Recruitment & HR

"The language of #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion might change, but impactful work will not." This was the hopeful refrain of many as anti-DEI backlash and political attacks ramped up against this critical work. But as the months drew on, I wasn't seeing any compelling new language. Leaders were watching and waiting, hoping that a new framework would organically emerge that could protect our impact while being more defensible against political attacks. So I started creating that framework myself. The FAIR Framework, standing for Fairness, Access, Inclusion, and Representation, officially launches today in a new feature article for the Harvard Business Review. I wanted to create something that could build on the best of effective DEI work, discard the performative noise, and be firmly comprehensible and defensible by any leader. And after countless hours of research, it boiled down to 4 tenets: 🎯 Outcomes-Based, focused on measurable results rather than flimsy signals of commitment. 🌐 Systems-Focused, using change management to shift workplace systems, rather than surface-level awareness. 🔗 Coalition-Driven, seeking to engage the collective rather than delegating the burden of blame or change onto cliques. 🌱 Win-Win, communicating the benefits of healthier organizations for everyone, rejecting zero-sum framing. FAIR work looks like challenging discrimination in pay, hiring, and promotions, and ensuring that workplace systems set everyone up to succeed. FAIR work looks like removing barriers to participation, using universal design principles to build for all, and including users in every design process. FAIR work looks like creating a workplace culture that recognizes people's differences and ensures a high standard of respect, value, and safety for all. FAIR work looks like participatory decision-making, transparent communications, and strong track records of promises kept and trust maintained. I designed FAIR to be something any leader and practitioner can use—so long as your work meets the core tenets. If I'm being frank, however, a good deal of work calling itself "DEI" does not pass the test. The feel-good trainings with no impact measurement, the never-ending coaching services trying to "fix" the individual but never the systems holding them back, the blame-and-shame strategies that trade a moment of vindication for months of backlash; if we are to survive this moment, we cannot take this kind of "DEI" work with us. I put this framework out into the world with a healthy dose of pride and anxiety. It is far from perfect. It will certainly evolve as practitioners iterate and improve on it. But I truly believe that this is exactly the kind of rigorous, defensible framework leaders need right now to weather this storm and emerge with their impact intact. I hope you find it useful as you seek to do the same. A free gift link is in the comments—please share if it resonates.

Louder for the people at the back 🎤 Many organisations today seem to have shifted from being institutions that develop great talent to those that primarily seek ready-made talent. This trend overlooks the immense value of individuals who, despite lacking experience, possess a great attitude, commitment, and a team-oriented mindset. These qualities often outweigh the drawbacks of hiring experienced individuals with a fixed and toxic mindset. The best organisations attract talent with their best years ahead of them, focusing on potential rather than past achievements. Let’s be clear this is more about mindset and willingness to learn and unlearn as apposed to age. To realise the incredible potential return, organisations must commit to creating an environment where continuous development is possible. This requires a multi-faceted approach: 1. Robust Training Programmes: Employers should invest in comprehensive training programmes that equip employees with the necessary skills for their roles. This includes on-the-job training, mentorship programmes, online courses, and workshops. 2. Redefining Hiring Criteria: Organisations should revise their hiring criteria to focus more on candidates’ potential and willingness to learn rather than solely on prior experience or formal qualifications. Behavioural interviews, aptitude tests, and probationary periods can help assess a candidate's ability to learn and adapt. 3. Partnerships with Educational Institutions: Companies can collaborate with educational institutions to design curricula that align with industry needs. Apprenticeship programmes, internships, and cooperative education can bridge the gap between academic learning and practical job skills. 4. Lifelong Learning Culture: Encouraging a culture of lifelong learning within organisations is crucial. Employers should provide ongoing education opportunities and support for professional development. This includes continuous skills assessment and access to resources for upskilling and reskilling. 5. Inclusive Recruitment Practices: Employers should implement inclusive recruitment practices that remove biases and barriers. Blind recruitment, diversity quotas, and targeted outreach programmes can help ensure that diverse candidates are given a fair chance. By implementing these measures, organisations can develop a workforce that is adaptable, innovative, and resilient, ensuring sustainable success and growth.

Most people think having a human approve an AI decision means the decision is safe. It does not. 👀 There is a term for what actually happens when humans rubber stamp AI outputs under time pressure. Automation bias. It is one of the most documented and underreported risks in enterprise AI right now. After 13 years and 200+ deployments, here is what I have learned about building genuine oversight into AI systems. The human reviewing an output needs three things to actually be in the loop. They need to understand what they are reviewing. They need the context to catch what the model gets wrong. And they need to be genuinely empowered to say no without institutional pressure to simply keep moving. Most organisations have none of those three in place. They have a signature process. That is not the same thing. Before any high-stakes AI output reaches a decision point in your organisation, ask these questions. ➡️ Does the person approving this understand the underlying data well enough to catch an error? ➡️ Is there time built in for genuine review or just enough time to click approve? ➡️ What happens if someone says no? Is that genuinely supported? If the answer to any of those is no… you do not have human oversight. You have automation bias with a human signature attached. What does genuine human oversight look like in your organisation right now? #ai #leadership #futureofwork #artificialintelligence #aistrategy #teamhuman #intellectualatrophy #criticalthinking

