Welcome back to the Deep Dive. I want to start
today by asking you to visualize something. Picture
the last time you applied for a job. You probably
spent hours, maybe even days, tweaking your resume.
Oh yeah, obsessing over it. Totally. You obsessed
over the font, the bullet points, maybe you even
wrote one of those cover letters that you just,
you know, deep down no one's ever going to read.
You hit submit and then just silence. Nothing.
Just the void. The dreaded black hole. Exactly.
The black hole. But today, we're going to flip
the script. We are not looking at this from the
perspective of the anxious applicant. Right.
We are looking at the machine on the other side
of that submit button. We are diving into the
massive, complex, and frankly, sometimes completely
baffling engine that is recruitment. It really
is an engine, isn't it? I think so. Because based
on the research we have today, this isn't just
about hiring a guy. It's the fundamental plumbing
of the entire economy. It really is. And it's
so fascinating because. Everyone, and I mean
everyone, interacts with recruitment, but very
few people actually understand the mechanics
of it. We all just see our little piece of it.
Exactly. We tend to view it through this really
narrow lens, usually just our own, you know,
desperation to get hired or the frustration of
trying to fill a seat on our team. Right. But
when you look at the source material we have
today, which is this comprehensive breakdown
of the entire recruitment landscape, you realize
it's a multi -billion dollar industry. And it
involves psychological warfare, legal minefields,
algorithmic gatekeepers and the hunt for mythical
creatures. Well, hold on. Mythical creatures.
We'll get to that. Let's just say that in the
recruitment world, finding a purple squirrel
is like the ultimate goal. I am already hooked
on the purple squirrel. Yeah. But. Okay, we have
to lay the groundwork first. Let's start with
the definition. When we say recruitment, are
we just talking about HR posting a job ad on
some website? Right. Because that feels way too
simple. It is too simple. The formal definition
we're working with here is the overall process.
The whole thing. The whole thing. Identifying,
sourcing, screening, shortlisting, interviewing,
and finally... appointing candidates. OK, so
it's the entire life cycle. The entire thing.
And that applies to everything. It applies to
a Fortune 500 CEO. It applies to a barista at
a coffee shop. And interestingly, it even applies
to unpaid roles. Wait, really? So finding a volunteer
for the PTA bake sale is technically... Absolutely.
The mechanisms are surprisingly similar. You're
still identifying a need. You're sourcing a person
and you're screening them for suitability. Can
you bake brownies without burning them? Exactly.
The currency might be different. Gratitude instead
of a salary. But the engine is the same. And
we also need to broaden our idea of who is doing
the recruiting. Right. Because the stereotype
is just that. frazzled HR generalist drowning
in paperwork. And that person exists, sure. But
recruitment today involves hiring managers, specialized
recruitment agencies, public sector bodies, executive
search firms. The headhunters. What we usually
call headhunters, yeah. And increasingly, artificial
intelligence. The robots. We cannot ignore the
robots. We definitely can't. AI has fundamentally
changed the landscape. It's taken us from paper
shuffling to high -speed algorithmic sorting.
So our mission today, then, is to decode how
companies actually find people, uncover the hidden
biases in that system, both human and machine,
and figure out why, despite all this incredible
technology, finding the perfect candidate is
still so incredibly difficult. Which brings us
to the very first step, the process. Let's break
this down. Because to an outsider, it looks like
total chaos. But there is a standard flow, isn't
there? There is. It usually flows from job analysis
to sourcing, then screening, interviewing, and
finally hiring. Okay. And I want to pause on
that first one, job analysis, because this is
where most companies fail before they even start.
Job analysis sounds incredibly dry. It sounds
like a spreadsheet meeting I would try to skip.
It is a spreadsheet meeting, but it's a critical
one. This is where the organization has to document
the KSAOs. KSAOs. Okay, that sounds like a secret
police force or something. It stands for knowledge,
skills, abilities, and other characteristics.
Basically, you have to document exactly what
is required for the job. And I mean exactly.
Okay. Give me an example of how this goes wrong
because I'm sure it goes wrong all the time.
All the time. Okay. So imagine a hiring manager
says, I need a marketing manager. HR says, great,
what do they need to do? Right. The manager says,
you know, marketing stuff, run campaigns, be
creative. That sounds... Kind of reasonable,
actually. It's terrible. It's completely vague.
