#171 - Everyone's Blaming AI for Layoffs. Here's What's Actually Happening: Philipp Muelbert

Speaker A: Welcome to the Outthinkers podcast. Plug into fascinating minds and breakthrough ideas that are transforming industries and the world. I'm your host, Kyan Krippendorf, founder of Outthinker, uh, a global think tank comprised of strategy and transformation officers who are shaping the future of business. If this describes you, join us@outthinker.com Today's

Speaker B: episode is a special one as our

Speaker A: guest joins us from lhh, our sponsor and a company whose mission we deeply believe in. A beautiful working world starts when leaders inspire and elevate others. And LHH partners with organizations around the globe to identify, develop and support the talent that drives meaningful transformation. Because when people thrive, organizations thrive. Learn more@lhh.com LHH a beautiful working world.

Speaker C: Companies leaning into, uh, their people, into their talent as a first. And those are the companies that will win. Those are the companies that will win, that build that really strong culture which will provide a clear differentiator for them because technology to some degree is becoming democratized and more accessible, as are other elements. What will be a lasting point of differentiation for companies is the culture which is driven by the individuals and the people. And likewise those companies that swap out talent and that don't make that investment, they're the ones that risk becoming commoditized and being sidelined.

Speaker A: Today we are going to challenge an assumption that is so deeply ingrained that honestly, most companies and leaders accept it as just the way things are. And joining me is Philip Molbert. He is the group Senior Vice president of strategy, performance and Innovation at lhh, where he shapes the company's strategic direction. He leads M M and A and drives its product and innovation roadmap. His career spans corporate strategy at Iron Mountain and years in management consulting. He brings a strategist discipline to a question most companies get wrong. What do you actually do with your people when the skills you need change? In this conversation, Philip lays out three loops companies fall into when they are shifting their talent needs. The churn loop from fire and rehire. That's the one that I said we always accept as the natural way to go. A better loop of exiting people well, and why that is so important. And the emerging best loop of redeploying talent internally. First, if you learn how to do that well, he shares the numbers and makes the case impossible to ignore. 60% of the half a million people that LHH supports each year end up in a full career pivot. Companies rehire 10 to 20% of laid off employees within a year. And redeployment saves an average of $140,000 per person versus an external hire. We also get into why AI has become a convenient justification for restructuring the hidden cultural costs of churn, including survivor syndrome among the people that are left behind. And why almost no organization has a head of redeployment or a budget for one.

Speaker B: In fact.

Speaker A: Now let's dive into this week's episode with Philip Molberg.

Speaker B: Thank you for being here. It's great to have you with us. Where are you joining us from today?

Speaker C: Thank you for having me. It's great to be here. I am joining from Brookline today, not far from Fenway. Ah.

Speaker B: Uh, great. Outside of Boston.

Speaker C: Any of the baseball fans? Okay, great.

Speaker B: Awesome. Are you a baseball fan?

Speaker C: Hey, I'm German, so I'm more of a soccer fan. Currently deep into the World Cup. But yes, we do enjoy going, uh, very few of Red Sox games every year.

Speaker A: So I want to start off with

Speaker B: two questions that I always ask all of our guests. And the first one is just for us to get to know you a little bit personally. Could you complete this sentence for me?

Speaker A: If you really know me, you know

Speaker C: that you really know me, you know that I love a good problem and I love a good challenge. I like to tinker the way I'd put it and be it on little gadgets. So it can be taking things apart and rebuilding them or taking a problem apart and rebuilding it. So those are things that I like to occupy my time.

Speaker B: What's an example of a gadget that you've taken apart?

Speaker C: Uh, well, it was building. In this case, it was not that long ago I gifted my son a, uh, remote controlled car that you had to build from scratch for his birthday. Turned out to be more of a gift for myself, if I'm honest. But we built that together and had a fantastic time doing it. Awesome.

Speaker B: I love it. I love it. Second question. You're a strategist by trade. By practice, what's your definition of strategy?

Speaker C: Uh, I'll give you a short version and a slightly longer version on the short version, simply put, a decision framework for capital and resource allocation.

Speaker B: And I think like this, this topic of resource allocation sounds sort of the domain of finance, but it really is like the center of strategy, right?

