WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.600 Welcome to The Debate. Today, we are walking 00:00:03.600 --> 00:00:07.280 into the engine room of the modern organization. 00:00:07.620 --> 00:00:10.140 We're talking about recruitment. Now, before 00:00:10.140 --> 00:00:13.359 you tune out thinking this is just about HR administration 00:00:13.359 --> 00:00:16.300 or filling out forms, I want you to consider 00:00:16.300 --> 00:00:18.800 that recruitment is the single most expensive 00:00:18.800 --> 00:00:22.219 gamble a company takes. It is the funnel through 00:00:22.219 --> 00:00:24.280 which the entire future of the business must 00:00:24.280 --> 00:00:27.420 pass, from identifying and sourcing to that final 00:00:27.420 --> 00:00:30.519 handshake. Right. It is a funnel, sure. But the 00:00:30.519 --> 00:00:32.600 question we need to answer today is whether that 00:00:32.600 --> 00:00:35.640 funnel is designed to let in fresh air or if 00:00:35.640 --> 00:00:37.640 it's just designed to, you know, recirculate 00:00:37.640 --> 00:00:40.159 the same old atmosphere. I'm glad we're tackling 00:00:40.159 --> 00:00:42.780 this because the way we define recruitment, it 00:00:42.780 --> 00:00:45.460 determines what an organization becomes. Is it 00:00:45.460 --> 00:00:47.640 a process of replicating the status quo for the 00:00:47.640 --> 00:00:50.140 sake of stability? Or is it a hunt for the new, 00:00:50.179 --> 00:00:52.679 the different, and the innovative? And that's 00:00:52.679 --> 00:00:55.899 the tension right there. Does relying on efficient, 00:00:55.979 --> 00:00:59.039 proven methods, specifically internal mobility 00:00:59.039 --> 00:01:02.579 and employee referrals, create a stable, cost 00:01:02.579 --> 00:01:06.099 -effective workforce? Or, as I suspect you will 00:01:06.099 --> 00:01:09.359 argue, does it lead to a dangerous homogeneity 00:01:09.359 --> 00:01:12.719 that stifles innovation? I am taking a side of 00:01:12.719 --> 00:01:15.819 structure, data, and efficiency. I believe that 00:01:15.819 --> 00:01:18.299 recruitment is primarily about risk management 00:01:18.299 --> 00:01:21.560 and leveraging known quantities to ensure the 00:01:21.560 --> 00:01:24.170 ship stays afloat. And I come at it from a different 00:01:24.170 --> 00:01:27.329 angle. I believe that prioritizing fit and efficiency 00:01:27.329 --> 00:01:30.530 usually results in echo chambers. I'm arguing 00:01:30.530 --> 00:01:32.829 for external recruitment and broad sourcing. 00:01:33.030 --> 00:01:35.769 If we don't look outside the organization, specifically 00:01:35.769 --> 00:01:38.569 towards what the literature calls stars, or skilled 00:01:38.569 --> 00:01:41.010 through alternative routes, we aren't just missing 00:01:41.010 --> 00:01:43.930 talent. We are actively choosing stagnation. 00:01:44.069 --> 00:01:46.090 I see why you take that view, but let me start 00:01:46.090 --> 00:01:48.129 by laying out the case for efficiency and the 00:01:48.129 --> 00:01:50.430 power of the known quantity. We have to look 00:01:50.430 --> 00:01:53.030 at the mechanics here. Recruitment is by definition 00:01:53.030 --> 00:01:55.890 a process of identifying, sourcing, screening, 00:01:56.310 --> 00:01:58.890 shortlisting, and interviewing. It's incredibly 00:01:58.890 --> 00:02:01.030 resource intensive. And when we look at the hard 00:02:01.030 --> 00:02:03.189 data regarding employee referrals, the case for 00:02:03.189 --> 00:02:05.650 leveraging internal networks is, well, it's overwhelming. 00:02:05.989 --> 00:02:08.189 We aren't just talking about hiring friends. 