continued with the Recruiter Nation Live Roadshow that brought real recruiter talk to 9 cities in North America over the last three months. 

The feedback was great – you loved it, so they are back with the latest in the series – the Recruiter Nation Live Hangout Series.  Once a month, they’ll be hosting a Google Hangout designed to keep the conversation among recruiters going – focused on things you can use, like the best-kept secrets of today’s smartest and most efficient recruiters, Jedi-mind tricks proven to make you more persuasive/ get great candidate response and strategies to hold your hiring managers accountable for their choices–so everyone wins.

I’ll be on the first hangout and it is at 1 pm ET on Tuesday, November 14th and will be hosted by Kris Dunn and me, focused on the following juicy topic:

 Google for Jobs/ROI of Recruitment Marketing Spend! What You Need to Know to Look Smart!!

 REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!

Let’s have some fun and learn from each other at the same time.  See you at 1 pm ET on November 14th!!!

LinkedIn and Microsoft launch “Resume Assistant” and it’s a big deal!

Posted on by
2

Big announcement today coming out Microsoft/LinkedIn. The two companies are figuring out more and more how to integrate LinkedIn into the Microsoft office ecosystem and their new Resume Assistant is the first major feature announcement.

What’s Resume Assistant?

Microsoft’s Resume Assistant is a Word product integration that brings the power of LinkedIn directly into Word when you’re crafting or updating your resume.

How does Resume Assistant work?

It’s pretty easy. You upload or open an existing resume, made an old resume you have, and Word will automatically recognize that document is a resume and open up the LinkedIn integration. The integration pops up as a right-side window in Word so that your resume is on one side of Word and the LinkedIn Resume Assitant is on the other.

From here, Resume Assistant will do a lot of things but mostly use artificial intelligence to help you craft a better resume that will more likely be selected for jobs by recruiters. Resume Assistant does this through analyzing LinkedIn data of those profiles, work experiences, titles, etc. that are getting hired and moving into new roles via profile changes.

Don’t know how to phrase your work experience? The Resume Assistant will pull in specific examples, similar to you, of people who got hired and show you phrases, skills, and words that will help you get hired. RA will also easily allow you to go directly to other profiles on LinkedIn from Word to see how others have structured their profile.

Why is this a big deal? 

So, Microsoft and LinkedIn shared a bunch of data that led to this product creation:

  • LinkedIn data shows ‘job hopping’ has doubled in the past twenty years
  • LinkedIn is seeing 40% growth in job applies through LI
  • On average 100 candidates are applying for each position on LinkedIn
  • 80% of resume updates in the U.S. happen in Microsoft Word

Okay, and, so?!

Connect the dots! One part of the Resume Assistant is to also show each Word user updating their resume the jobs that most match the resume being created. So, 80% of job seekers will have LinkedIn’s 11 million jobs showing up in Word, right next to their resume while they’re updating and thinking about looking for a new job!!!

I would not want to be a job board today and be reading this. In fact, for how much Google has been swinging its weight around recently, this is also a pretty big punch back from LinkedIn and Microsoft to let them know they are not giving job search away!

Game changer!

Think about how many people use Microsoft Word. 100% of those people will now have a direct link to LinkedIn and the LI jobs when they are doing anything with their resume – Resume Assistant opens automatically when a resume is detected. It’s really a genius move by LI and MS.

If this is the first integration that the two sides have figured out, I can’t wait to see future integrations as well, and from the sound of things, both sides are moving quickly to make these a realities.

One note of importance. Resume Assistant will launch today for Microsoft 365 Insiders, at the beginning of 2018 for all Microsoft 365 users, and soon after for all other Word platforms.