Speaker C: It is about prioritizing where you put your resources, right? Where do we see an opportunity in the market, and that leads to a slightly longer version. Right? It's sort of a perspective and a bet on where you see a market going. And based on that, making your decisions for resource allocation. Where do I Have a right to win. Where do I go? But yes, I'm a firm believer that it comes down to resource allocation. Put your money where the opportunities are and remove from those areas that are distraction.

Speaker B: Right. And that's the hardest part, I think, is removing, removing the money after you've started. Cool.

Speaker A: All right.

Speaker B: We're going to get into talent, the future of talent. And it's, uh, really a gift for us to have you here because you and lhh do so much in the whole cycle of talent. And so I'm excited to dive into this with you. I just want to start off with kind of looking at what is the new reality of talent that we're experiencing now. And I want you to kind of like unpack, kind of like what some of the challenges are. But first let's talk about just generally what, what in your experience has actually changed in organizations about how they think about talent over the last few years?

Speaker C: Yeah, the, the way that organizations think about talent has very much been impacted by this broader sense of urgency and uncertainty. As we're all painfully aware, companies, all of us, are operating at a time where uncertainty has gone up significantly, be it macroeconomic uncertainty, geopolitical uncertainty, uncertainty from AI disruption, the list goes on. And all of that uncertain, um, very much impacts the way organizations think about their talent as well, because it dictates for them a need to be more flexible and to be more agile in the way they operate. So from a talent standpoint, that means now all of a sudden I need a workforce and a talent pool that is moving from a job mindset to skills and capabilities mindset. How do I create a, uh, pool of skills and capabilities that I can easily redeploy depending on how the needs evolve? So that means a lot of flexibility built in, more focus on having the right skills and the right mix of skills in the organization. There's also consideration for the blend of my workforce between full time employees and more flexible models. Again, leaning towards more flexible models where optional is preferable because it maintains some of the flexibility that we just talked about.

Speaker B: Yeah, so you have these two different dimensions of like the, the human talent and then how we organize them, all that human talent. I guess what I'm, I'm kind of envisioning is the jobs and the careers might shift a lot and, but the, the kind of, the more constant are the capabilities. And so you want to be able to like reapply those capabilities into different jobs. Are you seeing that? Just anecdotally from the outside, it seems to me that the usual career path of I leave one, one job in one company and go to a similar job in another company, a similar job in another company, and kind of, um, I'm following a career trajectory that's been followed before that that seems to be less common. Are you seeing that? Have you guys researched that?

Speaker C: Absolutely. So the traditional career path of the past is just that. It is a thing of the past and it may still exist in certain roles here and there. But increasingly we're seeing folks move away from a traditional career path to a skills model and applying those skills. We see that particularly pronounced when we look at the candidates that we support through our placement business. We support roughly half a million individuals in their transition every year. And traditionally folks would have approached their job search by saying, okay, I was in job A and I'm going to look for that exact same job in company X now. And most of the time that's exactly what they would do and they would be successful in that change. Today, uh, interestingly enough, most people still approach their job search that way. Roughly 75% or so of individuals who are looking for a like for like role, turns out the vast majority of them actually won't be able to land in the same role. They need to go through a significant career transition and the whole pivot. And it's roughly 60% of the individuals that we support end up going through a full career pivot because their role, the way that it used to exist, no longer exists. And that change didn't just materialize in their current company or in the company, they're just exiting. That is a broader change that they're seeing.

Speaker B: 60%, that's a big number. And that sort of answers the other next question I was going to ask, which is is it demand driven or supply driven? But if 75% of people are saying I want job A now in company x and then 60% end up with some kind of job change, then it's got to be demand driven.

Speaker C: It is demand driven. Yes, because you're right. The vast majority of individuals are still of the mindset I want to stay in the path that I've been on. I will say there are two factors playing into it though. One is absolutely demand driven. There is also just an inherent human factor that comes into play. We've been in a role for a certain amount of time. We're comfortable with it. We know know it. And breaking out of that comfort zone is not natural. Individuals generally have been enrolled for two plus years. Right. So they know a particular path. They have A vision of their future in mind already. And they need help opening their perspective to alternative paths. And until somebody has given them that help and that fresh perspective, the, the spectrum of what the possible entails tends to be somewhat limited.

