The Truth About Hiring in 2026 (What Every Leader Needs to Know) w/LHH's Alex Ridder, Chicago Recruiting's Ravi Subramanian and Bamboo HR's Brandon Welch

Our hiring systems are designed to a workforce profile that does not exist today. Welcome to Your Work Friends. We break down the now and next of work so you stay ahead. I'm Mel Plett.

And I'm Francesca Raneri. Yeah, so one of the things you and I have been talking about quite a bit these days is we've noticed lately every headline about work seems to contradict itself. And one day the job market's frozen, the next day it's booming. Companies are investing billions in AI, while simultaneously struggling to hire all the right people.

So we wanted to dig into what's actually going on. So in this episode, we sat down with three leader- so in this episode, we sat down with three leaders who spend every single day inside the hiring market from a few different angles. We sat down with Alex Ritter, Global Head of Client Partnership at LHH, Robbie Subramanian, founder and president of Chicago Recruiting, and Brandon Welch, who's the head of talent acquisition at Bamboo HR. And one thing kept coming up in this conversation over and over and over again, the problem isn't the ATS or AI, the problem is that most of our hiring systems were designed for a world that just flat out does not exist anymore.

From recruiting and internal mobility, to apprenticeships, college, the future of work itself, we unpack what organizations are getting wrong, what they're getting right, and what leaders should be thinking about over the next few years. Yeah, so if you hire people, if you lead people, or if you're just trying to navigate the job market in your own career right now, the conversation is gonna help you separate the headlines from what's really happening. So let's get into it all right, we are gonna jump right in.

We're so excited to have you all with us at Your Work Friends the state of the talent market is something we wanted to get into with all of you because it is bonkers out there. every week we're reading conflicting headlines. first they're saying that the job market's cooling off, things are horrible. Some entire, white collar jobs are completely going away potentially, Like this great Armageddon that might be happening in the market.

but then you hear- that there's a whole thawing out there of the job market, that things are picking back up again, and there's actually a lot of hiring. What's the real story? there's the headlines and then boots on the ground. Alex, I'd love to hear from you.

what are you seeing out there? I think there's no one answer that fits all Mel? There's some organizations that are certainly hiring. There's some organizations that have slowed the hiring.

So I don't wanna make a sweeping statement But as I said earlier, there's 30% of all organizations are doing 15 plus transformations. what does that mean for managers? They don't know if they're gonna hire a person today for a role that's even gonna be necessary in six months 'cause of the transformation period. If you're a candidate, why am I gonna switch jobs to a company that is also going through a transformation?

So you have what I'm naming as, this great hold my breath, let's see what happens, because I don't wanna, find a new gas mask and move on, but I also don't wanna make a quick decision. for me, it's still status quo anxiety There's pockets of hiring, but I don't see, either a great thaw or a total freeze. If that makes sense, It does. Brandon, Ravi, I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that.

Yeah. I agree 100%. It's not a frozen market. It's not fully thawed.

w-we at BambooHR do a lot of research, and we have a lot of access to data and we were, speaking to this not long ago where it's hard to work through the noise to figure out what's going on in the hiring market. ultimately, we've discovered, you'll have to check me on this if you guys are seeing otherwise, it's slowed, but it's not fully stopped. like you said, Alex, there are a lot of companies that are still hiring. Others have slowed it down.

Even those that are hiring, have slowed it down. the data's reflecting some of these conflicting signals, applicant supply is up quite a bit since 2021. 160% it's up. job postings are up as well, yet, hiring rates have declined.

So we have to infer some things from that data. for us, we're seeing that, companies, employers are keeping their options open. the slowdowns are more employer-driven than candidate-driven because when you look at offer accept rates, those are still pretty stable. our data is showing it's 70 to 80% the offer acceptance rate is still pretty stable.

I think it's just exactly that, where you've got a lot of uncertainty out there. Employers don't know what they're gonna need, to your point, Alex. Candidates, they know, where they're at today and what they're dealing with, and so they're not necessarily anxious to jump ship to something that is more unknown. I think that's where you see a lot of the noisy signals.

really happening is that it's slowed down but not really stopped. It's like a limbo space. Not hiring freeze, but it's not frozen. It's slushy, That's a good word for it, the slush.

What is driving the slowdown? All of the above 80% of all requisitions in our database change after the posting. So 80% of the jobs, like within two weeks of it being posted, get changed again and again because it keeps being changed. macroeconomic, geopolitical, internal transformation.

all these factors are creating a real anxiety for everybody on what type of opportunities are out there and where should they go to and what should they get for their company. Francesca, the answer is yes, all of those things are impacting. Brandon, What is the normal rate? You said yes as well.

out of curiosity, like it's 80% now, is that like what's the normal rate that job postings change? 20, 15%? this is a research report we're recently doing, so I don't have the historical information on that. my gut says based upon history, you're looking at 20% or 30%.

hiring manager decisions have become stalled, before, you had hiring managers that were more decisive on what they're looking for 'cause they knew the type of role. We're seeing an activity where they're looking almost for collaboration equals consensus, and you have more interviews more consensus needs for any hire, which is creating more adjustments in the requisition process. I think also part of it is a little PTSD from pre- and post-COVID. if you look back 25 years, since the dot-com burst the hiring escalated and companies were like - it was like they were printing money.

