The Swiftie Bowl
The Recruitment FlexFebruary 09, 202400:40:33

The Swiftie Bowl

This week on The Recruitment Flex we have a special guest co-host Deanna Brousseau as Shelley is travelling somewhere (maybe a hedonism island?!) We Cover: Super Bowl predictions and over/under of 12 on Taylor Swift cutaways In The News Google Job Ads gets killed before even being born 4 Million Canadians have a criminal record, a lot of them can't find a job Tip of the Week How to spot a toxic environment, hopefully you're not recruiting in one! Recruiting insights: Should you give directions to job seekers to what is acceptable Generative AI usage in your hiring process? Sometimes not recruiting is the best recruiting! Bonus: Listen to Chad & Cheese Podcast out Friday as Serge will try to fill Chad's shoes!
The Swiftie Bowl

The Swiftie Bowl

This week on The Recruitment Flex we have a special guest co-host Deanna Brousseau as Shelley is travelling somewhere (maybe a hedonism island?!)


We Cover:

  • Super Bowl predictions and over/under of 12 on Taylor Swift cutaways


In The News


  • Google Job Ads gets killed before even being born


  • 4 Million Canadians have a criminal record, a lot of them can't find a job


Tip of the Week


  • How to spot a toxic environment, hopefully you're not recruiting in one!


Recruiting insights:


  • Should you give directions to job seekers to what is acceptable Generative AI usage in your hiring process?


  • Sometimes not recruiting is the best recruiting!


Bonus: Listen to Chad & Cheese Podcast out Friday as Serge will try to fill Chad's shoes!