Speaker B: And I mean we're gonna certainly AI is gonna come in here at several points, but it does seem to me that AI is probably driving a lot of the outplacement or a lot of the reasons for people to be looking for different careers. How is AI affecting supply of talent? Let's say.

Speaker C: Yeah, maybe before I answer that directly, let me speak a little bit about the AI of the impact of AI on transformations more broadly. Because there's been a lot of discussion in the press these days around AI leading tool, significant layoffs across.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

Speaker C: And uh, without a doubt AI is changing the world of work. It is changing and impacting roles. But I think it's also fair to say that for many companies it's been relatively easy to point to AI as a justification for their restructuring. And there's sort of a dual benefit to it. One is it's the restructuring leads to cost reductions, which also is generally well received by the street. But by framing it in the context of AI, it also signals to the street that they're forward leaning, they're embracing new technology, which again is very well received by the streets. I think there's a bit of an incentive for organizations to maybe overstate the impact of AI in some of these scenarios.

Speaker B: So some of these, some of these layoffs might have been in the works anyway. They might have happened anyway. But now I can point to AI and the advantages of these multiple advantages.

Speaker C: Absolutely. And AI may have played a role to some degree. Right. But it's easier to use that as a primary justification as opposed to sort of a side note. And as we think about how that's starting to evolve, we've all seen these statistics. People are starting to realize now that 70, 95%, 70, 95% of enterprise AI initiatives either fail or are being abandoned. And so it started to raise a bit of questions around how quickly can we really gain the benefits of AI and to what degree do you want to put that at the forefront of everything that you're saying and doing? So there's no question that AI will have significant impact on business. The speed with which we're able to recognize some of these benefits and the speed with which it will be embraced by organizations. I think that remains to be seen and will be a lot slower than first anticipated. So I think we'll start seeing the narrative here as it relates to some uh, of these transformation also changing slightly.

Speaker B: So what do you think a company should be doing? What are they doing wrong and what, what, what should they be doing?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think there is a recognition that you can't move too quickly and that it is not a one size fits all type of answer for every organization. For companies to really unpack the value of AI, there is a skills component, a technical skills component. Do my team members have the right skills and the right tools available to them? There is a cultural component. Are they ready to embrace it and are they. Because it creates a lot of sort, um, of discomfort and uncertainty. So how does that play into and how do I manage the cultural change? And there is a sort of an organizational component where I really need to fundamentally understand my processes and rebuild those processes in the right way. So embracing all three elements in an effective way, that will help facilitate the transformation.

Speaker B: So let's dig a little bit into that skills component you shared with me as we're preparing for this, that over recent years, employees have increasingly been expecting companies to invest in their development in their careers. And now AI is requiring rapid learning of new skills. Creating anxiety. Huh? How are you seeing that people that you work with are describing that fear?

Speaker C: Yeah, you're absolutely right. And it's interesting, right? Even in what has been a challenging job market in most countries over the last few years, we've seen that employees have continued to raise their, their expectations towards companies and towards their employer in terms of a number of different areas. Sort of. One example is they want to make sure they have an expectation that their employer's values are aligned with theirs and are representative of theirs. And that's one of the ways by which they screen and evaluate potential employer. And as we're moving into this world of AI, one of the key components is investment and scaling, making sure that I continue to be relevant and have ability and a path within the organization that continues to be or is increasingly something that plays out. There's a bit of a fear amongst employees, partially driven by some of the public press and the narrative that we see around a lot of these transitions, that with AI coming along, they were just sitting there waiting to be used until their useful life has come to an end, so to speak, and then will be disposed of when their job is now replaced by AI. And uh, clearly that's a, it's a terrifying thought and it also doesn't quite reflect the reality. But you can see why some individuals may start sensing that and feeling that. So as a result they're being much more proactive and vocal about their expectations around spilling so that they feel confident they continue to have a role in the organization and continue to advance their career. And I'll say, uh, organizations equally increasingly recognize and acknowledge the issue, so they're not blind to this topic. And as such we do see more proactive investment in these programs on behalf of the companies.