00:02:08.330 --> 00:02:10.849 We are talking about fiscal responsibility. I 00:02:10.849 --> 00:02:12.389 know you're going to bring up the agency fees. 00:02:12.650 --> 00:02:17.030 I absolutely am because they are massive. Third 00:02:17.030 --> 00:02:19.349 -party recruitment agencies typically charge 00:02:19.349 --> 00:02:23.139 a finder's fee of what? 20 to 25 percent of the 00:02:23.139 --> 00:02:26.060 hire's annual salary. Let's do the math on that. 00:02:26.159 --> 00:02:28.819 For a standard mid -level employee making $100 00:02:28.819 --> 00:02:33.460 ,000, that is a $25 ,000 cost just to get a resume 00:02:33.460 --> 00:02:36.539 on the desk and a body in the chair. Employee 00:02:36.539 --> 00:02:38.960 referrals, they eliminate that agency fee entirely. 00:02:39.360 --> 00:02:42.360 That is immediate capital that stays in the business. 00:02:42.759 --> 00:02:45.419 I don't dispute the raw cost savings on day one, 00:02:45.560 --> 00:02:47.800 but you're looking at the price tag, not the 00:02:47.800 --> 00:02:50.360 value. It's not just the upfront price tag, though. 00:02:50.759 --> 00:02:53.219 The data indicates that candidates hired through 00:02:53.219 --> 00:02:55.620 referrals tend to stay up to three times longer 00:02:55.620 --> 00:02:58.080 than candidates hired through job boards. That 00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:00.680 is a massive, massive difference in retention. 00:03:00.979 --> 00:03:03.699 When you have high turnover, you're just burning 00:03:03.699 --> 00:03:07.020 that $25 ,000 over and over again. It's no wonder 00:03:07.020 --> 00:03:09.759 that the Global Employee Referral Index 2013 00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:13.400 survey found that 92 % of participants listed 00:03:13.400 --> 00:03:15.900 referrals as one of their top recruiting sources. 00:03:16.300 --> 00:03:19.340 That is a compelling argument if your only metric 00:03:19.340 --> 00:03:22.580 is cost savings and, you know, how long someone 00:03:22.580 --> 00:03:25.860 sits in a chair. But I'm not convinced by that 00:03:25.860 --> 00:03:28.259 line of reasoning because it ignores the quality 00:03:28.259 --> 00:03:31.439 of the output. Efficiency often comes at the 00:03:31.439 --> 00:03:34.719 cost of creativity. When you rely on referrals, 00:03:34.979 --> 00:03:37.740 you are essentially asking your current workforce 00:03:37.740 --> 00:03:40.780 to replicate themselves. You get people who look 00:03:40.780 --> 00:03:42.960 like your current team, think like your current 00:03:42.960 --> 00:03:45.419 team and probably went to the same schools as 00:03:45.419 --> 00:03:48.080 your current team. But isn't that what we call 00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:51.319 cultural fit? A team has to be able to work together. 00:03:51.689 --> 00:03:53.550 Cultural fit, I mean, let's be honest, that's 00:03:53.550 --> 00:03:56.469 often just a euphemism for hiring people in the 00:03:56.469 --> 00:03:59.189 likeness of existing employees, and that's the 00:03:59.189 --> 00:04:03.069 danger. You might save that $25 ,000 agency fee, 00:04:03.169 --> 00:04:05.409 but what is the cost of missing the next great 00:04:05.409 --> 00:04:07.750 idea because everyone on your team shares the 00:04:07.750 --> 00:04:10.610 exact same cognitive blind spots? The source 00:04:10.610 --> 00:04:13.550 material explicitly warns that an overly homogeneous 00:04:13.550 --> 00:04:16.709 workforce is at risk because it fails to produce 00:04:16.709 --> 00:04:19.889 novel ideas or innovations. That's why I champion 00:04:19.889 --> 00:04:25.509 external recruitment. I think you're characterizing 00:04:25.509 --> 00:04:29.029 referrals as purely nepotistic, which misses 00:04:29.029 --> 00:04:31.269 the mechanism that makes them effective. It's 00:04:31.269 --> 00:04:33.329 not just about likeness. It's