Renata: We have lots of Americans in Melbourne at the moment because the Australian Open is happening. But one of the things that will make you understand this story is that there used to be eight people sitting around the court to call out the ball. So, there were these eight jobs that have been replaced by technology. Now, in Melbourne, and I think in other big tournaments as well, the courts are so high-tech that if the ball falls outside the court, you don’t need someone to call it out. There’s technology built into the court that does it. And nobody challenges that anymore. So, all that John McEnroe banter that used to happen in the past about whether it’s in or out is gone.
Kyle: You can’t argue with a robot.
Renata: Exactly, you can’t argue with a robot, and eight people lost their jobs. These were people that we used to see year in, year out, always the same, sitting there. But these people lost their jobs, and technology is everywhere. It’s everywhere in the workplace, in HR and recruitment. And you, with your technology, are a great person to sit here with me today to discuss HR technology. My audience, I think, is aware of ATS systems, but what you and your firm, Creative Talent Endeavors, have been creating and innovating is very interesting to discuss as well. So, how do you think data-driven strategies are changing the landscape where you operate in talent acquisition?
Kyle: So, one of the things we’ve seen happen with hiring during the pandemic is that many companies went on hiring sprees due to the war for talent. This was compounded by the fact that, for a certain amount of time, it was risky to be in the same room with someone, even if they were just down the street. People were hiring executives whom they had never met in person, based maybe on 10 hours of interviews and some references. Consequently, we’ve seen companies overhire. We’ve heard horror stories of people taking one job while keeping another because they were working remotely. What we’re seeing now is that companies still want excellent hires, but they’re putting more care and rigor into the screening process. This is to ensure that when they extend offers, they are to the right people with the right skill set for that moment. This is a shift from the electronic processes during the pandemic. It’s a weird paradox where, despite the age of AI and tech, I find that actual relationships are becoming more important in most roles.
Renata: Yes, and those relationships are really hard to develop after the pandemic, I believe. If the U.S. is anything like Australia, and I think it is because I have clients there, people are not coming to work, even when they’re told to. I have a client who is, right at this moment, going through a final round of interviews for a senior executive position, a C-level position. He hasn’t met anyone. I asked him about the presentation he’s doing to his potential future colleagues. It’s face to face, right? And he said no, it’s going to be a presentation on Teams or Zoom. I’m thinking, man, this is really hard. These people are all in the same town, not in diverse locations. And this is happening time and time again with my clients who are being recruited. They are still going through recruitment completely online. Then, once they have been selected, they might have a coffee catch-up just before signing the contract.
Kyle: Interesting. Honestly, we’ve seen more of a return to, “Hey, come to HQ,” even if it’s a job where you only have to go into work three days a week. That’s cool, come to HQ. Let’s do the thing where you meet the team, we go to lunch, we take you to dinner. So I’ve actually seen more of that, and I’ve advised executives looking for jobs for this reason. If you’re young in your career, a company might not have the expense to fly every analyst to headquarters, right? But for a C-level executive, it’s different. At that level, you need connectivity. You need to know who your peers are and build those relationships. So, if a company isn’t willing to invest in flying you out and setting up meetings, I’d be worried. If it’s not a money issue, then I might be more worried because they might just be operating in silos, and that’s usually not successful.
Renata: Now, and it puts a huge pressure on the executive as well, because usually when you’re at that level, you might have kids in the house. It’s summer holidays here, so of course, his kids are around, they’re not in school. So he booked himself a hotel to do this properly and not be interrupted. If it’s going to last an hour, an hour and a half, the chances of him going through a situation like that famous BBC interview, where the little girl opens the door and everything becomes quite hilarious, are high. So those situations are…
Kyle: I was going to say that thing. I love that. It’s so funny because that was pre-pandemic, right? Now, if that happened, it wouldn’t go viral because we’ve all had the dog poop on the floor or the cat comes in. We’re used to it. But back then, it was like, “Oh my goodness, I can’t believe this is happening.” Whereas now, someone’s like, “Oh, that’s my kid. Anyway, let’s go over the PNL report.”
Renata: That’s right, that’s right. Yesterday I interviewed a recruiter coach. So, I’ve already interviewed Lou Adler a while ago, and this week I interviewed the equivalent of a Lou Adler based in Australia. He’s quite famous here. And he was explaining to us how recruiters get paid. For a job candidate, it’s so important to know how the agent in between is being rewarded for finding you or another candidate. We went into a lot of detail about how the recruitment firm gets paid, how the recruiter gets paid. Those are two separate things. And the fact that they really want you to stay in the role for six months, 12 months, and so forth. Now, you came up with a different way of working with your clients, who are the employers, right? Why did you come up with a different way? What triggered you to initiate that?