Speaker B: Gotcha. Great. Yeah, I want to then dig further into this like investment versus replacement. So what I kind of hear you kind of pointing to is that the traditional approach is, uh, as my business evolves and m my business model evolves, I need different types of skills, different types of people. And the way to do that is fire the old people and then hire new people with those skills. So that's like one approach. But what are the different ways that companies think about, or should think about adapting their talent to the skills that they need for the future?

Speaker C: Yeah, I'd say broadly speaking there's sort of three different models that you can find in the market. And there are always some nuances. But let me put them into three broad categories. The first one we can call kind of the churn loop, which is a variant of what you just described right here. You determine you have a needs that is not met by the talent that you have today. You lay off folks and you hire new folks. There's very little regard given to the individual in this approach. You're really focused on addressing near term skills gaps without much of a regard for longer term impact. The second variant, call it a slightly improved version of number one, is sort of the better loop here where we still exit people and hire from outside, but we exit people well, we take care of them on the way out. So in this case we acknowledge that the individual that's being impacted matters and cares. We want to cater to them, make sure that they manage the transition successfully and the impact on them is minimized. So it gives us an opportunity to maintain the relationship that we've invested in, built with them, mutual relationship. Now between those two categories, that's where we probably see most of the activity today. Most companies fall into one of those two groups. The third path that's starting to emerge now, which is uh, more I'd associate more with leading companies leading from an HR and talent perspective is call it the best loop here, right. Where you're focused predominantly and primarily on re or upskilling of existing talent. So you look at redeployment opportunities for your existing Talent before you look externally. Which isn't to say that you never hire externally, there's always need for external hires. But your philosophy changes and you lead with an internal first mindset.

Speaker B: So I would like to dig into each of those a little bit. And um, um, um, the way I'm kind of thinking of it, I'm alluding it to say marketing and customers. And a very inefficient way of marketing is to, I mean you see this all the time when telephone companies seem to do this. If you're a new customer, then you get all this free perks and if you're an existing customer and then what happens is the person leaves and then comes back and so you're constantly reacquiring. And I can imagine also with talent you're also re, you have the cultural kind of, uh, acculturation, uh, and all of that, but, but yet still the default model is this churn model and that's deep.

Speaker A: So why do you think, what are

Speaker B: some of the reasons that companies are still defaulting to that path?

Speaker C: Yeah, and I like your analogy. I think you're spot on in terms of why do companies still default to this. I think it's quite simple. It's generally one of two reasons and I'd say primarily one, it's cost pressures. It's sort of what you can do at the lowest cost on paper, I should say, right out the gate. Right. And the other reason which I don't think is as common but also comes into play is just the recognition or realization that I have a need that I need to address this very moment. So there's, there's a sense of urgency that's sometimes hard to address through internal talent.

Speaker B: It seems faster to hire someone who already has that than to upskill someone who could have.

Speaker C: Exactly.

Speaker B: Gotcha.

Speaker C: And there's also, I mean keep in mind that going through a more sophisticated version is not easy. It is complicated. So thinking ahead and laying the foundation for a more thought out process is really complicated. You need to identify and track the skill set you have in house. You need to identify and anticipate the skill set you might need in the future. You need to make sure that you have the right budgets in place to support the training requirements and develop those training requirements. So those are all hurdles that you need, would need to address to avoid falling into this trap of just churning through individuals. Right. And there's also a cultural component that you need to address. So there are a number of, admittedly there are a number of factors that complicate this process. So it is tempting to fall into this trap of. Okay, let me just react right now. I think the last consideration also is, uh, what I alluded to, sort of by saying on paper at least.

Speaker B: Yeah. So I want to dig in there. Why you use the word on paper. What's not on paper?

Speaker C: There are significant costs associated with. But they tend to be hidden and thus they're. They're easy to ignore at. At first.

Speaker B: What are some of those not things that aren't on paper, those costs?

Speaker C: I think the sort of, probably the. That list, the most significant cost is the impact it has on the culture of an organization. And it's really hard to overstate the impact that a churn model has on the culture of an organization. We as humans and employees take notice of how we're being treated. And it's true for the individuals that are being exited as much as it is true for the individuals that are staying behind. So you see a significant erosion in terms of engagement, in terms of trust, which then leads to decline in productivity. You have a, what we call sometimes a survivor syndrome amongst the folks that are being left behind.