They couldn't hire enough engineers, and they couldn't hire enough of this skill set. then COVID hit and we had the whole work from home everything that we all know happened then, and then hiring all but stopped, and then it picked up again, right? especially the big FAANG companies, felt like they overhired and so there was a downturn there, for a while. Anyway, I'm not saying anything that none of us don't already know, but my point being is there's been so many starts and stops where for such a long time it felt like, you just couldn't hire enough and things were going gangbusters.

I think there's a lot of uncertainty and reluctance with AI coming on the scene how it's going to impact, companies and talent long term. I think there's a lot of, carefulness being applied to what we're seeing out there. the entire job description creation process is flawed, because the way it starts is it starts with what's in the hiring manager's head, and then they create a job description based on what they think they want, not knowing what is actually available out there and what are they going to need for the future.

That's why my counsel to hiring leaders or CHROs is hire for the future and build a framework that can cater to that internally. Don't hire for today. And everyone's looking for a unicorn. But now there's just an increase in the unicorns.

one of the things that Francesca and I have been following ever since we went to Unleash in the spring conference, is around this massive market in certain industries, one of them being healthcare, which is pretty much kind of holding up our economy according to the economist who was at that conference. we're seeing for the first time since the pandemic, there are more unemployed people than job openings, and there are these eight jobs that have been the hardest to fill, which includes healthcare, skilled trades.

We're gonna be talking to someone, who focuses on the skilled trades in a few, weeks. What do you think is getting in the way of filling those areas where there's so much opportunity for hiring? Where are the big talent gaps? Ravi, I'd love to start with you.

Yeah. If you look back to 2016, we had the same job categories like healthcare, skilled trades, technical roles. Look at the list today. How different is it?

It's not very different at all. I think there is a fundamental, mismatch as it relates to the skill requirements, of, tomorrow. Basically dealing with Fortune 150 companies, having done this work for so many years, it's... If you're going after the same, piece of the puzzle, you're not going to solve the puzzle.

The challenge is it's not a supply problem, it's a structural mismatch problem in terms of what is needed for today and what is needed for tomorrow. And no matter how much you invest in LinkedIn, that's not gonna help you, right? It's that true market intelligence that you need to bring in-house or through a provider that helps you shape your thinking in terms of what you're going to need. Alex, Brandon, I don't know if there's anything you wanted to add part of it is, we're still looking at talent and building talent in an old school way, meaning it's more pedigree driven versus skills-based driven, with the skilled trades, those have long been overlooked and underemphasized in favor of traditional four-year degrees and so I think those things are interrelated and that's why we see, so many openings, in the skilled trade, industries.

I keep thinking about what the hell's gonna happen to college. I have an eight-year-old son, I have to save for his college. Alex, you have a kid? eight-year-old son.

What's up? They can play Pokémon with each other later, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. He's got - he brought his binders on vacation happy to do a virtual share.

That's great. I have no idea how they play Pokémon, what the value of Pokémon is. It makes no sense. Moving on.

Yeah, it's... I need a little job aid, like what is the cheat sheet here? I've been thinking a lot about colleges. And my son, I'm thinking about investing for college.

And we know things are moving towards more of a skills-based economy. These skills and the half-life of skills are just changing so quickly. Out of sheer curiosity, what do you all think is gonna happen to college? It- it's been such a feeder for talent- Yep especially in corporations.

We still need it or not? Ooh. I think that education will always be important. there's...

I don't know if there's one right answer. In, in fact, there certainly isn't, right? There you can point to a number of folks that are self-made and didn't go to school and had huge impacts on the world and technology. But I think in my mind, i- because it's so important that you're able to come in and demonstrate that you can do the work and how you do the work, and the skills-based is I think the future of how we assess talent I think any school you go to is gonna have to emphasize that.

Yeah. I think they're gonna have to embed that in, in the curriculum. You s- that traditionally with internships. So whether or not those are more of a requirement or if they're happening spread throughout the entire four years so you come out of that program with more skills-based experience than you normally would, I think s- in my mind that is probably something that we'll start to see.

But I don't know. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, but it makes sense to me. Yeah. True.

Alex, got it? I'll give you an exa- Sorry, go ahead. I'll give you an example of what's happening in the IT space. Please.

The technology landscape is changing so rapidly that colleges and other campuses are not able to keep up. So that's why that market is totally certification driven. And if you were to look at talent for an IT role- you would start to see the reality in terms of how that situation has changed. And n- nothing that they teach in campuses is gonna help them because what they teach in campuses is foundational.

All this evolutionary stuff that's happened in the marketplace from a tech- technology standpoint is self-taught or through some a, a technical program. Yeah. Yeah. It's this interesting balance of- Is the purpose of traditional university for education in terms of or like development, holistic development, how we think, how we talk, how we, philosophize about stuff?

Or is it for a job, to get a job I love this, Francesca. So the first part of me is jumped me into like this idea of like pure cynicism where I go this is a billion-dollar industry. Like it's not gonna disappear, right? Yeah.

Like there's an aspect of this that gonna be there. Now, do I think it needs to adjust and change and be ready for the future workers? Like absolutely. Do I also think that like I have a massive optimism in the power of people to come together and come with solutions and come with ideas, and the way that the historical college model has worked is to put really cool people together in a way that they've actually solved problems that other generations haven't figured out or haven't even thought about.