Does run campaigns mean digital ads on TikTok?
Or does it mean billboard strategy? Does creative
mean they can use Photoshop? Or does it mean
they're a good copywriter? So it's about specificity.
Extreme specificity. If you don't define the
KSAOs properly, you end up searching for a phantom.
It's like sending the recruiters out to find
food instead of telling them you need organic
bananas and whole milk. And that leads to this
kickoff call, right? The scoping call. This is
the negotiation table. This is where the recruiter
who knows the market sits down with the hiring
manager who knows the job and they have to align.
They have to agree on what they're even looking
for. Yes. If they don't agree on what good looks
like from day one, the rest of the entire process
is just a colossal waste of money and time. Okay.
So once they have their list, their very specific
list, they go hunting. This is the sourcing phase.
And I want to get into the weeds here because
to me, this sounds like the difference between
fishing and hunting. That is actually a perfect
analogy. Most people think recruitment is fishing.
You bait a hook. You bait the hook, which is
your job ad. You throw it in the lake, which
is LinkedIn or Indeed. And you just you sit in
your boat waiting for the bobber to move. Right.
And if the fish aren't biting, you just assume
there are no fish in the lake. You say, oh, there's
a talent shortage. Exactly. You blame the lake.
But sourcing, real professional sourcing, is
hunting. You aren't waiting. You are putting
on the camo, grabbing a rifle, and walking into
the woods to find a specific animal that is actively
trying to hide from you. I love that image, though
it does sound a little aggressive for HR. It
has to be aggressive. Because the best candidates,
those purple squirrels we teased earlier, they
are not looking at job boards. They're not looking
for a job. Not at all. They're happy. They're
well -paid. They are sitting at their desks right
now, crushing it for your competitor. They're
what we call passive candidates. So how do you
find them? I mean, if they aren't on the job
boards, do they even exist to a recruiter? This
is where we get into what the industry calls
name generation. And honestly, this is the part
that feels most like corporate espionage. Name
generation. It sounds so innocuous, like a random
username creator, but I'm guessing it's not.
It's pure detective work. Think about it. You
need to find the lead engineer at a rival firm.
How do you get their name? I have no idea. Before
the internet, this was literally calling a company's
switchboard, pretending to be a vendor or a confused
client. You'd say, oh, I need to send a thank
you note to the guy who runs your engineering
department. What was his name again? Dave. Steve.
No way. Social engineering. 100%. You trick the
receptionist into giving you the org chart. That's
incredible. Today it's more digital, but the
mindset is the same. It's analyzing conference
attendee lists, looking at patent filings to
see who invented a specific technology, or cross
-referencing GitHub repositories. So you're building
a file on someone. You are building a dossier
on a person who doesn't even know you exist,
just so you can call them and offer them a job
they didn't ask for. That is wild. It really
is spycraft. And we're seeing a shift here too,
right? Right. Because it used to be all about
the applicant tracking system, the ATS. The robot
gatekeeper, yes. But because everyone has figured
out how to game the ATS with keywords. Right.
You just stuff your resume with all the buzzwords.
We're seeing a return to direct engagement. Candidates
are using networking tools to bypass the machines
and reach decision makers directly. And recruiters
are using those same tools to headhunt directly.
It's becoming a hand -to -hand combat situation.
But let's talk about the most basic lever a company
can pull. If the hunting isn't working and the
fishing isn't working, usually the answer is
just money, right? The economics of attraction.
It's simple but incredibly powerful. The source
material we looked at... references a study regarding
application wage elasticity. Okay, let's unpack
that. Application wage elasticity. It sounds
like something from an econ 101 nightmare. It's
actually quite intuitive. The study estimates
the elasticity at one. Meaning? It means there
is a direct proportional relationship. If you
increase the wage you're offering by, say, 10%,
you don't just get 10 % more applicants. You
theoretically get a 10 % increase in the quality
and volume of the entire pool. So if you're offering
peanuts and you're complaining, you can only
find monkeys. The math suggests you should probably
stop buying peanuts. Money talks. If you aren't
getting good people, the economic reality is
that your price point is just wrong for the market.
It's a groundbreaking concept. Yeah. Pay people
more, you get better people. Who knew? Right.
But let's say you don't want to go out to the
open market. Let's say you want to look inside
the house first. This brings us to internal recruitment.