[00:00.000 --> 00:30.000] This week on their Chroma Flex, we have a special guest co-host, Deanna Brusso, as Shelly is away. How many times will we see Taylor Swift at the Super Bowl? Google Job Ads, dead before it was even born? Plus sometimes, not recruiting is the best recruiting. Here up with my dad and Deanna starts right now. [00:30.000 --> 00:38.400] Welcome to the Recruitment Flex with Serge and Shelly. I'm Serge. And I'm Shelly. And we talk all things recruitment starting right now. [00:41.600 --> 00:53.440] Bonjour and welcome to the Recruitment Flex. Shelly is pretending to work in Toronto, so I brought in a very special guest co-host, Deanna Brusso. How are you Deanna? [00:53.840 --> 01:03.520] Serge, I'm good. It is good to be back. Thank you so much for having me. And thank you to Shelly for being away. This is amazing. So hopefully I feel those big shoes. [01:04.560 --> 01:10.880] I don't think it's going to be that hard, Deanna. I think it's pretty easy. Just follow along. That's what Shelly does. Just like... [01:12.560 --> 01:13.920] Oh, I see. I see it. [01:14.720 --> 01:22.880] You've been on the show before, but a lot of listeners might not know who you are. Do you mind giving us a little bit of a buy of who you are? [01:23.280 --> 01:30.960] For sure. Yes, I am Deanna Brusso. I am currently the Director of People and Talent at a tech startup called UltaML. [01:31.280 --> 01:36.880] We provide AI solutions across various industries. So we have a big team of machine learning developers, [01:37.280 --> 01:42.720] AI is the name of the game with us. So it's been really exciting. I do more than just the recruitment end. [01:42.720 --> 01:48.240] I also do the people leadership side of the business too, and ensuring that folks are happy from start to finish [01:48.640 --> 01:52.240] when they're here with us at UltaML. So that's just a little bit about me. [01:52.240 --> 01:57.920] And I also love TikTok. Funny videos. I love LinkedIn. It's great. [01:57.920 --> 02:03.280] And you know what? I'm still disappointed in you because you haven't been doing enough videos. [02:03.280 --> 02:07.280] Because you had seen really clever one. What's going on? Are you too busy at work? [02:07.280 --> 02:13.040] I know. You know, things have been super busy in a good way, but I also feel like I might be going to a little bit of that. [02:13.040 --> 02:18.240] Writer's block, if you will, a creative block. And so I need to be inspired again and then just create some more content. [02:18.240 --> 02:22.960] Because I realize that too. I'm like, it's been a minute since I've produced a funny little video here. [02:22.960 --> 02:28.800] So maybe Sergio will reignite my great and then I'll make you happy again. [02:30.000 --> 02:34.000] That's the goal. That's the goal. Yes. So you are a known [02:34.560 --> 02:39.600] Swiftie, and I am very curious to know if you are going to watch the Super Bowl. [02:40.400 --> 02:46.160] Oh my gosh. Absolutely. I am there to watch Taylor Swift. Will you be watching? [02:47.600 --> 02:55.600] Oh, I will be watching. I am predicting that Kansas City will win. My prediction is 34 to 28. [02:55.600 --> 03:01.200] And I have an under over of how many times they're going to cut away to Taylor Swift. [03:01.200 --> 03:07.520] And my prediction is 12. It's probably going to be way over. If I was the NFL, [03:07.520 --> 03:11.760] I would have Taylor on pretty much 50% of the time. If there's not a play going on, [03:11.760 --> 03:18.640] it's just pan to Taylor because honestly, like a question for you, did you watch football before this? [03:19.920 --> 03:24.960] No, I watched last year's Super Bowl because it was the Rihanna concert. So I was more interested [03:24.960 --> 03:32.320] in the Rihanna show versus the actual Super Bowl. So yeah, if I were them, I would do a split screen [03:32.320 --> 03:38.480] the entire time. So Taylor and her sweets and all of her celebrity friends on one side [03:38.480 --> 03:43.120] and then the other side, the game. Okay. Imagine just it would make everybody happy all at once so [03:43.120 --> 03:48.160] you just have a split screen. We're good to go. I do think we were talking about this in the [03:48.160 --> 03:54.880] green room that this is the end game for Taylor. She will get married to Travis Kelsey. Not a [03:54.880 --> 04:01.280] prediction. If they win, he proposes to her on the field. Can you imagine that? That would break the [04:01.280 --> 04:07.760] internet. I heard that. I heard a lot of whispers of what if he does that. I'm pretty sure he will [04:07.760 --> 04:14.880] not do that. Even though that would be amazing. I don't think he would. My prediction is when it's [04:14.880 --> 04:20.240] not if when they do get engaged, it'll be something super private. And then they'll do some sort of [04:20.240 --> 04:24.640] announcements like how Taylor does her announcements for new albums. It's just it's going to be out [04:24.640 --> 04:28.480] of nowhere when you least expect it. And maybe they've been engaged for months. And then all of a [04:28.560 --> 04:33.120] sudden it's like we're now married. And there you go. So I think that's how they're going to play this [04:33.120 --> 04:40.960] off. I hope you're wrong because I would love to see it live. I'm also excited to see Usher. I grew [04:40.960 --> 04:47.200] up in the 90s, right? And Usher was just Usher was the man in the 90s. So it's going to be a concert [04:47.200 --> 04:55.520] that I'm quite excited for. But we should jump into the news. And there is a lot of interesting news [04:55.600 --> 05:00.480] this weekend. Probably the biggest one. And the one that's made a lot of recruitment marketers panic [05:00.480 --> 05:06.640] in the last week is the rumor that came out that Google job ads not to be confused with Google for [05:06.640 --> 05:13.840] jobs is not going to get out of alpha testing. So in 2016, Google launched Google for jobs, [05:13.840 --> 05:19.840] which is basically aggregating all the jobs on the internet in one platform. It shows up as a [05:19.840 --> 05:25.760] widget on top of your search results. And you can go look for jobs. Overall, it's done okay. But [05:25.760 --> 05:32.960] there's been some issues with shady aggregators, bad jobs. It's just really hard to aggregate the [05:32.960 --> 05:38.640] internet of how many jobs out there. Then you've got questions are these jobs live. But when it [05:38.640 --> 05:43.600] was originally launched, I think a lot of people were really excited because they saw an alternative [05:43.680 --> 05:50.560] 2D monopoly of Indeed and zip recruiter, but they never really monetized it until the rumor came out [05:50.560 --> 05:57.680] March 2023 that they were doing alpha testing on a product called Google job ads. And this was [05:57.680 --> 06:04.160] mostly done with large ad agencies in the US. I'll tell you, you got a lot of people excited because [06:04.160 --> 06:10.240] it's like Google is finally monetizing this. And