So do I think colleges will exist, to answer your question? Absolutely. Both the money's there, and there is the aspect of human ingenuity that comes with them. They started back in like the f- 1500s, Salamanca University or Oxford.

They've been around for 600 years and they figured it out. Do they need to speed up the way they transform? Absolutely. Do we need to have expectations on what they deliver change?

Probably. I'm not sure they deliver us a mathematical path into a job. Do I think that they might, accelerate our learning journeys or develop the foundational skills, as Ravi has pointed out? Yeah, probably.

Will they provide diversity of thought? I know when I went to college I was a kid from Colorado who had never left the state effectively, and all of a sudden I was in the middle of Maine meeting people from all over the world, and six months later I was in London. Yeah, that gave me a lot of different ideas that I couldn't have gotten if I didn't go to college, and that has, helped. So I do think there is a real need for colleges to continue to exist, but they have to change.

Yeah. My personal hope as a parent and for everybody else out there is also that the cost comes down. That would be very helpful. Yeah.

That's good. That would, People have- You're not wrong. You're not wrong. I'm sweating bullets over here.

But So there's a tale of two headlines I wanna get everybody's opinion on. One is there's a Fortune headline right now that says Gen Z may be unemployable, and this is the worst entry job market in 37 years. Meanwhile, over here, there's an AARP article that says that workers over 50 face most systemic hiring discrimination of any age group. I'm certainly seeing this in my networks on both sides of these stories.

I'm curious from all of you, which generation is having the harder time right now? And Ravi, I'm gonna start with you. So I think both are. Okay.

Both generations are, and they're both symptoms of the same problem, right? Our hiring systems are designed to a workforce profile that does not exist today. And Gen Z narrative is partly and partially manufactured purely because some entry-level candidates show up in the market with their own specific expectations, and that don't match the organizational delivery model, right? Because organizations haven't shifted their thinking.

An example would be a hiring manager says a seasoned hiring manager who's been in the job for fifteen plus years says, "I want someone who looks like me, who thinks like me, who walks like me." They're not gonna find the talent, or they're not gonna hire the talent. So that's the issue with the Gen Z folk. The transformation has not happened pretty much at the organizational level.

I wouldn't say that's true of all companies. There's a small percentage of companies that this happens. The other issue is plus 50 discrimination. Again, same side of a different - Same sorry, different side of the same coin, right?

In the sense that the younger generation leaders are not hiring the older generation folks purely because of the fact that they are dated in their skill set. They have not updated their skill set. situations, but systemic problem, both are same issues. Yeah.

Alex, Brandon, are you seeing similar? I wouldn't point to who has it worst. I think as a society, we're all losing, right? As older people don't have jobs, that creates a strain on our social safety net.

As young people don't get jobs, they lose out on experience, and corporations lose out on that talent. So there's no way that I would be possibly, like, pointing and say, "Oh, you have it worse." So everyone's losing, including everyone who does have positions who's not in those generational gaps. I would say that there is a responsibility for corporations to step up and take some action.

So I think there needs to be more activities of doing that multi-generational design programs, and help to make sure that people have engagement across generational divides so that we can learn from each other. I also think that companies need to accelerate their apprentice-like programs. Mel, to your point, these two to three 2-3 programs or 3-2 programs like Northeastern, fantastic way to get people experience and engagement. And then finally, I think that companies really need to be thinking about that internal mobility again, right?

If you think about it, I - we found some research that less than 50% of organizations have visibility into their internal skills pipeline. Like, how many older generation people have current jobs, and they're not the right fit for their current role, but they have skills that could be really powerful either to mentor, to take other pieces, or they have institutional knowledge that's just not being leveraged. So I think there's no way that anybody has it worse, but there are some actions we need to take.

Fair. Do you agree? Brandon, anything you wanna add on there? I'm in a unique position where I feel like I personally get a front row seat to both of these generations.

I've got a son who's 22. I've got a dad who's well past, 50, 60, and still wants to work. And so I see both sides of the coin here. And I agree.

I don't think you can say, "Hey, this, this group has it worse than the other." They equally have challenges. I feel empathy for both. I know Gen Z, a lot of those workers went through they entered the workforce during a disruptive period, right?

Many of them went through school internships, all of that during the pandemic. And so they just had less practice with things like in-person workplace norms or mentoring or professional communication. And so it's like a developmental gap there, and not necessarily like a character flaw. And I think sometimes it's, it can be just a blanket statement that, "Oh, they're unemployable because of X, Y, Z," right?

So yeah. I agree with everything that's said. It's hard to say one has it worse than the other. But there certainly are challenges that I think as any company that's employing on any kind of scale has a responsibility to look at that.

Yeah. Yeah. I want to double down on the Gen Z piece, because something that Mel and I do a lot of people strategy work. And something that has been fascinating to look at is when you look at what AI can do now and will continue to be able to do, is really the work of some of these entry-level roles.

And we're starting to see people in our work make determinations that they don't want to hire as large of an intern class or more, as m- large of an entry-level class. And my question comes for all of you is, what are organizations doing or thinking about in terms of if you start eliminating some of this entry-level work, how do you build senior leaders? Because typically people have learned how to be a manager and learned how to be a senior leader from doing the entry-level work, and then building their skills and getting promoted for that.