Right. Promoting from within. This is when you
select a candidate from your existing workforce.
It could be a promotion, a transfer, or just
a developmental move. And I imagine the biggest
pro here is that you know what you're getting.
There are no surprises. You aren't guessing.
Trust is the massive factor. You know their track
record. You know if they show up on time. You
know if they fit the culture. You know if they
steal lunches from the community fridge. That
last one's important. It's very important. It's
also usually... quicker and cheaper than hiring
externally. And think about the morale aspect.
It encourages skill development because employees
see a future. If they know they can move up,
they might work harder. But there's a catch.
And I love this analogy we were discussing earlier.
It's the hole in the roof problem. The domino
effect. Yes. Imagine you have a hole in your
roof. And to fix it, you take a shingle from
the bottom of the roof and you move it to the
top. Okay. I still have a hole in my roof. I
just moved it. Precisely. This is the supply
chain problem of internal recruitment. You aren't
actually adding capacity to the organization.
You're just shifting the vacancy around. If you
promote a manager to director, you now have a
manager vacancy. So you have to fill that. Right.
So maybe you promote a senior associate to manager.
Now you have a senior associate vacancy. You
keep shifting the whole down until it's at the
entry level. Which is easier to fill. Presumably.
Theoretically. But think about the disruption.
You haven't just created one transition. You've
created four or five. Every single one of those
people has to learn a new job, get up to speed,
and establish new relationships. I haven't thought
about that. You've essentially unsettled four
layers of your company just to fill one top spot.
So the churn cost is way higher than just the
one higher. It creates a lot of internal friction.
But companies still do it all the time because...
The risk of bringing in an outsider who fails
is often seen as much, much higher. Now this
connects to what is arguably the most powerful
tool in all of recruitment. The who you know
factor. Employee referrals. The golden ticket.
Why is this still so dominant? In an age of AI
and massive global databases, why are we still
relying on... Hey, my friend Bob would be good
for this. Because the data is just overwhelmingly
in favor of referrals. It's not even close. Okay,
well, hit on me. First, there's quality. Candidates
hired through referrals tend to stay up to three
times longer than those hired through job boards.
Three times longer. That's a huge difference
in retention. That saves a ton of money. It is
massive. And the reason is fit and pre -screening.
When an employee refers someone, they are essentially
putting their own reputation on the line. Right.
I'm not going to recommend my friend who I know
is a total slacker because then I look like an
idiot. Exactly. You are the filter. You aren't
going to recommend someone who will embarrass
you or make your life harder. So the company
gets a pre -vetted candidate for free. And the
candidate benefits, too, right? Massively. Because
they have a friend on the inside, they get a
realistic preview of the job. They know the real
deal. They're not just reading the glossy brochure
on the careers page. They know the boss is grumpy
on Mondays or that the coffee is terrible or
that the hours are actually really long. They
know the good and the bad before they start,
so there's less culture shock. They don't quit
after two months because it wasn't what they
expected. And I assume it's cheaper for the company.
Oh, significantly. Think about third -party agencies.
If you hire a headhunter, they might charge a
20 % to 25 % finder's fee. Whoa. So if you're
hiring someone at a $100 ,000 salary... You are
paying that recruiter $25 ,000 just to find them.
Yeah. Compare that to paying your own employee
a $2 ,000 or maybe a $5 ,000 referral bonus.
It's a no -brainer financially. Okay, I promised
we'd get to it. This is where the purple squirrel
comes in. Please explain this term from the source
material because it's just delightful. It's a
classic recruitment term. In the industry, a
purple squirrel is a candidate who is considered
a perfect fit. Perfect in what way? I mean, they
have the exact experience, the exact education,
the perfect salary expectations, and they're
available right now. And they are willing to
work in your specific, maybe not so glamorous
location. Right. They check every single box.
They are so rare that they are essentially mythological.
Like a purple squirrel. So companies use referrals
to hunt for these mythical creatures. Exactly.
Because standard job boards usually bring in
standard candidates. If you need something incredibly
specific, I need a Mandarin -speaking underwater
welder who also knows Python, you're not going
to find that on Indeed. You tap your network.
You ask your employees, who do you know? Who
is the weirdest, most specific expert you went
to college with? But. And there's always a but.