there's finally going to be real competition to Indeed. [06:11.120 --> 06:16.400] Last week was not a good news for recruitment marketers because it all started with our rumor [06:16.400 --> 06:23.520] in LinkedIn. Lady at Recruitix basically shared that after the alpha experience, they're going to be [06:23.520 --> 06:28.720] shutting it down and looks like it'll be shut down in the next couple of weeks, officially and the [06:28.720 --> 06:35.760] end of March. It died before it even really got off the ground. And for context, we never had [06:35.760 --> 06:40.640] Google job ads here in Canada. It was really never tested. It was never experienced. But we [06:40.640 --> 06:46.320] saw it in the US. What's your first thoughts around Google for jobs when you're thinking about [06:46.320 --> 06:51.440] advertising your jobs across the internet? To be honest, everybody goes to Google for everything. [06:51.440 --> 06:57.520] So I do think it's a genius idea. It makes sense. However, it's not an idea where I'm like, [06:57.520 --> 07:03.360] Oh, that is so innovative. And wow, why isn't anybody thought of that? No shit. Absolutely, [07:03.440 --> 07:08.560] they would go and build that. It doesn't excite me because again, I just keep thinking about the [07:08.560 --> 07:12.960] indeeds of the world, the glass doors of the world is a recruiter. And it's just what's sexy about it. [07:13.600 --> 07:18.240] I don't know. I'm not surprised that they tried to build something. And then again, it's like, [07:18.240 --> 07:22.000] Oh, we're just going to shelf that now. And thanks, but no thanks because they've been [07:22.000 --> 07:27.520] known to do that. But do they need to do it? I don't think so. And again, what's different about it? [07:28.080 --> 07:32.880] I love that perspective. And I agree. Looking at there's really nothing innovative. The only [07:32.880 --> 07:39.360] advantage is you have an audience that is coming to Google to start their search. And most searches, [07:39.360 --> 07:45.680] even job searches start from Google. So what a great way to capitalize on that. But they never [07:45.680 --> 07:51.040] figured it out. And I don't know, I don't think Google for jobs itself will go away in the near [07:51.040 --> 07:57.280] future. But I don't see a path to monetization anytime in the near future. And like a lot of [07:57.280 --> 08:03.440] people will last like, why didn't it work? And it's a tough one. If you look at Google's core business, [08:03.440 --> 08:09.600] which is search, it's under such intense pressure with AI, right? Like it's the business model of [08:09.600 --> 08:14.800] search the way it is now will it even exist five years from now? And we're talking about like hundreds [08:14.800 --> 08:20.000] of billions that Google makes off this search business. The other aspect that I thought was, [08:20.720 --> 08:26.720] what's the upside? If they get it rolling and it's killing it, a billion dollars, two billion [08:26.720 --> 08:34.240] dollars, which for us, me and you, is a whole lot of money. Yeah. But I just don't think it is for [08:34.240 --> 08:40.480] Google. No, I think it's another day. It's another Tuesday. Yeah. For you, what are your main sources [08:40.480 --> 08:46.640] of candidates right now? Honestly, number one is LinkedIn, I think because we hire so really. And [08:47.200 --> 08:53.840] yeah. And we also don't hire in mass quantities, right? Like I think a place like indeed, [08:53.840 --> 08:57.440] the job aggregators make sense if you're in construction and oil and gas and you're looking [08:57.440 --> 09:02.960] for like mass amounts of folks. But we literally are looking for one person in this niche market [09:02.960 --> 09:08.720] times seven. Yeah. And that's when we source. Yeah, sure. We post to get traction, but it's more of [09:08.720 --> 09:15.200] like the marketing sell of it. We don't necessarily post for applications. We already have that pipeline [09:15.200 --> 09:20.720] going and then we source passive candidates through LinkedIn recruiter. And that's been a really [09:20.800 --> 09:26.000] successful model for us thus far. So that's our ride or die. And again, maybe that's not the best [09:26.000 --> 09:31.280] practice. Maybe I should put on my eggs and let that skit explore more. And again, as these AI [09:31.280 --> 09:38.400] products evolve, we will explore those because that is our business model. And we need to understand [09:38.400 --> 09:45.200] what's out there. And I can't wait to see a competitor of LinkedIn. Like are we always just going to be [09:45.200 --> 09:51.760] stuck to LinkedIn? It's not cheap. And the service, what we get out of it, is it really worth what [09:51.760 --> 09:57.040] we're investing? And I think a lot of recruiters and organizations would agree. But I would get [09:57.040 --> 10:02.880] excited for something that is a competitor of LinkedIn that has more AI capabilities but is [10:02.880 --> 10:10.240] less expensive. Yeah, there's tools out there that leverage the LinkedIn database like Seacout and [10:10.240 --> 10:14.720] find them. There's there's a couple, but there's no guarantee on those as we've seen with some [10:14.720 --> 10:20.400] recent changes with LinkedIn and what they allow to go public. It's really tough to use external [10:20.400 --> 10:26.400] tools. And I agree with you, I've had many dealings with LinkedIn in the past. And they're definitely [10:26.400 --> 10:34.160] very similar to indeed in some ways that you are so lucky to even have some time with them. And you're [10:34.160 --> 10:40.400] so lucky to be their customer. There's definitely a level of arrogance that we don't see with most [10:40.400 --> 10:46.240] set of providers. But I'm curious for you, as far as like looking at AI tools, right? I've been to [10:46.240 --> 10:54.720] many of these HR tech conference and shows, and there is literally AI over and over again. And most [10:54.720 --> 11:00.720] of it is snake oil. How do you look at AI tools and what is real and what's not? [11:02.400 --> 11:07.440] I think for me, I have to look at it from a business lens in terms of how it's going to affect our [11:07.440 --> 11:13.760] organization more from a responsible AI viewpoint. I think a lot of these tools, sure, they say they'll [11:13.760 --> 11:19.280] solve all your problems, increase productivity. But what access do they need in order to actually [11:19.280 --> 11:25.040] help you? And ensuring that it's responsibly done. And there's a whole bunch of compliance issues as [11:25.040 --> 11:30.240] well. So we fiddled around with a few tools. And again, I forget all of their names already, [11:30.240 --> 11:35.360] because there's just so many when it first came out. But it was like, it became more of a hindrance [11:35.360 --> 11:39.920] than an actual health. Like it was just an annoying toolbot that was there. And it was like, [11:39.920 --> 11:44.240] I know that already, like, why are you pointing this out? And even LinkedIn