So how are you seeing organizations think through building the skills of their people if the entry-level work is gone? I don't, I don't - I don't think you can... such a good question, and it's something that we've talked about here at BambooHR, and we've talked about it a little bit at Unleash when we met last time. But I think it's about - that's the importance of HR professionals like ourselves.

We can't afford to let that slip away because it will have... it's not a lever that you pull and it doesn't impact another lever. It's gonna have that domino effect. And so I think it's on us to make sure that we are, work in a way that still allows for new talent to enter the company and bring new skill sets and and moving some of that maybe lower level repetitive work that traditionally has been entry-level.

Sure, you can automate that. You can use some kind of agentic solution. Maybe it's still sits with that entry-level talent to manage some of that stuff. So I think it's about redesigning it as opposed to just Being resolved with the idea that it's going to go away.

Yeah. We're just gonna chop off the limb and- Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

The body's not done, just keep on. Alex, Ravi, any of you guys want to share? Let me be bold here, right? The, the other side of me is this, the cynic again that says that if you're a public company, you're gonna punt this down the road until it's actually a problem.

Because right now it's not a problem. So there's a bit of that. But the other piece of this, and again, the optimist in me is this is a huge opportunity for small and medium-sized organizations to take advantage of a talent pool that is hungry to learn, that has learned to work virtual, that has been engaged with AI early on. And quite frankly I think a lot of these small and mediums are gonna win because they are looking at this talent pool in a different way, in a different limelight, and they can put the capital expenses to the AI infrastructure to really drive the work out.

They're gonna have to use it, and then these, these younger generations that come and say, "Actually, I have a better way of doing it," and helping them accelerate their growth journey. So the cynic in me says that the large companies might just punt this problem down the road. I think right now we're starting to see organizations start to rethink. They're like, "Oh gosh, we put this on hold for three years.

We better not do it for five." But I think there's still a opportunity that that I have high hope. So there's the cynic and optimist in a bold statement. Yeah.

Ravi? There's no option but to redesign the apprenticeship program. And when you look at it from the campus side, they have to start looking at AI adjacent curriculum as it relates to process design, prompt engineering, some such. And unless that happens and there is a balance on the other side in terms of hiring those folks into those new entry level roles, things will not change.

Yeah. Yeah. It's so fascinating. I, Melanie and I have been in talent our entire career, and there's things like apprenticeship, manager development, really thinking through how people learn and the types of experiences they want.

We've been talking about this stuff ever since I started my career, and it feels like a lot of this is gonna keep coming back to, not Vince Lombardi-ing this, but focusing on the fundamentals and doing those really fricking well while we're getting AI infused in what we do as well has to be part of the redesign. Yeah. And the organizations that are going to win in the future, today and in the future, are the ones that are continuously learning- Yeah and changing and adapting to what's happening in the marketplace.

Otherwise you get left behind. Yeah. There's a lot of resistance there sometimes. I will tell you, it's interesting working with some organizations where they're just They know they need to do that, and then there's this resistance to it as well.

And so it's especially when you feel like you're like, "You guys have to move. You have to move," but they're not willing to do it. Anyway, melt over. Yeah.

Yeah. Ravi, I'd love to start with you on this next question. This is all about AI, the soup du jour right now, right? But when you think about recruiters, obviously it's here, everyone's using it, but the, what we're seeing or hearing, again, anecdotally through our networks is recruiters are like, "Yeah, I'm expected to use it, but I haven't really been trained on it."

And also there's some efficiency gains, but there's also a lot of challenges as well. When you're looking at like recruiters or what you're seeing in the market, what are some of the things that you're seeing or hearing? Yeah, that's the CHRO's nightmare, right? Yeah.

The CHRO goes and tells the board that we're, we have implemented AI in recruiting, and what form does it take? Some recruiters are using it for screening, some are using it for selection. There's no consistency in terms of how it's being used. I think this is where the CHRO's role changes.

They wear dual hats. Not only do they have to build a framework for the HR function in terms of how the recruiters or rest of HR uses AI, but also what is the overall governance structure for the entire organization and how do you build that framework for the company? There is lack of consistency in how the recruiters are using it. Some companies bring it in through technology implementation, either through some sort of CRM tool or AI infused talent acquisition platform- or a recruiting model change through an RPO provider where they bring in the technology and the process framework.

So there's lack of consistency. That's what I'm seeing. Yeah. What are the impacts of that lack of consistency to like the organization?

'Cause there's real P&L impacts to that, right? There is. For example, inability to acquire talent in a timely manner. What- the way the systems are set up today is you're not only screening out unwanted talent or non-qualified talent, you're screening out good talent as well- Yeah depending on how your system is set up.

So we've got to look into that. So that's what I'm seeing today. Yeah. I'm also seeing a lot of TikToks of people getting AI interviews and not too happy about that process.

Yeah. Like it takes away from - I remember 'cause I started in talent acquisition in the early 2000s and the big focus, sorry everybody the big focus back then was candidate care, and there's something that's been lost along the way in terms of candidate care with AI. I see Alex, you look like you're juicing up to answer something there. Like what are your thoughts on the importance of candidate care and where there's room for that still?