If everyone is just hiring their friends, doesn't
that make the workplace a little clicky? That
is the double -edged sword. The huge risk is
an overly homogenous workforce. Right. If you
only hire people your employees know, you tend
to get more of the same. Same background, same
school, same way of thinking, same demographics.
And that just kills diversity. It creates a serious,
serious barrier to diversity. And from a pure
business standpoint, it risks innovation. A homogenous
workforce, as the source notes, is at risk of
failing to produce novel ideas. You end up with
an echo chamber. So you save money and time on
the front end, but you might lose out on the
next big idea because everyone in the room thinks
exactly alike. Correct. It's a balance between
efficiency and creativity. If everyone in the
room always agrees, you're probably not innovating.
You're just maintaining. Okay, let's move to
the next stage. You've sourced your candidates.
Maybe you found a few potential purple squirrels
through referrals or some light corporate espionage.
Now you have to filter them. This is the screening
phase. This is where we try to predict the future.
We are trying to predict how a person will perform
in a job they've never done based on very limited
data. Companies use a whole variety of mechanisms
here. Psychological testing, physical ability
tests, literacy tests. And psychometrics. What
is that exactly? Yeah, so psychometrics are basically
software tools used to assess personality and
performance. Things like the Myers -Briggs or
the DISCI assessment. The goal is standardization.
To make it fair. In theory. Standardized tests
have been found to improve selection validity
while avoiding discrimination. If everyone takes
the same test it should be a level playing field.
But I want to circle back to something about
screening. We talked about software, but there's
a much older, much more analog screen that we
are still using every single day. The college
degree. Paper ceiling. Right. And looking at
the research here, this seems to be one of the
biggest inefficiencies in the entire global economy.
We're not just talking about a few people being
left out. No, we are talking about millions and
millions of people. The source material highlights
a specific demographic called stars, S -T -A
-Rs. Skilled through alternative routes. Exactly.
These are the 70 million workers in the U .S.
alone who have the necessary skills, maybe learned
it in the military or through a community college
or just years of grinding away in a lower level
role. But they don't have that bachelor's degree.
And because they don't have that one piece of
paper, the ATS, that robot we talked about, automatically
deletes their application. Before a human ever
even sees their name, it is a tragedy of wasted
potential. It's staggering when you think about
it. It really is. You have a shortage of talent.
You have companies complaining constantly that
they can't find workers. And yet you have a filter
set up to automatically reject 60 percent of
the workforce because they didn't spend four
years in a lecture hall 20 years ago. It's just
laziness, isn't it? The degree is just a proxy
for is this person smart and disciplined? It's
a lazy proxy and it's a dangerous one because
it creates this massive barrier to economic mobility.
If you can do the job, but I won't hire you because
you couldn't afford university when you were
18. I'm not just hurting you. I'm hurting my
own company by artificially shrinking my talent
pool. And this connects to cultural fit, too.
I feel like cultural fit is often just code for
do I want to have a beer with this person? It
often is. Multinational organizations especially
emphasize fitting into the prevailing culture.
But often fit is just a proxy for people we are
comfortable with. It can completely override
raw skill and competence. So you hire the guy
who likes the same sports team as you. Rather
than the star who could actually double your
sales but maybe has a different background. Now
I have to drop this fun fact from the history
books because it absolutely blew my mind. The
source claims that the selection process. the
interview, the testing, is often attributed to
a specific inventor. Yes, Thomas Edison. The
light bulb guy. Seriously, the very same. From
light bulbs to job interviews. That man really
liked to judge things, didn't he? He was obsessed
with efficiency. The story goes that he created
this incredibly rigorous test for potential employees
because he wanted people who had a broad range
of general knowledge, not just specialists. So
what did he ask? He would ask obscure questions
about geography or weights and measures, things
that had nothing to do with the actual job. So
if you didn't know the capital of North Dakota,
you couldn't be an engineer at his factory. Basically.
He treated human capital much like components
in a machine. He wanted to weed out the defective
parts before they ever got into his factory.
Which raises a question we'll have to touch on
later. Yeah. Are we still using a 19th century
industrial mindset for 21st century knowledge
jobs? That is the lingering thought, isn't it?
It is. Yeah. But let's stick to the 21st century
for a moment. We talked about internal hiring,
but sometimes you have to go outside. Why bring
in a stranger? To break that homogeneity we discussed.