now has like the AI [11:44.240 --> 11:48.000] help on the recruiter side, where it'll help you reach out to candidates. But I don't like what [11:48.000 --> 11:52.640] they're putting in front of like, use this paragraph. And it sounds like a bot. So I guess a long story [11:52.640 --> 11:59.360] short is, is it legit? Who's creating it? And the ethics and responsibility around it, it either [11:59.360 --> 12:04.880] has to be able to open doors, remove biases, not add biases, et cetera. [12:04.880 --> 12:09.680] I don't know if you've read the algorithm. We have Hilky the author coming on the show [12:09.680 --> 12:14.240] in the next couple of weeks. But I recommend you read that book, because it talks a lot about the [12:14.240 --> 12:21.120] bias in these tools and how to do it. What is snake oil and what is real? And it's really [12:21.120 --> 12:25.920] tough for the average practitioner. And it's almost impossible right now. [12:27.120 --> 12:32.880] All right, let's jump into the next news item. So there was a recent article, CBC News that [12:32.960 --> 12:38.720] kind of shocked me. So basically the report came out that right now there is 4 million [12:38.720 --> 12:44.080] Canadians that have a criminal record. So let's give you context. If you're in the US, our population [12:44.080 --> 12:54.000] is 40 million. 10% of our population has a criminal record. It's a pretty big talent pool in itself, [12:54.000 --> 12:59.760] right? So a couple of key stats that came out, they did a survey with 400 hiring managers for the [12:59.840 --> 13:06.080] John Howard Society of Ontario. It definitely highlighted a lot of barriers to hiring, [13:06.080 --> 13:10.960] a lot of biases that we do have. And if you think right now in Canada, the latest that I looked at, [13:10.960 --> 13:18.000] we have 700,000 open jobs. And I know there's a skill mismatch, right? But it starts to question, [13:18.000 --> 13:23.680] if you were struggling to find talent, why are you not looking at those Liverpool? And the first [13:23.680 --> 13:29.200] thing I would think is, well, there's risk. There's potentially risk they would reoffend. [13:29.200 --> 13:36.720] There's a risk of trust. But there is interesting data out of the US that actually shows completely [13:36.720 --> 13:43.200] the opposite. People with a criminal past have lower job turnover, equal or better performance, [13:43.200 --> 13:49.920] and no higher risk of workplace misconduct. So Deanna, what's your thoughts around this? [13:50.320 --> 13:53.040] Did this shock you? Did you think this number was this big? [13:54.080 --> 14:00.960] Oh, my gosh, it shocked me for sure. I had no idea. And again, I think we're in such a bubble in [14:00.960 --> 14:07.360] the tech market. And truth be told, we haven't come across anybody yet that we've hired that [14:07.360 --> 14:12.400] has a criminal record. I have seen in the past, though, however, when I worked in oil and gas and [14:12.400 --> 14:18.560] other industries, we have had candidates that have records. I think my viewpoint on this, [14:18.560 --> 14:24.640] and again, from the US studies is why not? I think the gap that employers are facing is [14:24.640 --> 14:29.920] the education behind what's been done since, right? So let's say somebody does have a record, [14:30.480 --> 14:36.480] they serve time or what have you. What did they do during that time? What has changed since then? [14:36.480 --> 14:40.480] Because I do believe people do change. I do believe that there's a lot of [14:40.480 --> 14:44.640] systemic barriers and things like that that people face and they're put into the situations where [14:45.600 --> 14:51.760] that's the cards are dealt. And so it's really for us to understand what programs are in place [14:51.760 --> 14:58.080] at these institutions and what is the off-boarding, if you will, of when they do exit and now they're [14:58.080 --> 15:02.640] able to look for work again. What does that look like? And there's various levels of [15:02.640 --> 15:08.240] information, right? For instance, if there's somebody with, let's say, a DUI record, okay, [15:08.240 --> 15:12.240] that will show up and that'll be a cause for concern. I'm sure for everybody, [15:12.240 --> 15:18.320] look, oh, they had a DUI back in 2007 or whatever. It would show up. Then as the employer, it's like, [15:18.320 --> 15:26.000] what does that need? So if we're hiring a machine learning developer and it's hybrid or it's remote [15:26.000 --> 15:31.840] and they're not a service driver, does that even really matter? And again, I think we have to look [15:31.840 --> 15:36.560] at what it was. If you're in a financial industry and somebody brought a bank and then they're [15:36.560 --> 15:41.440] applying to a bank, okay, sure, maybe that's something that maybe we don't want to risk that, [15:41.440 --> 15:45.120] because they know people, there's networks, but you just have to see like, what are you hiring for? [15:46.000 --> 15:51.360] What can you live with? And I've hired folks previous industries that have had records like that, [15:51.360 --> 15:56.320] no issues. Very strong performers. They learned a lot from that incident. They talk openly about [15:56.320 --> 16:01.360] that incident and we learn a lot from it. So I think there's a lot to gain from giving those folks a [16:01.360 --> 16:09.120] chance. There's a couple of things in it comes the resilience, the ability to turn around their life [16:09.120 --> 16:14.240] and a lot of times like we all make mistakes and I can only imagine when I was younger, [16:14.800 --> 16:20.080] if I would have been caught with several things, I might not be in the position that I am now, [16:20.080 --> 16:25.280] right? So I feel a lot of sympathy and empathy for a lot of these people that are struggling [16:25.280 --> 16:30.480] because we do need them in the labor pool and I agree. I think what you've done should be a [16:30.480 --> 16:35.040] consideration, right? Like obviously the cases that you showed, I wouldn't hire someone with [16:35.040 --> 16:41.440] financial fraud to work at a bank. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, but could that person work as [16:42.000 --> 16:47.040] linesmen for the power company, something like that? There's plenty of opportunities out there. [16:47.040 --> 16:52.000] It's just a messy past doesn't define who you are in the future. You know a lot of roles, [16:52.000 --> 16:59.280] women are known not to apply if they're not fully qualified. Do a lot of ex I guess felons [16:59.280 --> 17:03.440] not apply to roles because they don't want to go through that because it's embarrassing, right? [17:03.440 --> 17:07.920] Like you're applying for a job, you go through the process and then suddenly they do a background [17:07.920 --> 17:12.560] check, it comes back, you know it's going to come up and you have to explain it. You're excited that [17:12.560 --> 17:17.360] you're getting the job, then you have the anxiety that, oh, am I going to pass a criminal? Like are [17:17.360 --> 17:24.000] they going to come back? I think it stops a lot of these people even applying for jobs in a normal [17:24.000 --> 17:30.000] way that you and I would go and apply for a job online. 