Speaker B: What's the survivor syndrome?

Speaker C: The individuals that are being left behind, they face two issues. One's the guilt of the folks facing, the guilt that had lost. The number of significant team members that they've built close relationships with. We all have friendships at board, people that we value, that we respect, that we trust. And if we see that they're being treated poorly on the way out, there's an emotional consideration for that and we feel bad for them. The ones that we're still here, we still have gainful employment and we can't help them. And there is a certain amount of resentment that they're starting to build and concern that what happens to people, you know, when it's my turn? So there's significant cultural impact. There are also other elements. You have institutional knowledge that's being lost in the organization. So there is a lot that's walking out the door now for the folks, then on the opposite end, the people that you're bringing in, you also need to recognize that it's not that easy to attract and retain the right talent. And one of the biggest challenges companies still continue to face. So even once you've dealt with the folks exiting and the people that are in the organization need to worry about the new people that you're trying to attract, retaining those is really hard. And a number of our clients will continuously tell us that new hire retention is one of their bigger challenges. When it comes to the talent acquisition cycle, they come with a different background, different culture, integrating in the new environment that's now got a lot of friction. It becomes quite challenging.

Speaker B: Yes. Yeah. We had a guest on here recently who a Harvard professor. He's talking about culture and his views. Culture, it's not values, it is the way we do things here. And so I think that kind of you bring in people who just do things differently and they have to adjust or you have to adjust and that can slow things down. It's hard to anticipate what that uh, means.

Speaker C: Absolutely. And once you have enough friction in the system that starts showing up in your client interactions, your external interactions. So then also it has very real business in fact.

Speaker B: So now you've already started laying out some of the answer to my next question, but I just want to see if you have any other. So why is it then? What are the. Why should a company do outplacement? Well, why should they treat people well as, as, as they leave?

Speaker C: Yeah, we started talking about some of it. But maybe let me start with sort of the primary reason that most companies probably start with, if we're honest and, and uh, it's simply brand protection. Right. So um, treating people well at any stage of the relationship matters and people take notice, your partners take notice, your clients take notice. And as such, companies see it as a valuable investment. And I agree with them. It's. It makes a big difference. Right. Keep in mind that each person that leaves is a, uh, future point of reference. They could be a spokesperson for you. They could be a potential client, a potential partner, or a future rehire at some point as well.

Speaker B: Talk to me about rehire. Is that common?

Speaker C: Uh, absolutely. Actually you'd be surprised at how common it is. And it is a real consideration for companies beyond just the brand, sort of broader brand protection umbrella and prob it in the next highest, one of the next highest categories of reasons why going through a good exit program is important. They what we see is that a significant number of companies rehire employees that have just been laid off even within a 6 to 12 month period. Sometimes these degree hire rate of 10 to 20%. Beyond that you see companies tapping into alumni as a real network for them as employee pool longer term as well. But so you see both of those phenomenas picking up and there's a very good reason for it. These are individuals that are a known entity, so to speak. You already have an understanding of their skills and background. They're familiar with your culture and you know that culturally they Realign. So going back to the point of the discussion that ah, we just had, where it's hard to bring somebody externally in and make sure that they really get grounded and find their footing, build their network. These individuals already have the benefit of bringing all of that to the table. And as we all know, downsizings aren't a reflection or people going through a downsizing effort. Uh, that's not a reflection of who they are as a professional. That's certainly capable, highly skilled individuals that are always impacted by this. So there is good talent that you lose in any of these processes and if you have an opportunity to reflame that.

Speaker B: So what are some of the key things that you need to do? Well in order to. Because I can. I love this idea. It's almost like having permeable boundaries around the company where you have kind of this ecosystem of alumni that are a talent source for you, that you want to maintain and that can be an advantage, can be a very variable, flexible source of talent. So what are the things that you need to do to be able to do that? And I think I'm just trying to think of companies that do it well. I know I can just think of some companies where people are proud that I am, um, an alum of this company or that company and they still have an identity with them. Um, what, what are like the top things that a company needs to do to be able to bring that strategic advantage and develop goodwill among alumni.