Kyle: Thank you for asking. I won’t say that retaining executive search is a scam because it’s not, but I will say it’s like a casino where the house always wins. Right? So, I was trying to figure out how we, at Creative Talent Endeavors, could differentiate ourselves and add value to the experience. I started to think about why 33 and a third percent became the gold standard for executive search retained search fees. Then, I realized it’s just the highest amount they could get clients to agree to. I’ve seen search firms charge 40%, even 45%. So I thought, each search is discrete, right?
Like, conducting a search isn’t like manufacturing widgets. A Director of HR for a 5 billion-dollar company will differ from an SVP of Finance for an 800 million-dollar company, etc. What we just talked about gave me my ‘aha’ moment. If you tell me, Renata, that we’re doing a search and the company is based in Dallas, Texas, requiring the person to be in the office five days a week in Dallas, versus that exact same role, same compensation, but they can be anywhere in the United States, the latter option exponentially increases our ability to find the person more quickly because there are more people to talk to, right? Which means we can finish it more quickly, and then our recruiters can take on other searches, so we can make even more money because, hey, capitalism, we’re American. But here’s the thing: In the current state, it treats every role like a commodity. A search firm is first incentivized to bring the client the most expensive talent they’re willing to pay for. If you’re working off a percentage, that’s the original sin of this measure. We are incentivized to give you the most expensive person you will accept.
So if we have a role and you say, “Hey, I don’t want to pay more than 400K,” but we know that if you meet Renata, who wants 475K and she’s a rockstar, you’re going to hire her anyway. We may have someone for 350K who could do the job amazingly, but is it in their best interest to give you that person?
I would argue that for a firm really trying to build relationships and show their value, yes, but that’s not how it’s set up right now. We get you all excited about the expensive person and, because it’s based on salary, we make more money that way. I never felt that was particularly client-friendly.
So, that’s the first part. The other part is, as I was thinking about it, I think that’s led to a lot of homogeneous builds in certain companies, especially when you get to executives. Retained executive search is mostly used for positions at the director level and above, right? So it’s already more elite, high-paying positions.
Not every company can afford to pay that amount to get access to these candidates. It almost builds a firewall around these candidates, meaning if you don’t have enough money, you don’t get access to the best talent because you have to be willing to pay six figures to hire a director sometimes. So, I thought, what if we built something we’re so used to, like surge pricing with Uber when it’s raining, or knowing that booking an airline ticket three weeks ahead is less expensive than the night before?
We’re all comfortable with these concepts of value and time, like matinees at the movie theater, right? So I said, why doesn’t search work like that? Long story short, we built an algorithm that takes into account the things that make a search special.
So, how competitive is your compensation? What city is it in? Is it a desirable or less desirable city? Does the person need to come into the office every day, et cetera?
Renata: Okay.
Kyle: Strategy and product, right? We don’t do every single search. People will ask us, and we’ll say no because we don’t think we’re the best firm for it. But what happens is, you go into Ferranti, put in the basic details like what you want to pay, where the job is, and we show you what 33 and a third would cost, and what our price is. Our price is not always the least expensive; that’s not the point. If it is more expensive and you’re paying, for example, 39% because you’re offering the 60th percentile for a role in high demand in a city most people don’t want to live in, we’re just being realistic. The part I love about Ferranti is you put your parameters in, and let’s say our price is 80,000, and the competitor’s is 110,000. If we bring you a candidate that needs more money than you originally scoped out but they’re awesome, that’s cool. You don’t pay us a dime more. Why should we make more money if you decide to pay more? In fact, you’ve made our job easier. You’ve made them more likely to say yes. So we don’t touch that; the price is the price. So, you know that if we say all we have is 350K for this role and I bring you someone who wants 400K, you may not hire them, but you know I’m only doing it because I think you need to know this person. It takes all of that away, and it’s been very exciting. One of the unintended consequences we’ve seen is people actually reaching out about roles at the manager or senior manager level because it makes it affordable. People can’t pay 60,000 for a manager, but with Ferranti, it might be a price that actually makes sense if it’s a crucial role. So now, they’re able to access this amazing talent that’s typically been held in this high-priced executive search firm firewall.
Renata: Yes, it’s fascinating. Thank you so much for explaining that to us in such detail because it gives us insight, you know, for the listeners here, the people applying for jobs, and maybe being left out. Maybe the reason why is in the model you’ve just explained, which is not advantageous for them depending on where they live or what their salary range is.