about reputation 00:04:33.329 --> 00:04:36.250 and vetting. How so? When an employee refers 00:04:36.250 --> 00:04:39.110 someone, they put their reputation on the line. 00:04:39.269 --> 00:04:42.209 They aren't going to recommend a slacker or someone 00:04:42.209 --> 00:04:44.930 incompetent because it reflects poorly on them. 00:04:45.209 --> 00:04:48.149 That is a powerful vetting mechanism that no 00:04:48.149 --> 00:04:51.279 algorithm can match. There is a one -to -one 00:04:51.279 --> 00:04:54.459 relationship there. The candidate gets a realistic 00:04:54.459 --> 00:04:57.519 preview of the job, the good, the bad, and the 00:04:57.519 --> 00:05:00.540 ugly, before they even apply. The realistic job 00:05:00.540 --> 00:05:03.800 preview. Exactly. This exchange of knowledge 00:05:03.800 --> 00:05:06.259 allows a candidate to assess their own likelihood 00:05:06.259 --> 00:05:09.199 of success. That is why they stay three times 00:05:09.199 --> 00:05:11.759 longer. They know what they are getting into. 00:05:12.019 --> 00:05:14.720 It's a self -selection process that saves the 00:05:14.720 --> 00:05:16.800 company from hiring people who quit in three 00:05:16.800 --> 00:05:19.360 months because the culture wasn't what they expected. 00:05:19.930 --> 00:05:22.870 That sounds nice in theory, this idea of a reputation 00:05:22.870 --> 00:05:26.050 -based guarantee. But let's look at the actual 00:05:26.050 --> 00:05:29.550 mechanics of it. You mentioned the Global Employee 00:05:29.550 --> 00:05:32.730 Referral Index. If I am an engineer who went 00:05:32.730 --> 00:05:35.509 to a specific university, and I only refer my 00:05:35.509 --> 00:05:38.310 friends from that university, we have created 00:05:38.310 --> 00:05:41.449 a closed loop. You are fishing in the same pond, 00:05:41.569 --> 00:05:44.430 so you catch the same fish. If the fish are high 00:05:44.430 --> 00:05:47.529 quality, does the pond matter? It matters if 00:05:47.529 --> 00:05:49.939 the pond is shrinking. or if the market conditions 00:05:49.939 --> 00:05:53.680 change. This is the referral paradox. You get 00:05:53.680 --> 00:05:56.660 higher attention, sure, but you also get fragility. 00:05:56.800 --> 00:05:59.279 And there's a legal aspect here you're glossing 00:05:59.279 --> 00:06:02.040 over. We see this in the rise of social recruiting. 00:06:02.319 --> 00:06:05.439 A study of Cypriot companies found that, what, 00:06:05.480 --> 00:06:09.860 73 .5 % used social networking sites like Facebook 00:06:09.860 --> 00:06:12.060 and LinkedIn for recruiting. Which is efficient. 00:06:12.600 --> 00:06:14.879 It's popular, sure, but it raises significant 00:06:14.879 --> 00:06:17.819 legal issues regarding privacy and discrimination 00:06:17.819 --> 00:06:22.139 based on online profiles. When you rely on personal 00:06:22.139 --> 00:06:24.660 networks, you are inadvertently filtering out 00:06:24.660 --> 00:06:27.319 anyone who isn't already connected. You are building 00:06:27.319 --> 00:06:30.459 a wall, not a bridge. If your recruitment strategy 00:06:30.459 --> 00:06:33.500 is just who does Bob know, you are opening yourself 00:06:33.500 --> 00:06:36.399 up to disparate impact claims. I would frame 00:06:36.399 --> 00:06:39.040 it. differently. I would say we are building 00:06:39.040 --> 00:06:42.379 a filter, not a wall. And that brings me to the 00:06:42.379 --> 00:06:44.800 importance of screening and credentials. You 00:06:44.800 --> 00:06:47.000 talk about potential and fresh perspectives, 00:06:47.240 --> 00:06:49.699 but in a high volume recruitment model like the 00:06:49.699 --> 00:06:51.480 multi -tier models we see in large corporations, 00:06:51.899 --> 00:06:54.639 we need valid heuristics to determine baseline 00:06:54.639 --> 00:06:57.339 competence. We cannot interview every single 00:06:57.339 --> 00:06:59.920 person who applies. And what are those heuristics? 