Speaker C: Yeah, it's. But I think it starts, but it starts while you're still engaged with the company. Right. Because it is first need to build that association and the relationship with the company. So a strong culture in the company. Company is a key component of it. And that culture then also translates into the way that the exit is managed and handled and they're really taking care of the individuals on their way out. Everything from communication to the various support services that are being provided over the course of the process. It is coaching on your opportunities, understanding different pathways that are available to you, providing skilling programs in certain cases. Even so, we're increasingly seeing companies actually invest in upscaling of individuals that are being exited. Which seems, might seem slightly counterintuitive at first, but there's, there's why am I

Speaker B: investing in this person building skills that they're just going to take somewhere else. Very interesting.

Speaker C: Exactly right. So there you see companies increasingly doing that and individuals very much take notice of that. That leaves a lasting impression, which then makes it much easier for you to re engage with them at Any given point in time on any number of topics, even if it is before a job. Right. And you see companies managing full alumni programs where they have engagement opportunities, reunions, so on and so forth, even outside of the rehiring community.

Speaker B: I love the idea of redeployment, but that's just sort of more personal to me. My mission in life is people loving what they do. And so I love the idea of being able to. People being able to have the flexibility to redeploy into roles that are more stretch or more inspiring and staying with the company and contributing to this company that they believe in. But that's a soft, emotional kind of argument. What's the hard argument? What's the cost argument for? Don't just fire them, don't even outplace them. Well, for as alum, but actually redeploy them. What's. Give me the numbers.

Speaker C: You're right. I think there's sort of a feel good element that we can all relate to that says, yes, this feels like the right thing to do. But as we know, companies generally need to make money. And as it turns out, redeployment makes great economic sense. On average, redeploying an individual versus hiring an external candidate saves a company about $140,000 per individual. And that's a combination of separation costs, outplacement costs, rehiring, training costs. So there is very real dollar impact associated with a redeployment program and one that can be very easily tracked and demonstrated.

Speaker B: Interesting, Interesting.

Speaker C: If you put on your CFO hat and you start walking through the math, it becomes very appealing very quickly.

Speaker B: Yeah, it's almost like kind of doing an NPV on an employee. And maybe we're right now doing this NPV calculation just looking very short term and not carrying it forward for multiple years. Absolutely fascinating. So then, so you've, you've been doing redeployment for a long time. What, what are, like, what are the. How do you do it? Well, what are the key success factors to doing that?

Speaker C: Well, yeah, let me. I mean, here, let's be honest. Doing redeployment well, it's hard. It is not easy, which is why it is not the go to option or the default option for every business out there. So even with the financial return that I just mentioned, many companies are struggling to get there. And when we talked a little bit earlier in the churn loop, we touched on some of the challenges with a good redeployment program. So you need to understand your current skill Sets that are inherent in your organization. You need to be able to accurately anticipate future needs 12 to 18 months out. You need to be able to map pathways for individuals, current roles that are changing to potential future roles. You need to identify training and scaling capabilities and everything and budget for those. You need to address cultural roadblocks and the list kind of goes on. So what is really important is that you take a holistic approach. You can't just look at one piece in isolation and hope that it works. So you can't just do the mapping of some skills for individuals without taking into account some of the cultural hurdles that may turn into roadblocks for you. As an example, if you don't engage with the receiving manager in advance and make sure that their mindset is such that they openly embrace and value internal talent over external talent, or at least put it at parity, you can face a resistance there. Frequently we see individuals saying, well, internal talent can't be as good as external talent because we can go hire the perfect person outside and that's just going to be that much better. So it's small things like that. If you ignore any one of these pieces, it becomes a real roadblock. So uh, you need to make sure that you look at it truly holistically and you need to coordinate across the various functions that are impacted. Now that can seem a bit daunting, I admit. Right. Because wow, that's a lot to bite off and requires really long term planning, which at full scale it absolutely is. But they're. There are smaller areas in which you can start in smaller ways. You can unpack it. Uh, so the most obvious one is if you know you have an event coming up or certain individuals will be impacted, but immediately move into a mode of understanding their skill sets, understanding current gaps and known gaps in the organization. Can we even start with a small pool of individuals that we're looking at redeploying as opposed to doing it immediately at scale.