100% I agree and I think a lot of these [17:30.000 --> 17:34.160] people are maybe taking jobs under the table because of that. Like they still have bills to pay [17:34.160 --> 17:40.160] whatnot but they're just so afraid of how the world's going to perceive them. I can't speak on [17:40.160 --> 17:44.640] their behalf obviously but I would assume that's holding them back and then that's keeping us as [17:44.640 --> 17:50.720] employers away from this untapped market that could absolutely kill it. Like what did they learn [17:50.720 --> 17:55.440] during their time? Who did they meet? What strategies did they develop that? Like we would it in our [17:55.440 --> 18:01.520] normal day-to-day comfy, cozy type of lives. I would encourage them just as other underrepresented [18:01.520 --> 18:08.960] groups, females, etc. Go for it and there's been people that have openly disclosed their criminal [18:08.960 --> 18:14.800] past during the first call because you can tell it's on their mind and they get it off right away. [18:14.800 --> 18:20.080] They go, okay, before I move any further I just have to close. I have XYZ from XYZ [18:21.040 --> 18:26.080] and I will stop them if they're divulging too much because I don't need to know all the details [18:26.080 --> 18:31.920] but thank you for disclosing. We'll get back to you. In most cases it's a non-issue but I do feel [18:31.920 --> 18:36.320] like they just need to sort of bring that to the table before they even are formally considered [18:36.320 --> 18:41.600] because again like you said it can be very awkward when that check comes back and then we have questions [18:42.960 --> 18:48.560] Yes so I guess the advice here for anyone there is a large untapped labor pool here in Canada. So [18:48.560 --> 18:53.600] if you're recruiting and are having challenges I think you need to open up your eyes and definitely [18:53.600 --> 19:00.480] take a look at that labor pool. So Deanna I want to jump into tip of the week and usually Shelly does [19:00.480 --> 19:04.800] the tip of the week every week so you get the pleasure to hear me do it. Your tip of the week [19:04.800 --> 19:10.080] is brought to you by Plum. Plum knows that when people flourish business drives using science back [19:10.080 --> 19:16.320] insight Plum aligns human potential with job needs allowing you to build high performing teams [19:16.320 --> 19:22.800] from a single platform ideal for improving hiring choices identifying future leaders and [19:22.800 --> 19:29.920] offering personalized career advice. Plum supports the entire employee journey from higher to retire [19:29.920 --> 19:37.840] discover more at Plum.io. I love the folks at Plum. So thank you. My tip of the week Deanna is [19:37.840 --> 19:43.040] let's put this in two perspectives. You're recruiter you're looking at your own organization [19:43.120 --> 19:51.120] or you're applying for a job and you want to know is this perspective workplace toxic. First thing [19:51.120 --> 19:59.600] you have to look at and I'll tell you this is most companies a bad interview process there's a red flag [19:59.600 --> 20:04.960] if you have to go through several interviews you don't get any communications between the interviews [20:04.960 --> 20:12.960] they go a month you don't get feedback communication is bad in the hiring process it probably means it's [20:13.120 --> 20:18.800] bad throughout the organization. So that's the number one thing look at the interview process and if [20:18.800 --> 20:27.440] you're getting red flags you should probably walk away. If you are a recruiter and this is your process [20:27.440 --> 20:32.880] just for you to know that's probably a red flag for those candidates that are applying for your job [20:32.880 --> 20:39.440] so maybe it's time to look at fixing that. The second step is what current employees say and don't say [20:39.440 --> 20:43.840] when you're interviewing or talk to people that work there I think there is some value in trying [20:43.840 --> 20:50.000] to read between the lines what they say and what they really mean right there's a couple things [20:50.000 --> 20:55.280] like sure the team is small but there's a huge opportunity to really drive and own things and [20:55.280 --> 21:00.480] make an impact that might not be a bad thing but it shows you if you're not comfortable working [21:00.480 --> 21:07.680] in a very independent type of workplace it's just not going to be for you right. Remember as a [21:07.680 --> 21:13.360] job seeker they're also looking is this a fit for me as much as it is for the company so make sure [21:13.360 --> 21:18.640] you're asking those questions and you're really trying to read between those lines oh the one that [21:18.640 --> 21:23.280] scares me the most is when you see a lot of job ads that could be a good thing right like you're [21:23.280 --> 21:28.480] seeing a lot of job ads you think oh my god they're growing but then when you start digging in deeper [21:29.120 --> 21:35.680] these are replacement roles there's a huge turnover a lot of people leaving not a lot of people coming [21:35.680 --> 21:42.320] in I think that would be the number one red flag and if you're a recruiter my god that is a challenge [21:42.320 --> 21:47.440] right because have you ever tried to explain that to a potential candidate me like why is everyone [21:47.440 --> 21:54.320] leaving then you're trying to bullshit your way out of it so they hate it here yeah exactly have [21:54.320 --> 22:01.440] you ever I'm sure all your process and everything at ultiML is amazing but in your career if you had [22:01.440 --> 22:06.320] this challenge when you're applying for jobs that you see these red flags but you still keep on going [22:06.320 --> 22:11.360] you still go through the process then end up working there and realize oh I made a horrible mistake [22:13.280 --> 22:18.800] yeah from the candidate side I've been there before I think I was more enamored with that shiny [22:18.800 --> 22:26.560] carrot right and this company you know they they're so sexy and they're new and the interview process [22:26.640 --> 22:33.360] as I look back had many red flags there is many steps there's about 10 steps and there's so many [22:33.360 --> 22:38.800] different people I was meeting and even the people I was meeting very different personalities but the [22:38.800 --> 22:45.520] pattern was they weren't the nicest people and I thought oh that's okay they're just pros or SMEs [22:45.520 --> 22:52.160] they're very professional and that's fine but oh my gosh once I was there it was like no okay so my [22:52.160 --> 22:56.320] spidey senses were right but it's like what they say but they don't say how many steps [22:57.360 --> 23:01.280] yeah I've been on that other side