So in the 2000s, 2020s when I was in talent acquisition. No like I think candidate experience is something that was a buzzword for a while and people have forgotten about it in the interest of creating this efficiency. And I go back to some of my other points is we need to have that deep conversation with the recruiters to find out what is the problem that they're trying to solve, and then what is the AI able to enhance and deliver. Like- Yeah bad technology with bad beh- with bad behaviors accelerates bad hiring.

And it's the same thing with any technology, right? Like we all had Wikipedia back when we first started university, and we used that, and guess what? Our answers weren't very good. So we need to make sure that we're using it in the right manner.

And there's things that AI can do that is actually accelerating candidate experience. And I think as it relates to your exact example of AI interviews, like some candidates love it. Like you're seeing some of the skewed sides as people's like, "Oh, I don't want an in-" Some candidates are like, "Oh, this is fantastic. I don't have to wait three days for the interview.

I can get on a quick conversation. I can do it at 2:00 in the morning because that's my hours of work." And boom, they're screened in or they're screened out, and at least they know what it is. So it's in some ways they're like okay with it.

In other positions it's totally inappropriate and it's abusive, and then you get to the interview with the actual manager and they're asking the same questions that the AI did, and it's like why did I even do the AI interview? So I think that there's a necessity for companies to really look at what is the problem they're looking to solve with that AI, and then bring it in appropriately, and then measuring candidate experience and understanding how does that actually impacting your P&L, as you said earlier, like the talent net density that you have in your organization.

I love it, 'cause right now, Francesca and I talk about this all the time. It feels like the first... this is the first time in history we're leading with the tech and not the problem we're trying to solve. Yeah.

To that point one of the things I'd like to share is the counsel that I give to CHROs that I work with is fix your broken processes first- before you tech enable them, right? Yeah. If you tech enable them and bring in AI, you're just gonna amplify a bad problem into something bigger, something worse. Fix your processes first.

Do not lift and shift can I just add to that real quickly? Because I love- Oh, absolutely I love what was said by Ravi and Alex in, in the whole conversation. But I think what's occurring to me right now as I'm listening to this is w- we're talking about candidate experience, and that was a buzzword, at one point. I grew up throughout the same kind of timeline you did, Mel, in talent acquisition.

I I don't think it should ever go away. And I... a- and to your point, Ravi th- a lot of this is being applied inconsistently. And to me, there's just a commonality there, especially with AI.

If you want something to happen consistently, then I think you have to kinda name it and claim it. Have something that's intentionally designed around what you expect from your team members with regard to AI use, have some kinda AI policy in place with regard to recruiting, and so your candidates know what they can expect. And I think that creates some room for that candidate experience to still exist. And we try to keep anything that is emotional or ethical as human as possible here.

And I think there's nothing more emotional or ethical e- ethically rooted than talent and people. And so I think if you over-rotate on technology then you're gonna lose that human element. So I think it's really finding the bal- balance there. As a fellow workplace humanist, I couldn't agree more, Brandon.

I just wanna do a one of the things I wanted to touch on with all of you is there's obviously a, a bias happening in AI systems as well, and Ravi, I can't help but, as working in HR and what you're responsible for and everything, what they're finding is AI isn't exactly eliminating bi- bias. And in fact, in some instances, there were some recent research studies that came out recently in Harvard Business Review and anecdotally I saw a woman this week who's been testing changing her name to a more male-sounding name by shortening it, and she was rejected at...

when she used her real name, and then when she changed her name, she was accepted as a candidate through the same hiring system for one workplace, and I'm not gonna name platforms or any of that. So when you think about AI and this age forever bias challenge that we're dealing with, especially in talent acquisition, how should organizations be thinking about guardrails before they hand a resume stack over to an algorithm to help them sift through the volume of candidates? 'Cause how do they not- Yeah ravi, I'd love to s- hear what you're thinking.

Yeah, I think we have to start with auditability, right? In terms of what data are we going to be looking at and what data has been used to train the AI model, right? Because it keeps learning as you keep engaging with a- an AI platform. So what data has been used to train the model, and what data are you going to pull?

What is it going - what are you going to need? How are you going to audit it? So you - we need clarity around that. The second thing is making sure that we have mapped all our decision rights, right?

In terms of what are scenarios from a... when you look at a process flow and talk about what are scenarios, have we accounted for decision at every step o- of the process? Then the third piece is train the recruiters to actually use the system properly, right? To my earlier point about a- automating a broken process and then turning around and blaming the recruiter is not gonna help anybody.

Yeah. And one of the comments I always make is a recruiter that's good for a steady state environment may not necessarily be good in a high change, AI-driven environment. So they have to have the right skill set, they have to be trained the right way, and there has to be consistency in the process. Those are the three things that I would go after I think the, the studies are pretty straightforward, right?

I think that AI is gonna reinforce any consistency bias, and therefore, a big piece of what we have to do as a recruitment community is really challenge managers to understand what they're looking for as an outcome of the activity. And to use a really base example is that let's say you have a carpenter who's like, "I need an apprentice who's really good at doing screwdriver activity to build beds." "Oh, okay. So then I can reject every candidate that's good with hammers."

"Oh no, I don't want that." It's like, okay AI will assume that. If you don't tell it, the more generalist position is I need somebody who can build something. So we really need to be making sure we're having those deep conversations with the hiring managers that help them define that.