Speaker B: Got it.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: I mean it seems like obvious and you've got the numbers to prove it and you've take a longer term view on the cut like the, I don't know, maybe not customer lifetime value, but employee lifetime value. It'd be great if we could measure that. It's kind of a no brainer. But then why is executing that so hard?

Speaker C: Uh, it's a great question, right? Why wouldn't everybody just do it? Looking at the financials and at the heart of it, I think is one key issue. Redeployment requires coordination amongst Multiple functions and teams. So it's the business side, it's talent acquisition, talent development, finance, so on and so forth. And that means there is no single owner that sits on top of it. So you have organizations that have a, uh, head of talent acquisition. Pretty much every major organization had talent acquisition. Same for talent development. What you will not find, generally speaking, is ahead of redeployment. There is no single person that owns that whole process end to end. Nor is there a budget that sits with that one individual that can facilitate that. So working across the silos does become a roadblock.

Speaker B: Got it. That's interesting. That's a more pernicious part of the problem rather than the complexity of the multi prong kind of approach. But at least that seems like one, that if you could solve that, then that could be the domino that solves the other. If you can recognize this as a capability and have the budget for it.

Speaker C: And we're starting to see that with some of our clients. So there are some clients that effectively are instituting this new role of a head of redeployment who is charged with facilitating the process and coordinating and aligning all the resources and making sure that the budgets are in support of that. But I'd uh, say those are, the organizations are still very much at the forefront of the thinking and it is not yet the norm, but it is something that everybody can embrace. Right. It is a step that every organization can absolutely take.

Speaker B: Got it. Yeah. So it's fascinating. I'm kind of like starting to see like these three loops. We got the very common expensive loop, the less common but less expensive loop, and then we have the uncommon redeployment loop. I mean, my mind is buzzing a little bit just imagining what it would look like if we moved away from just the standard metaphor of fire the old talent, hire new talent. If we did that, if companies really behave that way, or companies that really behave that way, just zoom out for us and tell us, say five years from now, what does that look like?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think what it really means, it's companies leaning into their people, into their talent as a first priority. And those are the companies that will win. Those are the companies that will win, that build that really strong culture which will provide a clear differentiator for them. Because technology to some degree is becoming democratized and more accessible, as are other elements. What will be a lasting point of differentiation for companies is the culture which is driven by the individuals and the people. And likewise those companies that swap out talent and that don't make that investment. They are the ones that risk becoming commoditized and being sidelined.

Speaker B: Yeah, because that, yeah, it makes so much sense because that talent is on the market and someone else could just buy it as well. It's transactional and so the technology is transactional and that makes, that makes a ton of sense. It makes it and it. And for me at least it's more an inspiring future as well.

Speaker C: And keep in mind, people recognize. It's stating the obvious here, but people recognize when they're being treated well and when they're not being treated well and when they are being treated Val. Um, when they feel appreciated and recognized, they pay that back in dividends. They go above and beyond for their team members and for their clients. And that is a value unlock that technology will not provide you.

Speaker B: That's great. Yeah, I love that both the math and logic also support the just what feels right that, that when you have those two, then things can really change. Philip, I, uh, have, I have more questions that we could ask, but we're reaching the top of our time with you. Please just tell me how can people continue to follow your and LHH's work? People are going to listen to this. I'm m saying yes. It is about redeployment and culture and develop and bringing people along in our transformation journey. Where should they go? What should they do next?

Speaker C: So thank you first off for having me. It's been an absolute pleasure. We continue to try to lead the market in our thought leadership. So please, by all means, follow our thought leadership pieces. It will challenge your thinking and give you new perspectives on how you can attack some of these talent issues and challenges. And also feel free to track me down on LinkedIn. I'm always happy to engage.

Speaker B: Well, Philip, thank you so much for being here for sharing your thoughts and making yourself available to us. It's really great. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Speaker C: It was a pleasure.

Speaker A: Thank you again to our sponsor of today's episode, lhh. We encourage you to check out their executive solutions and learn more about their beautiful working world@lhh.com thank you to our guest, Philip Mobert. Thank you to our executive producer, Zach Ness, our producer Nazanin Humayun Jan, and our editor, James Pierce. If you like what you heard, please follow, download and subscribe. I'm your host, Kyan Chris Trippendorf. Thank you for listening. We'll catch you next time with another episode of Outthinkers.