External recruitment brings in fresh ideas, new
perspectives, and it opens up a much, much larger
applicant pool. And this is where niche firms
come into play. If I'm hiring a nuclear physicist,
I probably shouldn't use the same recruiter who
hires retail staff for the mall. Probably not
a good idea, no. If you're in the energy industry
or aerospace or biotech, you want a niche firm.
These recruiters, they know the specific demographic
shifts like an aging workforce in the energy
sector, and they build these long -term relationships.
So they're not just transactional. Not at all.
These recruiters might place the same specialized
engineer three or four times over the course
of their 30 -year career. They're like sports
agents for nerds. Very much so. They know the
market value of that specific talent better than
the companies themselves do sometimes. And then
there's social recruiting. The source mentions
a study from Cyprus that found, what, 73 .5 %
of companies had a social networking account
for recruiting. It is the new normal. Facebook,
LinkedIn, Twitter, or X, I guess. Pros are obvious.
Yeah. It's cheaper, it's faster, and it attracts
what the source calls computer literate young
individuals. It boosts the brand image. But,
I sense a but. But there is a creepiness factor.
I was going to say. If a recruiter is looking
at my Facebook photos from 2012, that feels a
little invasive. That's the issue. Privacy and
discrimination. If I can see your profile picture,
your family photos, your vacation snaps, and
your political posts before I even interview
you, bias can creep in instantly, unconscious
or not. Oh, he posts about that politician. Denied.
Exactly. Or, oh, she has three young kids in
her photos. Maybe she won't want to work late.
These are illegal biases in many places, but
if you see the photo, you can't unsee it. It's
in your head. Plus, people's profiles are often
completely outdated. I think my LinkedIn still
says I'm enthusiastic about synergies, which
was true 10 years ago, but maybe not today. Exactly.
The information isn't always reliable. It's a
snapshot from a time you might not even recognize.
Okay, what about RPO, recruitment process outsourcing?
This sounds like inception for hiring. It kind
of is. This is for companies that just want to
hand the keys over. It's a form of business process
outsourcing where a third party takes over the
entire hiring function. So you're hiring a company
to hire your people for you? Yes. They become
the company's recruiting department, essentially.
If you're a massive tech company and you need
to hire 5 ,000 people in a year, you might not
have the internal team to do that effectively.
So you hire an RPO provider to build the pipeline,
do all the screening, and manage the interviews.
Let's pivot to the darker side of things, ethics
and law. Because when you're dealing with people's
livelihoods, the stakes are incredibly high.
And the source material has a whole section on
this. They are. And the legal landscape varies
wildly by country. Generally, in most Western
countries, employers must screen for legal immigration
status. That's a baseline. And in the US, we
have the EEOC. Right. The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. They prohibit discrimination based
on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability,
national origin. That's the standard in the US.
But the source highlights this really interesting
nuance in Germany. Yeah, I saw that. Public universities
in Germany don't have to advertise jobs. That
sounds weird. Generally, no, unless it's for
a tenured full professor. For other academic
positions, they aren't required to advertise.
And the anti -discrimination laws there only
apply to advertised jobs and the wording in the
ad. Wait, wait. So if they don't advertise it,
the rules don't apply. It creates this potential
loophole where if you just hire someone quietly,
you can bypass some of those checks and balances.
It just shows how different these national systems
can be. That sounds like a recipe for the old
boys club. just tapping your friend on the shoulder
for a job which leads us directly to corruption
recruitment is identified as a key corruption
risk especially in the public sector but it happens
everywhere nepotism is the big one hiring unqualified
friends or family but there's also a practice
called recycling that sounds eco -friendly but
i have a feeling it's not it is definitely not
it's when a bad employee Maybe someone who's
abusive or incompetent or corrupt is moved from
one department or company to another rather than
actually being fired. You're just passing the
trash around the organization. Yeah, exactly.
And then there's just failing to validate backgrounds
properly. And consequences here aren't just,
oh, we hired a bad accountant. No, the source
is pretty grim on this. In safety critical roles
or executive positions, the wrong hire can lead
to actual disasters. We were talking PR nightmares,
bankruptcies. Or in industrial settings, natural
disasters or loss of life. If the person making
the safety decisions is incompetent and was only
hired because they were the boss's nephew, people
can get hurt or killed. This brings up safer
recruitment. This isn't just about safety gear.