00:07:00.379 --> 00:07:03.560 Degrees? Often, yes. But it's more sophisticated 00:07:03.560 --> 00:07:06.550 than just checking for a diploma. We utilize 00:07:06.550 --> 00:07:11.430 rigorous job analysis to determine the KSAOs, 00:07:11.610 --> 00:07:14.610 knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics. 00:07:14.930 --> 00:07:17.689 The use of standardized tests, whether they be 00:07:17.689 --> 00:07:20.389 for literacy, physical ability, or psychometric 00:07:20.389 --> 00:07:23.189 testing, has been found to improve selection 00:07:23.189 --> 00:07:26.449 validity while avoiding discrimination. If we 00:07:26.449 --> 00:07:29.170 strip away these objective measures and rely 00:07:29.170 --> 00:07:32.889 purely on potential, we actually risk more bias 00:07:32.889 --> 00:07:36.439 creeping in. A degree or a test score is a verifiable 00:07:36.439 --> 00:07:39.459 standard of competence. I'm sorry, but I just, 00:07:39.519 --> 00:07:42.279 I don't buy that. The reliance on degree requirements 00:07:42.279 --> 00:07:45.139 is one of the biggest drivers of inequality and, 00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:48.120 frankly, inefficiency in the labor market. We 00:07:48.120 --> 00:07:50.699 are automatically screening out over 70 million 00:07:50.699 --> 00:07:53.600 workers who are stars skilled through alternative 00:07:53.600 --> 00:07:57.319 routes. 70 million is a large number, but are 00:07:57.319 --> 00:08:00.199 they qualified for the specialized roles we're 00:08:00.199 --> 00:08:03.449 discussing? In many cases, yes. These are people 00:08:03.449 --> 00:08:06.310 who possess the necessary soft skills, interpersonal, 00:08:06.790 --> 00:08:09.970 leadership, adaptability, team management, learn 00:08:09.970 --> 00:08:12.310 through military service, community college, 00:08:12.449 --> 00:08:14.930 or workforce training, but they lack the specific 00:08:14.930 --> 00:08:17.910 piece of paper you demand. Most employers claim 00:08:17.910 --> 00:08:20.370 to value these soft skills, yet their automated 00:08:20.370 --> 00:08:22.689 applicant tracking systems filter these people 00:08:22.689 --> 00:08:27.959 out before a human ever sees their resume. is 00:08:27.959 --> 00:08:31.199 a tool for volume management. It's a tool for 00:08:31.199 --> 00:08:34.100 exclusion. It's a broken system. The selection 00:08:34.100 --> 00:08:36.639 process as we know it is often claimed to be 00:08:36.639 --> 00:08:39.639 an invention of Thomas Edison. We are using industrial 00:08:39.639 --> 00:08:42.700 age logic for a modern digital workforce. We 00:08:42.700 --> 00:08:44.820 are screening for compliance when we should be 00:08:44.820 --> 00:08:47.639 screening for capability. I agree that we shouldn't 00:08:47.639 --> 00:08:50.700 be archaic, but we must be practical. Let's talk 00:08:50.700 --> 00:08:53.700 about the economics of this star hunt. You want 00:08:53.700 --> 00:08:56.840 to go external to find these hidden gems. But 00:08:56.840 --> 00:08:59.100 the data shows that to increase the number and 00:08:59.100 --> 00:09:01.919 quality of applicants externally, you have to 00:09:01.919 --> 00:09:05.460 increase the wage offered. Explain that. It's 00:09:05.460 --> 00:09:09.399 the application wage elasticity. It was estimated 00:09:09.399 --> 00:09:12.279 at, I believe, one by a recent study. That means 00:09:12.279 --> 00:09:15.080 there is a direct correlation. If you want better 00:09:15.080 --> 00:09:17.240 people from the outside, you have to pay more. 00:09:17.480 --> 00:09:20.500 You are entering a bidding war against the market. 