And then the same point, we need candidates to be authentic at what they can do and deliver against. And there's a social contract, if you will, between the candidates and managers to be authentic at what they need and clear on what they want and what they have. So I remain super optimistic that AI can do it, but if you have biases developed into your processing, you make assumptions that it's gonna go away, then it's a false assumption, and we gotta remove that consistency bias that, that occurs within everybody.

Okay. All right. Yeah, I would plus one to I think what I heard you say was like y- we talked about we're leading with the tech before anything else these days. And so I think starting with rather than leading with the tech, but the basics of the hiring criteria, what are the outcomes we're looking for?

Because only then, if you've got these things in place and built and you're, you've been able to identify or audit biases that exist and remove those, then you layer on the tech and not the other way around. Because it, it's not perfect. It hallucinates, and and you shared already some anecdotes of there discrimination happening. And so I think unless you're, you do some of these foundational things well first you're going to amplify the problems that already exist.

And unless you're able to outline it and be in a place where you can audit these things and make sure that the tools are doing what they're designed to do and not anything else then you really shouldn't hand anything over to a tech stack unless you start there, especially with regard to hiring. And even if you do hand things over, and I think that we are, I know we are, we do that here at Bamboo HR to an extent. And we're gonna see more and more of that. I don't see a day where at least I, as a TA leader, would ever be a proponent of removing the human oversight altogether it's also not a one and done activity, right?

It's like- get the base right, but if we're cooking, you gotta keep checking you have all the spices in there that you need for this recipe. It's constantly checking and things. Yeah. Okay.

I like how you- I like that you used the word spices, Mel. I was gonna say cooking with gas, but I like spices better. Yep. thinking about what comes next, and what you're seeing now, I'm curious about where all of you are in terms of what's gonna happen in the next two years.

I'm gonna take it from employees, then I'll take it from employers. So what do you think employees are gonna see as it relates to a job search in the next two years? Lack of crystal ball here, so let me talk more on the optimistic side, right? I think if you're an employee, you're gonna see the, a more robust internal, mobility opportunities come available.

I'm very optimistic that organizations are gonna realize that the cost of hiring and firing is very extreme and unnecessary, and therefore, they're gonna double down on taking care of great people within their organization and finding new opportunities for them. So I think if you're an employee things are looking up. Get engaged, f- talk to more people, stay focused on what you need to do, but be optimistic about what's out there if you're an unemployed individual, there's gonna be still maintain - There's still opportunities out there 'cause companies are changing.

They're constantly changing, and I think the market is gonna shift. It continues to do, and we're already starting to see it, as you pointed out in the beginning of the podcast, that this thaw is becoming more slushy, as, as Brandon nicely put it. So I think there's opportunities as well. So I'm very optimistic over the next few years.

That's good. That... I have days where I'm not, so I'm glad to hear it. Ravi or Brandon, your thoughts.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think it's gonna be, h- the opportunity for an employee to get continuing education has been just that, an opportunity, and maybe a company will provide some kind of funding for it, maybe they won't. I think that the best companies, the smartest companies that are getting in front of this are it's gonna be less of, if you wanna do this, here's an opportunity or an option for you to do it." I think it's gonna become more of a mandate as we look to reskill talent.

We're seeing some of that here at BambooHR where i- we started talking about becoming AI literate maybe a year ago, and now it's moved from just what felt more like a suggestion to, "Hey, something that if you're not doing it, it's gonna become painfully obvious that you're a laggard in this area." And so I think as an employee, we should expect to see more of that as things change and accelerate, like rapid change. More upskilling, more reskilling- as part of your job. Love it.

Okay. Ravi? There's gotta be a mindset shift from an employee standpoint or get left behind. The analogy I use is when ATM machines came into the, into play long, long time ago, people said, "No one's going to go into the bank and use an ATM machine."

Look at where we are today. Yeah. The role changed of the bank teller, the skills requirements changed, technology was adopted, s- and that is here to stay as well from an AI standpoint. Upskill, reskill, or get out of the company.

Yeah. Fair. Super fair. How about from the employer side, what are some trends you're gonna be seeing in terms of what employers are going to be doing or how they're going to be reacting as it relates to their talent?

And Brandon, I'm gonna start with you. Again these are two sides of the same coin. So I think if the employees are expecting or should expect this, then it's probably not for every one of them just happening innately on their own. A lot of employers are gonna be pushing this idea around reskilling.

And so I think as an employer you're gonna see a heavy emphasis of mapping out the existing talent that you have. It's gonna be less of a, a buzzword or one of those things that you just hear about at a conference, and more of a table stakes for those HR professionals to lean into mapping out the existing talent. How do we reskill them? How do we uplevel them across the organization?

How do we fold in this new technology and do it the right way, right? Not necessarily throw tech at the problem, but start with the foundational pieces and then weave AI and tech into that. And so I think as employers that's what we're starting to see, and I think you're gonna see more and more of that. Yeah.

Fair. Very fair from an employer standpoint they have to invest more in training dollars. And if you look at all the layoffs that happen in Fortune 100 companies, it starts with recruiters being laid off, the learning and development department being cut. I think they need to bolster both, upskill both, spend some more dollars on that front, and make sure that they're providing the right environment and infrastructure for the employee to be successful Think if your people are your product, you wanna make sure you're investing in product development, i.

e., on the sourcing side and on the development side. I fully support that, Ravi. Alex?