It's a specific term regarding vulnerable groups,
right? Yes, specifically regarding children and
vulnerable adults. Guidelines like those from
the NSPCC in the UK focus on suitability. It's
not just, can you teach math? It's, are you safe
to be in a room alone with a child? A totally
different level of scrutiny. A much, much deeper
level of vetting and behavioral analysis is required
to prevent harm. We also need to talk about disability
and recruitment. There's so much bias here and,
frankly, a lot of just... Flat out misconceptions.
Huge bias. The word disability itself often carries
these negative connotations for employers. They
immediately fear it means lower productivity
or higher costs. They think, oh, this person
will need expensive accommodations. But the research
says the complete opposite. Completely otherwise.
The research shows no difference in daily production.
In fact, disabled workers often adapt better
to new environments. Think about it. A person
with a disability navigates a world that was
not designed for them every single day. So they're
natural problem solvers. They're natural problem
solvers. They are incredibly resilient. They
have to be. So you aren't hiring a charity case.
You are hiring... A world -class problem solver.
Exactly. And there are even financial incentives.
In the U .S., the IRS grants something called
the Disabled Access Credit to eligible companies
to help with accommodations. So there's a financial
upside alongside the operational upside of getting
a resilient, loyal employee. We're coming into
the homestretch here. Let's talk about strategy.
How do big companies organize this mess? If you're
hiring 10 ,000 people a year, you can't just
wing it. No, you can't. For high volume companies,
they use what's called a multi -tier model. Think
of it like a customer service help desk or an
assembly line for recruiting. Okay, lay out the
tiers for me. So tier one is the contact or help
desk. These are simple, repetitive queries. Where
do I upload my resume? What is the deadline for
this job? The easy stuff, the FAQs. The easy
stuff. Tier two is administration. This is the
paperwork, the process management, scheduling
the interviews, booking the flights. And tier
three. Tier three is process. This is the high
-level fulfillment. This is the actual strategic
work of finding and selecting the top talent.
By separating these, the expensive experts in
Tier 3 aren't wasting their time answering, how
do I reset my password for the career portal?
That makes a lot of sense. Efficiency. But then
comes the hard part. Making the final decision.
You have three great candidates. They all look
good on paper. They all have nice ties. How do
you choose without just going on a gut feeling?
This is where the math comes back in. The source
mentions something called MCDA. Multiple Criteria
Decision Analysis. Specifically, a method called
the Analytic Hierarchy Process, or AHP. That
sounds intense. Yeah. What is it? It's a way
to mathematically weigh different factors to
remove bias. Let's say you're hiring a fresh
graduate. They don't have a long track record.
of experience so how do you compare them right
it's tough you use AHP to assign weights maybe
GPA is worth 20 % their internship performance
is 30 % their soft skills are 25 % and their
interview scores are the last 25 % you turn the
person into a score you do it sounds cold But
it helps remove the bias. If you just go by your
gut, you might just hire the person who reminds
you of yourself when you were 22. Guilty. If
you use the weighted score, you hire the person
who actually fits the criteria you defined as
important from the very beginning. It forces
you to be objective. So, after all of this...
The sourcing, the spycraft, the tiers, the algorithms,
the hunt for purple squirrels. What does it all
mean for us? What's the big picture here? Well,
looking at the whole thing, a recruitment is
a constant tension. It's a balance. A balance
between speed, which you get from referrals,
and internal hiring and innovation, which you
get from external hiring and diversity. And it's
navigating this minefield of ethics and technology
all at the same time. Exactly. The system is
designed to filter. That is its one job. But
the danger is that it filters out the wrong things,
like those stars who don't have degrees, or it
lets in the wrong things, like the corrupt hires
or the homogenous cultural fits that kill creativity.
It really feels like we're at a crossroads. We
have all this AI and modern tech, but we're still
using resumes and interviews that really haven't
changed much in 100 years. We are. And that brings
us right back to our friend Edison. The provocation.
If the selection process as we know it is truly
an invention of Thomas Edison and we are still
using variations of his basic model today, are
we trying to power a modern AI economy with a
19th century light bulb filament? That is a lingering
thought. Is it time to completely dismantle the
interview as we know it? It might be. The data
suggests there might be better, more predictive
ways to do this. Well, on that note, we will
leave you to polish your resume or maybe burn
it. depending on how you feel after this. Thanks
for joining us on this deep dive into recruitment.
Thank you.