where it just wasn't what it was cooked up to be [23:02.080 --> 23:08.240] perfect let's jump into the recruiting insights and recruiting insights brought to you by metova [23:09.680 --> 23:12.880] Shelley are you tired of the same old outsourcing woes [23:13.440 --> 23:19.440] well say hello to near-shoring it's like outsourcing but closer and it won't make you pull your hair out [23:20.400 --> 23:26.720] picture this top-notch IT talent from Latin American many Latin American IT professionals [23:26.720 --> 23:32.160] have strong English language skills and even live in the same time zone so no more midnight [23:32.160 --> 23:39.920] conference calls hallelujah plus Latin America's growing tech ecosystem strong educational [23:39.920 --> 23:46.000] institutions and a pool of skilled IT professionals make it the perfect region for recruiting talent [23:46.560 --> 23:52.080] I have the perfect company that does this and company's name is metova they have local experts [23:52.080 --> 23:59.280] who handle everything from recruiting to HR support so why settle for the same old outsourcing [23:59.280 --> 24:06.800] blues when you can have the near-shoring party with metova looked him up at metova.com and let's [24:06.800 --> 24:15.760] get the fiesta started so Deanna there's very few times that I see something and like why did I [24:15.840 --> 24:22.560] not think about that and one of the things that we are talking about this week was a research done [24:22.560 --> 24:28.800] by a company called Arctic Shores and basically what they put together is the ultimate guide to [24:28.800 --> 24:35.440] candidates how to use generative AI and basically what it goes through is should you set guidelines [24:35.440 --> 24:41.520] and communicate what are the expectations from a company side of a candidate that's applying for [24:41.520 --> 24:48.560] your job how they can leverage tools like chat GPT and I'm like that is brilliant like why haven't [24:48.560 --> 24:54.160] we thought of that because to stick our head in the sand and think that people are not using [24:54.160 --> 25:00.800] gen AI in the application process and even throughout the interview process are we crazy like a force [25:00.800 --> 25:07.280] they are so I'm curious before I go any further in your experience are you noticing applications [25:08.000 --> 25:14.320] that are definitely built with a gen AI tool cover letters you do a lot of your interviews [25:14.320 --> 25:19.760] remotely correct has that been a challenge where chat GPT is getting the dictation and giving the [25:19.760 --> 25:26.320] answers any examples on your end oh my gosh 100% from an application perspective like the number of [25:26.320 --> 25:33.120] cover letters has increased tenfold right I think prior to chat GPT there was a war on cover letters [25:33.120 --> 25:38.160] like nobody wanted to do them and even I myself I'm like yeah I don't spend time reading just [25:38.160 --> 25:43.600] give me a resume that's good enough but now oh my gosh these beautiful written cover letters [25:43.600 --> 25:49.040] are coming through no doubt they've been assisted through gen AI I think it's great people should [25:49.040 --> 25:54.240] experiment especially if you're applying at an AI organization you should know the tool and you [25:54.240 --> 26:00.480] should use it and know how to prompt it correctly during the interview processes so yes we do [26:00.560 --> 26:07.760] them virtually I have not yet come across an interview where it's clearly evident that [26:07.760 --> 26:12.240] the candidate is using chat GPT or any other tool to give them the responses like there's [26:12.240 --> 26:16.640] not that pause and then like they're through thank goodness or maybe they are and they're just very [26:16.640 --> 26:21.440] good and they're getting asked me but I do feel like they're much more prepared which is great I [26:21.440 --> 26:25.600] think a lot of them are using it as a tool to prep for interviews I'm hearing a lot of folks [26:26.400 --> 26:31.120] like they'll just copy and paste the job posting and then ask chat GPT okay what questions am I [26:31.120 --> 26:35.840] going to be asked in the first interview and then they prep so yeah they are coming ready [26:35.840 --> 26:40.320] and I think it's just being able to probe more and throw them off a bit and even from the recruitment [26:40.320 --> 26:44.720] side is do that yourself and then ask different questions like make sure you're not asking [26:44.720 --> 26:48.880] all those questions because the candidate's going to already know that but again it's we are [26:48.880 --> 26:55.120] encouraged to use chat GPT at work all the time it's a tool that is allowing us to female [26:55.120 --> 27:02.080] productive to help us with efficiencies and so I can't candidates do the same do it but be smart [27:02.080 --> 27:07.760] with it and I think like you said sir we haven't even thought of putting the do's and don'ts of [27:07.760 --> 27:12.560] applicants okay this is how chat GPT could help you and here's how it can make you look like a fool [27:13.440 --> 27:18.400] we probably should do that as well and so this is brilliant and I think we'll look to implement [27:18.400 --> 27:24.800] that on our website but we also love to leave an area of ambiguity it's great for employers to [27:24.800 --> 27:29.520] see what candidates do with it without the rules so how will this person actually just [27:30.080 --> 27:37.200] apply it because in our workspace at least we don't have the rules like even for entry level [27:37.200 --> 27:41.280] jobs here we don't have strict onboarding of here's what your day is going to look like you're [27:41.280 --> 27:46.880] going to do ABC you come in and you have to figure it out for yourself do we want to hand hold a lot [27:46.880 --> 27:50.880] and here's how you should apply here's what you should include there has to be a balance because [27:50.880 --> 27:57.360] we want to see how candidates to thrive with little instruction and little information [27:58.000 --> 28:03.520] I think you're a little bit unique working for an AI company but that is such a great point [28:04.160 --> 28:09.680] but right now this research shows that seven in ten candidates are planning to use gen AI [28:09.680 --> 28:15.840] to complete applications and assessments in the coming months tele acquisition teams for the last [28:15.840 --> 28:21.040] year I would say the last six months have been feeling this and there's obviously tools out [28:21.040 --> 28:27.280] there that can get you to apply for a thousand jobs within a day right and that is just creating a [28:27.280 --> 28:33.680] ton of noise which is not helping anyone at all right if you're a recruiter especially that recruiters [28:33.680 --> 28:39.280] have been laid off and you're now dealing with a thousand applicant for a job and there's no way [28:39.280 --> 28:44.160] you're getting to everyone it just doesn't make any sense anymore and the biggest thing is