Yeah, I think that we've been hearing about the skills-based workforce for a long time, and there's been this kind of maybe the, hopefully the end of these 500-page skill taxonomy families matrix that nobody can really dive into. And in some ways there's a simplification of that over the next couple of years. And I think that you're gonna see things like critical skills baselines, and you're gonna have this conversation. I know that, the Adecco Group put out that report around the skills of the future, and it really was really simple and made sense.

People - the skills of the future are people need to be agile, people need to be tech savvy, and they need to be self-interested in their own learning journey. Because companies are gonna offer all sorts of learning opportunities, but it actually is the individual has to take their responsibility to learn. And those that have that baseline, and then companies that match that to critical skills are gonna be the ones that are most successful. So I think that there's gonna be a simplification of this, a skills-based workforce that's gonna allow for acceleration of, employability for many people.

It's nice when you can just distill it down to three, right? Let's master these. Yeah, it's three and then it grows to 10 to 15, but let's maybe cap it before it gets to 2,000 different skill categories. Like some- Yeah.

Some of the stuff out there is pretty wild. Yeah. Especially I always love it when a lot of the skills taxonomy is why - we're a financial services firm, why do we need animal husbandry? I don't- think that's something that we need in our skills taxonomy.

You've heard of goat yoga, right? There's room for that and- That's, Oh, I love my job. It's all- we like to Rapid Round, and this is just to get to know each of you a little bit more are you all up for a little bit of Rapid Round? You bet.

Alex, Ravi, Brandon? Sure. All right. All right, let's do it.

It's 2030, what's work going to look like from your perspectives? And we could start with you, Alex. So I think in 2030... let's think back, like four years ago, we were coming out of COVID, 2022, it was pretty wild.

So I think nobody predicted today back in 2022 I wear the caveat that I don't have a crystal ball. However, if I think ahead of this, I look at companies right now, and 30% of all companies have 15 plus transformation initiatives occurring simultaneously. What does that mean? It means that they can't all be winners in this.

There's gonna be winners and losers, and we're gonna figure that out over the next couple of years, and I think that means that those that figure out how to work with AI agents are gonna be the ones that win. It's not gonna be working separately and maybe not even in the loop with humans, but actually working integrated is gonna be a key component of what work will look like in 2030. Okay. Ravi, how about you?

If I may add something to that. Yeah. 2030 is gonna look a lot different compared to what we are seeing today. Today, we are seeing a traditional headcount model in, from a recruiting perspective.

That's gonna be replaced by something called a portfolio kind of a model augmented by AI, where there's gonna be a fluid mix of employees, fractional folks, and AI augmentation. The CHRO's nightmare or their job shifts from actually asking the question: How do I fill the role? To how do I architect human workflow and human capacity? So that's what I'm going to pin my answer on, and that's where we're headed in 2030.

My two cents. Okay. Brandon, how about you? Yeah, I tend to agree with everything that's said so far.

And I also will add that I think not only those companies that figure out how to embed and work with AI, 'cause we're seeing a lot of those challenges right now, and companies trying to solutionize around it. But I think those that find the balance between the human element and bringing AI into the mix are gonna be the companies that, that win the talent. So I think that's one thing that I envision. I think we'll continue to see more flexible work modes.

I don't think that's ever going away. And I think AI is going to become one of those... It's already so ubiquitous, but even more if you think back to when computers and PCs came on the scene now it - if you don't use that technology, you might as well... you're looked at as if you're from the Stone Ages, right?

I think AI is going that way too, where it's just going to be assumed that people are literate in using it. And I think we'll see that more and more as we approach 2030. Awesome. Okay.

What's the greatest opportunity you feel most organizations are missing out on right now? And I'll - Ravi I'll start with you Given my practitioner background in recruiting it's basically treating the recruiters like strategic intelligence analysts instead of transaction processing folks, right? We should move away from the paradigm of transaction processing and look at them as strategic intelligent folks especially given the fact that they're the front line, they're on the front lines, and they're- they've got the pulse of the market, they've got pulse of the competition they've got pulse of talent in terms of where they're headed, compensation.

Name it, they've got all the intel that they need. And here's where another opportunity arises especially for RPO, right? Because when we talk about recruitment process outsourcing as one of the channels of recruiting it actually bolsters the framework for the company as it relates to that market intelligence. They have a lot more market intelligence than any internal folks could have.

So that's where they play a good role or a big role in the coming years. Yeah. There's gonna be a huge oppor- all the generational that we ca- what was it, Francesca? The silver tsunami.

We have a ton of people retiring, the entry-level problem. We've got... And your recruiters are at the heart of everything, internal and external. So okay.

Brandon, how about you? What do you think? I think it continues to be knowing you ha- who you have today within your organization. That- it's not a new thing, but I still think a lot of companies are missing out on being able to map out their existing talent, looking inward for the skills that they need, trying to deploy that talent effectively.

Too often, I think we see just the traditional knee-jerk reaction of going to find new talent externally. And so there still just seems to be a huge opportunity that's being missed by most companies w- with regard to internal mobility and mapping out who they have o- on the bus today, How about you, Alex? What do you think? I think, Brandon, I would double down on what you're talking about with internal mobility, and I think it starts with the fact that I don't - I'm not convinced that all organizations are having the deep empathy conversations with their people, and that sometimes they're investing in AI because they can, not because it's solving a problem that their employees have identified.