00:09:20.860 --> 00:09:23.320 Sometimes you have to pay for talent. That's 00:09:23.320 --> 00:09:26.309 how markets work. But consider the internal alternative. 00:09:27.009 --> 00:09:30.190 Internal mobility allows you to fill a role without 00:09:30.190 --> 00:09:33.029 that bidding war. You already know the employee's 00:09:33.029 --> 00:09:35.870 work ethic. You trust them. And importantly, 00:09:36.190 --> 00:09:38.909 internal recruitment encourages longer careers 00:09:38.909 --> 00:09:41.429 at the company because employees see a future. 00:09:41.590 --> 00:09:44.330 If you always hire the shiny new object from 00:09:44.330 --> 00:09:46.850 the outside at a premium salary, your current 00:09:46.850 --> 00:09:49.909 staff disengages. You create a mercenary culture 00:09:49.909 --> 00:09:52.289 where the only way to get a raise is to quit. 00:09:52.809 --> 00:09:55.250 But there is a massive flaw in your internal 00:09:55.250 --> 00:09:58.610 chess game. It's the domino effect. The domino 00:09:58.610 --> 00:10:01.529 effect? Yes. When you promote an employee internally 00:10:01.529 --> 00:10:04.110 to fill a gap, you haven't actually solved the 00:10:04.110 --> 00:10:07.190 problem. You've just moved the vacancy. You promote 00:10:07.190 --> 00:10:09.529 the manager to director? Great. Now you need 00:10:09.529 --> 00:10:12.029 a manager. You promote the associate to manager? 00:10:12.289 --> 00:10:15.330 Great. Now you need an associate. You still have 00:10:15.330 --> 00:10:17.850 a hole to fill in their previous position. Eventually, 00:10:18.049 --> 00:10:21.049 you have to go outside. True, but usually at 00:10:21.049 --> 00:10:24.370 a lower, less risky level. You fill the entry 00:10:24.370 --> 00:10:27.330 -level role externally, which is cheaper, and 00:10:27.330 --> 00:10:29.870 carries less strategic risk than hiring a director 00:10:29.870 --> 00:10:32.129 from the outside who might wreck the culture. 00:10:32.690 --> 00:10:35.529 Perhaps. But you are missing the macro trends. 00:10:35.809 --> 00:10:37.990 You can't just shuffle people around forever. 00:10:38.490 --> 00:10:41.710 Look at the energy industry. Niche firms have 00:10:41.710 --> 00:10:43.909 identified that the workforce is aging rapidly. 00:10:44.250 --> 00:10:46.750 About half of the workforce in that sector is 00:10:46.750 --> 00:10:49.720 readying for retirement. You cannot solve a demographic 00:10:49.720 --> 00:10:52.419 cliff like that with internal shuffling. You 00:10:52.419 --> 00:10:54.559 need external searches to bring in new blood. 00:10:54.860 --> 00:10:57.539 You need to use platforms like LinkedIn to find 00:10:57.539 --> 00:10:59.740 passive candidates, people who aren't looking 00:10:59.740 --> 00:11:02.039 but are perfect for the role. Internal mobility 00:11:02.039 --> 00:11:04.899 is a closed system. It cannot survive a major 00:11:04.899 --> 00:11:07.559 demographic shift. That is a fair point regarding 00:11:07.559 --> 00:11:10.559 demographic shifts. When the well runs dry, you 00:11:10.559 --> 00:11:13.190 have to drill a new one. But I want to pivot 00:11:13.190 --> 00:11:15.169 to something you mentioned earlier about the 00:11:15.169 --> 00:11:19.029 stars and this idea of opening the gates. I believe 00:11:19.029 --> 00:11:21.809 rigorous process, what you might call bureaucracy, 00:11:22.190 --> 00:11:25.009 is actually the best defense against corruption 00:11:25.009 --> 00:11:28.289 and safety risks. Are we talking about background 00:11:28.289 --> 00:11:31.029 checks? I'm talking about safer recruitment, 00:11:31.309 --> 00:11:33.690 specifically regarding children and vulnerable 00:11:33.690 --> 00:11:38.080 adults, as defined by the NSPPC. In these contexts, 00:11:38.279 --> 00:11:40.980 you cannot just hire based on potential or a 00:11:40.980 --> 00:11:44.179 gut feeling or a loose recommendation. Rigorous 00:11:44.179 --> 00:11:46.659 background checks and screening are non -negotiable. 