The best founders do one thing brilliantly... Hire. Here’s how we think about finding & attracting A-players for our portfolio companies: Most owners hire like they're running a restaurant. They think more cooks = faster service. Instead, they get a kitchen full of people bumping into each other, burning food, and blaming everyone else. That’s why hiring isn’t a numbers game. You don't need more people. You need the RIGHT people. It’s impossible to build a worthwhile business with mediocre talent. Over the years, we've developed a framework to find, attract, and close the top 0.001%. I call it the 4 C's to Top-Level Talent: 1. CURATE Start hiring before you start hiring. Follow smart people in your niche on Twitter. Connect on LinkedIn. Bookmark stuff that makes you say, "Damn, I wish I wrote that." Treat talent like a portfolio. Study first, invest later. The best hires happen when you're NOT desperately hiring. 1. CULTIVATE Engage without being weird. Compliment their stuff. Comment. Ask smart questions. Send them ideas. The best talent moves when THEY'RE ready, not when you need them. Plant seeds early. Water them consistently. 3. CLOSE When it's time to close the sale, go HARD. Fly them in. Meet their spouse. Pay more than you're comfortable with. I wasn't even looking for a company President when I met Marc. I wanted a CRO. But after one conversation, I knew he was our guy. So I changed the org to fit HIM. That's how good hires work. They change you. Don't squeeze top talent into your current structure. Bend your business around exceptional people. 4. CONTINUE Top performers won't always stay forever. That's okay. Even when they leave, keep them close. My old Head of Content now runs a 7-figure business. We still trade notes. They send better talent than any recruiter ever could. As someone who’s hired 100s of people, take it from me: Your best hires won't walk in the door with a resume in hand. They're already working somewhere else, crushing it. It’s your job to go find them. Hiring the right people is one of the most powerful growth levers for any business. If you want to see exactly how we attract and retain top-tier talent across our portfolio, I’ll be breaking it all down in an upcoming workshop (tomorrow). This is just one of several proven scaling strategies we’ll cover— more info here: https://lnkd.in/emd63SuT

I flew to the US a few months back and attended Justin Welsh's talk on LinkedIn growth. The man has grown to 770K followers in 5 years. I'm still at 290K in 4 years. Here's what I am doing wrong/right: Let's talk about what I'm doing wrong first. → Value-add commenting - Justin uses the "CEA" formula (Compliment, Expand, Ask) on 5-10 posts daily with surgical precision. Meanwhile, I comment when something randomly catches my eye. → Micro-interviews - He actively reaches out to influencers with thoughtful, specific questions about their expertise, then shares their responses as posts (with permission). → Trend translation - He has Google Alerts set up for industry keywords and is consistently first to explain what breaking news means for his specific niche. → Early comment engagement - He replies to the first 6-8 comments within minutes of posting, which signals to LinkedIn's algorithm that his content is engaging and boosts reach. → Systematic repurposing - He turns one piece of research or insight into 5-6 different posts: the main insight, a contrarian take, a personal story illustrating it, a how-to guide, a mistake to avoid, and a future prediction. → Strategic collaborations - I used to create joint content, co-host discussions, and cross-promote with other creators in my space. But I've completely neglected this, missing out on audience overlap and compound growth opportunities. What I'm doing right: → Posting consistently - I publish 4 times a week without fail. This consistency has built trust with my audience and kept me top-of-mind. → Killer hooks - I spend genuine time crafting that first line to stop the scroll. Keep the hooks <280 characters → Behind-the-scenes content - I share failures, mistakes, and real struggles without sugar-coating them. → Contrarian takes - I'm not afraid to share unpopular opinions. → Strategic giveaways - I regularly offer valuable downloadable resources that actually solve problems. → Authentic storytelling - I write like I talk, sharing personal experiences that illustrate broader business principles. The biggest difference is that he's intentional about every single move. I post consistently and create good content, but I haven’t been strategic enough with profile optimization, early comment engagement, or systematic repurposing. Time to level up. Growth isn’t just about posting more. It’s about being smarter with how you use the platform.

Hiring good people is just the start. Onboarding well is the key to keeping them. The truth about weak onboarding: ↳ It costs you 2-3x more in the long run ↳ Creates unnecessary imposter syndrome ↳ Breeds preventable mistakes ↳ Kills momentum before it starts What strong onboarding actually looks like: 1. Structured First 90 Days • Clear milestones and wins • Regular check-in rhythm • Progressive responsibility increase 2. Support System That Works • Dedicated mentor assignments • Cross-team introductions • "Stupid question" channels 3. Resources Ready Day 1 • Updated documentation • Tool access pre-configured • Team processes explained 4. Learning Built Into The Schedule • Protected learning blocks • Practice environments • Feedback loops Stop expecting people to "figure it out." Start investing in their success. The best companies know: A slow start beats a false start. What was your best (or worst) onboarding experience? ♻ Share if you believe in better onboarding