So I think we need to be doubling down on some of the basic empathy behaviors of of humans, and therefore drive greater solutions. And I think that's something that some organizations have let fly out the window in their excitement over technology. Yeah. Both of you bring up so many incredible points because you - we see all the sweeping headlines around layoffs, but if you're restructuring who do you have on deck before you just let go of everyone and now you're rehiring?

And we're also seeing a lot of the headlines of rehiring happening now. Yeah, it's just- just like a one data point, like we're seeing at some organizations that the cost of- Yeah letting them go and then rehiring is over $130,000 per person. Yeah. That's crazy.

That's a lot of money out the window, and they're not leveraging the reskilling opportunities available. So I would think that's a huge point, Brandon and Mel. So yeah, thanks for bringing it up. Yeah.

Yeah. The other component that you just brought up, Alex, too, is like just thinking about internal mobility. What does that look like for your team? But also just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Are you talking to your... Francesca and I talk about this all the time, like your frontline workers are like gold within your organization. They know what's happening because they're on the ground in the day-to-day, like in the trenches, so to speak. tapping into that is a real missed opportunity.

All right. I'm gonna get personal really quick, and I know we have to move on to other things. Who do you, each of you really admire? Brandon, how about you?

Ooh, man, that's a big question. I don't know if I could name one particular person because, one, it'd be unfair and there's so many that have helped instill in me who I am as a leader. But I really think if I talk about characteristics it's those that they are commu- committed to people, they're human first. They don't get lost in only one way of doing things.

They're first principle thinkers. They're constantly questioning, this is how we've done it. This is a status quo. Does it mean we, we can't come up new solutions?

So those are the types of folks that I really admire and the ones that have helped shape kinda hallmarks of my own leadership style as well. Okay. That's fair. Alex?

I think the, the person I admire the most is probably Roberto Clemente. So for those of you who don't know that, obviously I'm a American in Europe, and he was a Puerto Rican who went to Pittsburgh in a difficult period to play baseball. And, so many stories about is as an authentic leader, and I always appreciated the story wherein reporters would always say are you, Bob?" And he'd complain about things, and he'd get labeled as a complainer.

But it's actually become a deep empathy that he that people cared about And so when they asked him how he was, he told them how he was. And I think that type of authenticity is something that I would to be as a leader, and therefore I admire most about him as a leader. I love it. Ravi, how about you?

I'm gonna pick a group of people. It's gonna be the HR leaders who are actually navigating the AI race, and AI governance without a rule book or a playbook. So it came about suddenly. People are trying to things out, and they are the true leaders in terms of how they're navigating the governance model without that playbook.

Yeah. Yeah. They're gonna... I finally, some HR love over here.

All The heels of COVID and everything else too. Yeah. It's one thing after another, right? Keeps going.

Talk about whiplash. Oh, yep. I guess if you had just one closing thought, I'd love to hear from each of you. If anyone left with just one little nugget, what would you want that to be?

My message to the CEO would be do not treat talent strategy as an HR strategy, rather treat it as a business strategy because it's not a support function. They've got to be in the forefront, and if talent is not top of the CEO's agenda, I don't know what else is because that's what's shaping the company, and especially in this AI-driven world, you don't infuse the company with AI, leading AI talent, you're gonna be left behind. I always like to say organizations are like a giant cell, and talent is the nucleus.

Without it, it can't thrive, right? That's right. Oh, yeah. All right.

Alex? I like your analogy there, Mel. I think the message I would, what I would drive to is is if you - to take your analogy a little bit further is that talent acquisition is no longer a separate function of that nucleus, and in fact, you need to be thinking about what is the connected talent journey, what is the workforce strategy from outcome-based conversations of what that job that individual is looking for, and then what is the career path and what's the direction, and how do you connecting those nodes?

It... I think historically there's been HR, the talent management function, and there's been HR, the compensation function, rewards comp, and then there's been HR, the talent acquisition, and never shall the three talk, and that is not the future. There's gonna be an integrated talent strategy, and that connected talent service is gonna be a critical force of the future. I love that.

Brandon? Yeah, two things. I think for for those HR professionals a- and employers that are listening, I think let's treat AI as a work redesign lever and not a headcount reduction method. I think that's one thing.

And and for those that are maybe job seekers or out there in the market find ways to really highlight how you're able to do the job. I think we talk about skills-based. That's so important. It's, it - at least the, the employers that you're gonna wanna work for are gonna emphasize that over pedigree in the future.

And so I think being able to showcase the work that you're able to do, your AI literacy or fluency or whatever you wanna call it while keeping the human pieces human and computers doing only what computers can do, I think being able to paint that picture as a candidate and an employee is super crucial. Thank you all so much. Thanks for joining us today. Music was by Pink Zebra.

This episode was produced, recorded, and edited by yours truly, Francesca and I of "Your Work Friends." And we're an indie pod, folks. We drop new episodes each week on Tuesday, so please come back to check them out. Subscribe on the platform of your choice, and if you want one big meaty insight about work every single month, subscribe to our newsletter on yourworkfriends.

com. Bye, friends. Bye, friends.