like how [28:44.240 --> 28:49.200] do we get to a place of high quality applicants so we're going to the process resume looks great [28:49.760 --> 28:56.160] then they come in the first interview it's obvious they don't know what they're talking about and [28:56.160 --> 29:01.040] that is a waste of your time and it's a waste of my time I get where you're coming from where [29:01.040 --> 29:06.480] hey let's give them a little bit of leeway but you got to know what the job is and actually [29:06.480 --> 29:11.200] having the skill to do the job then I don't know if this has been the last five ten years [29:12.000 --> 29:17.680] but a lot of us are a little bit over confident in what we can actually do and not do and usually [29:17.680 --> 29:25.360] if someone is over confident they can do the job probably sign they can but going back to this AI [29:25.360 --> 29:31.920] and potentially giving like tools or directions or guidance here is the key things I won't go through [29:31.920 --> 29:36.640] all of them I'll put the report in our show notes but I'll go through a couple of ones here is what [29:36.640 --> 29:43.040] they suggested so written applications do use gen AI to structure articulate and proofread [29:43.040 --> 29:49.280] thoughts utilize gen AI to refine ideas and bring them to life more clearly or creatively [29:49.920 --> 29:58.320] don't create imaginary thoughts and experiences use gen i to generate responses without personalization [29:58.320 --> 30:03.600] so really good example of what you just said right this is very clear of how you should use it [30:03.600 --> 30:09.600] a lot of it is just common sense but you are working in an AI company and there's a lot of roles [30:09.600 --> 30:15.120] that maybe they don't have as much common sense and I don't mean that as negative they just haven't [30:15.120 --> 30:20.400] worked as many jobs they see this tool and they're just leveraging it without doing any edits or [30:20.400 --> 30:26.800] any changes to it similar advice or assessments similar advice for interviews so overall for everyone [30:26.800 --> 30:32.080] listening I think there is value potentially if it's right fit for your organization to create [30:32.080 --> 30:38.480] some guidance of what is accepted using gen AI in the interview and hiring process [30:39.680 --> 30:45.200] yeah I would agree having that framework of it's okay to do some prep before you come into [30:45.200 --> 30:52.000] the interview just use it wisely educate yourself on what it is you'd be surprised how many folks [30:52.000 --> 30:58.400] apply to an AI company not really understanding what generative AI is the implications of it [30:58.400 --> 31:03.440] so yes we'd like to see it and we'd love to see how people use it we'll even ask questions during [31:03.440 --> 31:08.480] interviews on like how would you prompt chat gbt in this situation or what prompts would you ask [31:08.480 --> 31:15.200] yeah just to test people on the spot of if they've used it before we are going to see the effects [31:15.200 --> 31:20.640] of gen AI in 2024 we're already starting to see it but last year was where everyone was trying to [31:20.640 --> 31:24.880] figure it out this year a lot of people have figured out but it's moving so quickly so we're [31:24.960 --> 31:31.760] going to have to stay on our toes as recruiters for sure and talking about staying on our toes [31:31.760 --> 31:38.400] I want to talk about a recent article that I read and this has been on my mind because you [31:38.400 --> 31:44.000] work for a tech company you're in the tech sector and the tech sector has been very notorious in [31:44.000 --> 31:50.080] the last year of doing layoffs and please see you coming out and saying it's my mistake I will [31:50.240 --> 31:55.600] hired and that raises the question first of all can we measure [31:56.400 --> 32:02.000] how to workforce plan and how many people we actually need there's a great book that was released in [32:02.000 --> 32:07.920] 2018 called bullshit jobs I don't know if you've ever read it or seen it but I recommend everyone [32:07.920 --> 32:14.400] together because it talks about 30 percent of the jobs in North America are bullshit like there [32:14.400 --> 32:18.880] be no difference if someone's in that role or not in that role and I thought that was fascinating [32:18.880 --> 32:25.520] because I see it I see it in large corporations especially it's really hard in smaller companies [32:25.520 --> 32:32.720] to hide and have a bullshit job but in large organizations it's fairly common so putting [32:32.720 --> 32:39.440] all of that in context are we doing the right thing by not questioning our business leaders of [32:39.440 --> 32:45.440] do you need to hire this and as a recruiter that's a challenge because that's our job right it's [32:45.520 --> 32:51.920] our job to recruit and pushing back and being like are you sure you need this I don't think [32:51.920 --> 33:01.360] a lot of recruiters will do that no I don't hear yeah I'm with you there I think recruiters are [33:01.360 --> 33:08.320] now going to have to wear more of a business partner hat where how can they yeah in terms of [33:08.320 --> 33:14.000] the current workforce and helping to grow and enable those folks within the organization [33:14.800 --> 33:19.760] helping the leaders workforce plan helping the leaders manage their resources versus just always [33:19.760 --> 33:26.160] going externally to market and recruiting recruiters are going to have to add that competitive edge [33:26.160 --> 33:32.240] to their services of just headhunting and filling roles etc looking out for the bottom line of [33:32.240 --> 33:36.000] the business and I think any business leader who partners with a recruiter who's concerned about [33:36.000 --> 33:40.320] their bottom line in their future will be like thank you this is great and I want to thank you [33:40.400 --> 33:45.600] and again it's about being smart and is recruiting always the answer it's hard for recruiters who [33:45.600 --> 33:50.880] literally that is how they pay their bills is the commission from landing but how can we make [33:50.880 --> 33:55.440] space for them to add more value in different ways and maybe be compensated in different ways [33:56.160 --> 34:00.960] I think it's a challenge right and I'm not a hundred percent sure it's fair to ask a recruiter [34:00.960 --> 34:05.760] being like hey push back on a hiring manager depending on how senior that person is how knowledgeable [34:05.760 --> 34:10.640] but this is where talent leaders need to come in and really step up and work on that workforce [34:10.640 --> 34:16.800] plan and make sure that this role is functional for now but also for the future is obviously we're [34:16.800 --> 34:22.240] in a world that you can't go too far ahead like five years from now is too far ahead but two years [34:22.240 --> 34:28.400] probably not and like I partner with resource manager here and so that's what we do together [34:28.400 --> 