The most important skills today and in the next years will be human capabilities: critical and analytic thinking, resilience, leadership and influence, overlaid with technological literacy and AI skills to amplify these human capacities. World Economic Forum's new Future of Jobs Report provides a deep and broad analysis of the drivers of labour market transformation, the outlook for jobs and skills, and workforce strategies across industries and nations. It's a really worthwhile deep dive if you're interested in the topic (link in comments). Here are some of the highlights from the Skills section, which to my mind is at the heart of it. 🧠 Analytical Thinking Leads Core Skills. Skills like analytical thinking (70%), resilience (66%), and creative thinking (64%) top the list of core abilities for 2025. By 2030, the emphasis shifts even more towards AI and big data proficiency (85%), technological literacy (76%), and curiosity-driven lifelong learning (79%). This shift underscores the critical role of technology and adaptability in future workplaces. 📉 Skill Stability Declines but at a Slower Rate. Employers predict that 39% of workers' core skills will change by 2030, slightly lower than 44% in 2023. This reflects a stabilization in the pace of skill disruption due to increased emphasis on upskilling and reskilling programs. Half of the workforce now engages in training as part of long-term learning strategies compared to 41% in 2023, showcasing the growing adaptation to technological changes . 🌍 Economic Disparities in Skill Disruption. Middle-income economies anticipate higher skill disruption compared to high-income ones. This disparity highlights the uneven challenges of transitioning labor forces across global regions, particularly in economies still grappling with structural changes. 🚀 Tech-Savvy Skills in High Demand. The adoption of frontier technologies, including generative AI and machine learning, is increasing the demand for skills like big data analysis, cybersecurity, and technological literacy. These trends indicate that businesses are aligning workforce strategies to integrate these advancements effectively. 📚 Upskilling Is the Norm, Not the Exception. By 2030, 73% of organizations aim to prioritize workforce upskilling as a response to ongoing disruptions. This reflects a shift in corporate investment priorities towards human capital enhancement to maintain competitiveness.

The relocation decisions of male-female couples are predominantly determined by what's best for the man's career: 1. Couples are more likely to relocate when a man is laid off than after a woman is. 2. Men's earnings increase following a couple's move to a new commuting zone, while women's earnings stay the same or decline. This in part because women spend less time working, particularly in the first year after the move when they are more likely than men to be job hunting. The gender gap persists for at least five years and is largest among couples who are in their 20s. The researchers study Germany and Sweden, and attribute the results to relocation decisions being driven by antiquated gender norms. They conclude that "households in both countries place less weight on income earned by a woman compared to a man, particularly in Germany." By Seema Jayachandran, Lea Nassal, Matthew J. Notowidigdo, Marie Paul, Heather Sarsons, and Elin Sundberg. https://lnkd.in/eHSXi5Mj

Recruiters penalize men much more than women for wanting to work part-time. Evidence from an online recruitment platform in Switzerland in a paper forthcoming in Journal of Labor Economics by Daniel Kopp. Here's the Abstract of the paper: "I investigate how easy it is for men and women to get a part-time job. I first analyze the selection behavior of recruiters who screen jobseekers on an online recruiting platform and estimate contact penalties for men and women seeking part-time work. Second, I relate the number of hours advertised in online vacancies to firms’ confidentially reported gender preferences. I find that recruiters prefer full-time workers and that part-time penalties are more pronounced for men than for women. Differences in job or workplace characteristics cannot explain these results. Instead, the preponderance of evidence points to bias due to gender stereotypes" The paper concludes that "the reluctance of recruiters to hire part-time working men is likely to be an additional barrier to a more equal division of paid and unpaid work by gender". This is consistent with survey evidence cited in the paper that almost 40% of employed men in Switzerland would like to work fewer hours. Read the full paper here: Daniel Kopp (2025), Do Recruiters Penalize Men Who Prefer Low Hours? Evidence from Online Labor Market Data, Journal of Labor Economics, forthcoming. https://lnkd.in/eHta9P2i Ungated working paper version: https://lnkd.in/eBT9DmNA

After listening to over one hundred senior HR leaders in recent workshops, one message came through crystal clear: the difference between aspirational HR agendas and sustainable impact isn't just about knowing what to do, it's about having the courage to actually do it. While we've made tremendous progress identifying the critical human capability agendas of our time (talent acquisition, leadership development, organizational transformation, and HR evolution), I've observed that without personal courage, these remain wishful thinking rather than transformative reality. The HR professionals who truly create stakeholder value are those who overcome fear with confidence, challenge the status quo, and turn their values into daily behaviors. In my latest article, I explore courage not just as a timeless virtue, but as an essential HR competency for today's disruptive workplace. I break down the "why, what, and how" of courage: from understanding it as an emerging agenda, to developing the mindset, to mastering seven specific skills that help navigate the paradoxes every HR leader faces. The seven skills particularly fascinate me because they're about learning when to take informed risks versus practicing restraint, when to challenge versus confirm, and when to be vulnerable versus confident. These aren't contradictions. They're the nuanced judgments that separate good HR professionals from great ones. I'm curious about your experience: What role has courage played in your most significant HR wins? When have you seen the absence of courage limit an organization's human capability potential? And which of the courage paradoxes do you find most challenging to navigate in your current role?