00:11:46.860 --> 00:11:49.580 It's a vital part of risk management. I am not 00:11:49.580 --> 00:11:51.899 arguing against safety checks for vulnerable 00:11:51.899 --> 00:11:55.320 populations. That is obviously necessary. No 00:11:55.320 --> 00:11:57.539 one is suggesting we skip background checks for 00:11:57.539 --> 00:12:00.360 school teachers. But the logic extends to business 00:12:00.360 --> 00:12:03.759 risk as well. The Independent Broad -Based Anti 00:12:03.759 --> 00:12:07.889 -Corruption Commission, or IBAC, found that corruption 00:12:07.889 --> 00:12:11.629 in recruitment is a massive business risk. Hiring 00:12:11.629 --> 00:12:14.350 unqualified friends or family, which, by the 00:12:14.350 --> 00:12:16.830 way, is the dark side of your open and creative 00:12:16.830 --> 00:12:19.330 approach if not managed, can be detrimental. 00:12:19.710 --> 00:12:23.230 A structured, data -driven process protects against 00:12:23.230 --> 00:12:26.610 nepotism. It prevents the recycling of problematic 00:12:26.610 --> 00:12:29.789 employees. I see why you think structure protects 00:12:29.789 --> 00:12:32.649 against bias, but I would argue that rigid structures 00:12:32.649 --> 00:12:35.730 often codify bias. particularly against candidates 00:12:35.730 --> 00:12:37.669 with disabilities. And I'm not talking about 00:12:37.669 --> 00:12:39.309 this from a charity perspective. I'm talking 00:12:39.309 --> 00:12:42.190 about missed economic opportunity. How so? The 00:12:42.190 --> 00:12:46.350 word disability itself carries few positive connotations 00:12:46.350 --> 00:12:49.350 for most employers, and that is a tragedy of 00:12:49.350 --> 00:12:51.970 missed productivity. Research shows there is 00:12:51.970 --> 00:12:54.330 no difference in the daily production of a disabled 00:12:54.330 --> 00:12:57.610 worker compared to a non -disabled one. In fact, 00:12:57.750 --> 00:13:00.490 given their situation, they are often better 00:13:00.490 --> 00:13:02.809 problem solvers because they have spent their 00:13:02.809 --> 00:13:05.750 lives adapting to their environments to overcome 00:13:05.750 --> 00:13:09.509 adversity. They are resilient by necessity. That 00:13:09.509 --> 00:13:11.629 is an interesting perspective on resilience. 00:13:12.230 --> 00:13:15.769 It is. And yet the efficiency models you champion 00:13:15.769 --> 00:13:18.389 often filter them out because they might require 00:13:18.389 --> 00:13:21.230 a reasonable adjustment or because they don't 00:13:21.230 --> 00:13:23.929 fit the standard physical profile. But look at 00:13:23.929 --> 00:13:26.840 the benefits. Higher retention. higher loyalty, 00:13:27.019 --> 00:13:29.720 and even specific financial incentives like the 00:13:29.720 --> 00:13:33.100 disabled access credit from the IRS. True inclusion 00:13:33.100 --> 00:13:35.960 isn't just about compliance or ethics. It's about 00:13:35.960 --> 00:13:37.700 recognizing that a different way of functioning 00:13:37.700 --> 00:13:40.240 in the world brings a different, valuable perspective 00:13:40.240 --> 00:13:43.100 to the business. I appreciate that point. And 00:13:43.100 --> 00:13:45.419 to be clear, my argument for structure doesn't 00:13:45.419 --> 00:13:48.799 preclude hiring disabled workers. In fact, standardized 00:13:48.799 --> 00:13:51.419 testing can help level the playing field by focusing 00:13:51.419 --> 00:13:54.019 on ability rather than perception. But I think 00:13:54.019 --> 00:13:56.299 we're circling a central conflict. You want to 00:13:56.299 --> 00:13:59.080 hunt for the perfect external unicorn, and I 00:13:59.080 --> 00:14:01.179 want to build a reliable machine. I wouldn't 00:14:01.179 --> 00:14:03.919 say I'm hunting for a unicorn. In fact, I think 00:14:03.919 --> 00:14:05.960 you are the one hunting for the purple squirrel. 