34:33.360] is look at the quarterly forecast even looking at the year ahead what's coming down and then [34:33.360 --> 34:38.960] looking at our talent force internally who do we absolutely need in the future who can we throw [34:39.520 --> 34:45.600] and we never over hire in the sense of oops we over hired now we have to do a mass layoff [34:45.600 --> 34:51.200] we've been lucky not to do that but it's about that just in time hiring model which I love and [34:51.200 --> 34:57.040] I don't but it does save the company in the long run because everybody wants more people [34:57.040 --> 35:01.760] everybody at any company says I need more help I'm so swamped I would love to hire [35:01.760 --> 35:07.120] 10 more people but eventually do you need those 10 people anymore or are you just going to have [35:07.120 --> 35:11.600] to lay them off you have to be very smart about what's coming down the pipeline in terms of work [35:13.200 --> 35:18.800] on that note did you see the video of her name is Brittany I forget her last name getting fired from [35:18.800 --> 35:26.880] cloud flare what's your thoughts around that video that was extremely [35:27.680 --> 35:34.880] brave of her I would say I don't know if I personally would do that I also wasn't surprised [35:34.880 --> 35:41.200] I've seen a ton of videos from TikTok on people that are recording their internal meetings and [35:41.200 --> 35:49.840] outing their teammates for behaviors so it adds an interesting perspective for HR practitioners [35:49.840 --> 35:55.680] and recruiters as well of okay so if you are having these termination meetings or these layoff [35:55.680 --> 36:01.280] meetings like go in with the thought of this person could be recording me and having your ducks [36:01.280 --> 36:08.880] in a row I think from Brittany's perspective I would be interested to understand what she wanted to [36:08.880 --> 36:15.920] gain out of that and maybe was it just education on she felt wrongfully dismissed and she wanted [36:15.920 --> 36:21.680] to get everything cleared up I'm not too sure but it was very controversial I saw comments [36:21.760 --> 36:26.240] saying how dare she that's very unprofessional I also saw comments on the other end where it was [36:26.240 --> 36:32.800] like go Brittany like yeah so I don't know it's interesting to me but again I'm not surprised [36:32.800 --> 36:38.480] there's more and more out there everybody is recording everything and you just got to be so [36:38.480 --> 36:44.000] careful about the risks from both British side and from the organization so what's the fallout from [36:44.000 --> 36:48.560] both of their brands to now you think about the brand now when Brittany let's say she comes [36:48.560 --> 36:52.080] to apply well are you going to be afraid now because if we do something wrong she's going to record [36:52.080 --> 36:57.840] us like I don't know that's a really good point and I think she's getting her 15 seconds of fame I've [36:57.840 --> 37:04.880] seen her on a ton of podcasts and different interviews she still hasn't found a job so the [37:04.880 --> 37:10.880] challenge is maybe right now this is going to give her some clout but five years from now when [37:10.880 --> 37:16.160] someone tries to hire her and the first thing that pops up when they put their name in Google is [37:16.400 --> 37:24.640] this video it's not going to be great for her so I get why she did it but also I don't know like [37:24.640 --> 37:30.000] and I know the sales process and the cycle but you've been there four and a half months you haven't [37:30.000 --> 37:35.120] sold anything and I know there's discussion like it takes four or five months to sell something there [37:35.680 --> 37:42.160] but on the flip side of it I'm not surprised that it happened but I'll tell you the HR team really [37:42.240 --> 37:47.840] screwed up the leader of that person should be on the call wasn't even there that was no that's [37:47.840 --> 37:53.120] pretty screwed up station side yeah and we'll see in five years she might be a mega star on TikTok [37:53.120 --> 38:00.160] and she won't need a job which is cool as well let's do it so all good yeah on that note thank you [38:00.160 --> 38:05.360] so much Yena for joining me on this episode it was tons of fun it's always good to see you [38:06.160 --> 38:10.640] uh if anyone wants to get a hold of you what's the best way to find Yena Bruso [38:11.280 --> 38:17.840] who linked in baby that is where I live hit me up I am going to promise to the listeners that I will [38:17.840 --> 38:24.000] work on more content more videos I really just you know I need to come alive again stay tuned [38:24.640 --> 38:30.560] follow me for some more tips and tricks and laughs because that's what it's about this was a lot of [38:30.560 --> 38:36.160] fun we have to do it again so I'm just gonna ask Shelly to go in more vacations or work trips or [38:36.160 --> 38:41.920] whatever the hell she's doing for the audience I really appreciate you listening for the folks in [38:41.920 --> 38:48.560] Calgary the Canadian recruiter networking group event February 22nd I think we just sold all the [38:48.560 --> 38:54.320] tickets I'll be the speaker aside from that have a great day oh have a wow [38:55.040 --> 38:57.040] so [39:02.480 --> 39:07.600] Shelly let's face it taxing candidates is the easiest way to hire quicker today [39:08.160 --> 39:13.200] but your cell phone doesn't connect to your ATS you're sharing your personal number with strangers [39:13.200 --> 39:19.200] that's pretty scary right Shelly and it's not even legally compliant mmm this is where our friends [39:19.200 --> 39:24.880] at RecTechs come in they've created simple yet powerful text recruiting software that works with [39:24.880 --> 39:32.480] your ATS plus it's designed by recruiters for recruiters so you know it works to learn more [39:32.480 --> 39:42.800] and book a demo visit www REC txt.com mention the recruitment flex and get 10 off annual plans [39:43.360 --> 39:49.600] imagine how fast we could solve the world's biggest problems if more Saa startups would gain [39:49.600 --> 39:55.440] traction sooner welcome to the tech entrepreneur on the mission podcast this podcast is dedicated [39:55.440 --> 40:01.840] to sharing experiences from B2B Saa CEOs who are going above and beyond to deliver change that is [40:01.840 --> 40:07.200] noticed you will hear their secrets and learn what is required to build a SaaS business that the [40:07.200 --> 40:14.480] world starts talking about and keeps talking about and how to overcome the rel blocks to do so Transcription results written to '/home/forge/transcribe2.sonicengage.com/releases/20240207164437' directory
Navigate
Join the network

If you are a creator and would like to work with us, please send us your show link with a short write-up about the show and yourself to studio[at]ideabrews.com or fill up the form.

Contact Us

© 2023 Ideabrew Solutions Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.