00:14:06.340 --> 00:14:09.399 The purple squirrel? Yes. It's a term in the 00:14:09.399 --> 00:14:11.419 industry for those rare candidates considered 00:14:11.419 --> 00:14:14.460 to be perfect fits. Companies leave positions 00:14:14.460 --> 00:14:17.179 vacant for months hunting for this mythical creature, 00:14:17.559 --> 00:14:20.159 often trying to find them internally or through 00:14:20.159 --> 00:14:22.740 tight networks. They want someone who already 00:14:22.740 --> 00:14:25.470 knows the software. knows the acronyms, and hits 00:14:25.470 --> 00:14:27.590 the ground running on day one. Which is efficient. 00:14:27.809 --> 00:14:30.450 It's short -sighted. They should be looking broadly 00:14:30.450 --> 00:14:33.610 at potential and transferable skills. They should 00:14:33.610 --> 00:14:35.309 be looking for someone who can learn the software 00:14:35.309 --> 00:14:37.250 in a week but brings a whole new way of solving 00:14:37.250 --> 00:14:39.529 problems. I think we need to synthesize where 00:14:39.529 --> 00:14:42.370 we stand here because the material suggests there 00:14:42.370 --> 00:14:44.250 was a way to handle both of these realities. 00:14:44.730 --> 00:14:47.029 It mentions the multi -tier recruitment model. 00:14:47.269 --> 00:14:49.710 Right. Tell me how you see that fitting in. In 00:14:49.710 --> 00:14:52.289 high -volume companies, they often split recruitment. 00:14:52.990 --> 00:14:56.809 Tier one is the help desk. Tier two is administration. 00:14:57.230 --> 00:14:59.830 That's the process management, the background 00:14:59.830 --> 00:15:03.129 checks, the efficiency I love. But tier three 00:15:03.129 --> 00:15:06.429 is process in the sense of strategy. And perhaps 00:15:06.429 --> 00:15:09.809 that is where the distinction lies. You are focused 00:15:09.809 --> 00:15:13.269 on tier two, the administration, the cost cutting, 00:15:13.409 --> 00:15:17.009 the stability. I am focused on tier three, the 00:15:17.009 --> 00:15:19.710 strategy. Where are we going and who can get 00:15:19.710 --> 00:15:45.929 us there? And I would counter that. If you lock 00:15:45.929 --> 00:15:48.970 down tier two so tight that only the friends 00:15:48.970 --> 00:15:51.690 of current employees get hired or only people 00:15:51.690 --> 00:15:54.169 with a specific degree get through the filter, 00:15:54.370 --> 00:15:56.809 your company might not go bankrupt immediately, 00:15:57.149 --> 00:15:59.730 but it will become irrelevant. It will fail to 00:15:59.730 --> 00:16:02.470 innovate. It will die a slow death of sameness. 00:16:02.710 --> 00:16:05.250 But let's look at the tools available today. 00:16:05.649 --> 00:16:10.269 We have applicant tracking systems, AI, psychometric 00:16:10.269 --> 00:16:13.450 testing. These are tools of efficiency. Do you 00:16:13.450 --> 00:16:16.429 reject them? I don't reject them, but I question 00:16:16.429 --> 00:16:19.169 how they are tuned. If an applicant tracking 00:16:19.169 --> 00:16:21.730 system is set to reject anyone without a four 00:16:21.730 --> 00:16:24.809 -year degree, it is a tool of exclusion. If it 00:16:24.809 --> 00:16:27.409 is tuned to identify skills and potential, it 00:16:27.409 --> 00:16:30.230 becomes a tool of inclusion. The problem isn't 00:16:30.230 --> 00:16:32.629 the technology, it's the mindset of the recruiter. 00:16:32.830 --> 00:16:35.250 Are we looking for reasons to say no, which is 00:16:35.250 --> 00:16:37.549 efficient, or are we looking for reasons to say 00:16:37.549 --> 00:16:40.289 yes, which is innovative? That's a compelling 00:16:40.289 --> 00:16:43.330 way to put it, though I would frame it differently. 00:16:44.110 --> 00:16:47.230 We are looking for the highest probability of 00:16:47.230 --> 00:16:50.669 success. And history shows that someone who is 00:16:50.669 --> 00:16:53.669 already in the building or vetted by someone 00:16:53.669 --> 00:16:56.730 in the building has a statistically higher probability 00:16:56.730 --> 00:16:59.610 of success. A higher probability of survival 00:16:59.610 --> 00:17:02.570 in the current culture, perhaps, but not necessarily 00:17:02.570 --> 00:17:05.230 success in changing that culture for the better. 00:17:05.430 --> 00:17:08.089 We are approaching the end of our time, and I 00:17:08.089 --> 00:17:10.930 think we need to wrap this up. From my perspective, 00:17:11.420 --> 00:17:13.619 Recruitment must be viewed through the lens of 00:17:13.619 --> 00:17:16.359 organizational stability and fiscal responsibility. 00:17:16.759 --> 00:17:20.339 The data on employee referrals, the cost savings, 00:17:20.619 --> 00:17:24.160 the retention rates is undeniable. Strategies 00:17:24.160 --> 00:17:27.059 like internal mobility capitalize on pre -existing 00:17:27.059 --> 00:17:30.680 trust and knowledge. You cannot build a lasting 00:17:30.680 --> 00:17:33.079 organization on a revolving door of strangers, 00:17:33.279 --> 00:17:35.859 no matter how talented they are. And I maintain 00:17:35.859 --> 00:17:38.920 that recruitment is the primary engine for innovation. 00:17:39.609 --> 00:17:42.509 If you over -rely on safe methods like referrals 00:17:42.509 --> 00:17:45.069 and degree requirements, you exclude vast pools 00:17:45.069 --> 00:17:48.490 of talent, the stars, the disabled workers, the 00:17:48.490 --> 00:17:51.170 people who think differently. You create a fortress 00:17:51.170 --> 00:17:53.750 that keeps the world out. A company needs to 00:17:53.750 --> 00:17:56.750 be a gateway, not a fortress. I think there is 00:17:56.750 --> 00:17:58.670 a middle ground to be found in that multi -tier 00:17:58.670 --> 00:18:01.269 model. Perhaps the administrative efficiency 00:18:01.269 --> 00:18:04.329 belongs to my logic. We need the process to work. 00:18:04.450 --> 00:18:06.789 We need the background checks. We need the cost 00:18:06.789 --> 00:18:09.950 control. But the strategic sourcing, deciding 00:18:09.950 --> 00:18:13.390 who to target, requires your mindset. We need 00:18:13.390 --> 00:18:15.990 efficiency to function, but we need friction 00:18:15.990 --> 00:18:18.970 to grow. I can agree with that. The machinery 00:18:18.970 --> 00:18:21.329 should be efficient, but the net we cast must 00:18:21.329 --> 00:18:23.970 be wide. We need to stop looking for the purple 00:18:23.970 --> 00:18:26.049 squirrel that fits the job description perfectly 00:18:26.049 --> 00:18:28.450 and start looking for the people who can expand 00:18:28.450 --> 00:18:32.670 what the job could be. A fair compromise. To 00:18:32.670 --> 00:18:35.190 our listeners, we hope this exchange has prompted 00:18:35.190 --> 00:18:38.269 you to look at your own hiring practices. Whether 00:18:38.269 --> 00:18:40.890 you are a hiring manager or a candidate, ask 00:18:40.890 --> 00:18:43.410 yourself, is the process designed to replicate 00:18:43.410 --> 00:18:47.250 the past or build the future? Exactly. Thank 00:18:47.250 --> 00:18:49.130 you for joining us for this intellectual exchange. 00:18:49.509 --> 00:18:51.789 There is always more to explore in the material, 00:18:51.890 --> 00:18:54.490 and we encourage you to dig deeper. Welcome to 00:18:54.490 --> 00:18:54.829 the debate.