And now with your model, there could be an opportunity for them. How did employers receive your different model? What sort of organizations sign up for an alternative?
Kyle: These are big jobs, and you want the best person, right? Like my grandfather always said, “The best is the cheapest in the long run.” What we found out is that there’s actually less, because originally we had it scoped out for C-level roles, as we do those. People are like, “Listen, man, we’re doing a C-level. Yes, we want the best deal, but quality is most important.” And so, like, we’re not saying money is no object, but, I always laugh. If Tim Cook retires from Apple, the Apple board isn’t going to be like, “Oh, did you see the Ferranti? We can save money,” right? They want people who have the top 10 on speed dial, right?
But people who know us, that’s the funny part, and know that we do great quality work, were the first adopters. Just because anytime there’s something that feels like it could be a deal, there’s a weird kind of dissonance that goes on where it’s like, “Ooh, it’s less expensive than I’m used to, but why? Is there something wrong with it? Am I going to get lower quality?” And so, those who have already paid full freight for work were the first adopters because it’s like, “Oh wait, I can get the same great service and pay less.” So those have been the first customers that have embraced Ferranti.
Renata: Excellent. And you’re working nationally?
Kyle: Correct. We’ve done some work in Europe, but primarily it’s North America.
Renata: Right. Okay. What does that mean for the candidate? Does the candidate experience change when they’re working with your company using FarenTee?
Kyle: Yes, because I have friends, I mean, I work in the research room, so I can’t tell you, but I have friends, and again, I will… you know, sometimes it’s disappointing, even if you’re working, but if you’re excited about a job and you don’t get it, it’s a bummer, right? And so I had a friend who was like, “I don’t know what, like I check every box, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”
What’s up? And you know, certain states, you have to put what the comp ranges in the U.S., right? And so they had that and they were like, “Yeah.” And I was like, “Willing to take the bottom of the comp.” And I said, “Did the company reach out to you or was it a recruiter?” They said it was a recruiter. I said, “Ah, that’s the rub. What you just said.”
And again, I don’t know. I wasn’t in it. There could have been something different, but my conjecture is, and I’ve worked at bigger firms where I know this happens, it’s like what I said: if I can bring someone in that they’re going to say yes to at the bottom or at the top, I’m incentivized at my search firm to give you the most expensive person.
So like what I said to them is, honestly, you’re too inexpensive because the search firm, like, they didn’t see the value in that. They’d rather get the percentage of the larger bill because looking at it, it was like, “Yeah, you seem like a great pick, but they didn’t screen you in.”
And I think that’s absolutely why.
Renata: Isn’t it funny? It’s so counterintuitive for the candidate. The candidate is thinking, “Let me make myself cheaper,” yep.
Kyle: A search firm is like, “I don’t like that commission. I prefer the person who was making more money.” Executive search is very unique. I can’t think of many other industries where you can get your client to agree to pay an arbitrary percentage, because the percentage is the most you can get someone to pay. People say, “This is our goal. We want to pay this,” but very rarely is the target compensation exact. Sometimes it’s a little bit less, sometimes a little bit more, but it’s very rarely exact. So, you convince your client to accept an arbitrary percentage of an unknowable future compensation that we have the most impact in driving, right? I’ve had people say, “Oh, the search firm just said, ‘We can’t find people to do this job for this amount.’” Because sometimes we get roles after an unsuccessful search with another firm. And I’m like, “I don’t see that.” Then they tell me the firms, and I’m like, “Oh, certain firms don’t get it. They don’t really care if it’s not going to be at least $150,000. Maybe someday CTU will be there, but we are not like that.” And so, basically, I was told, “It wasn’t worth their time” versus “They couldn’t really find someone at that compensation level.” Because sometimes search firms will go in and the first thing they tell you is, “Oh, you’ve got to raise the compensation.” And clients are like, “What are you talking about?” This has been, “No, no, trust me, trust me.” And you’re hiring an expert. You trust them. And that’s the trick. You actually get an awesome person. But like I said, it’s like if you go to someone and you’re like, “I would like a Honda Accord,” and they’re like, “But here’s a Mercedes.” If you drive that Mercedes and if you can afford it, you’re like, “Oh, this is awesome, right?” But you would have been just as happy with that Honda Accord and could have used some of that money to maybe get two Accords versus the one Mercedes. So, like, that’s the thing. People are still happy because ultimately you do get an awesome person. And it’s not that you’re getting overcharged in the fact that the person wasn’t valuable; they didn’t deserve that compensation, but it’s like, “But was there a person who could rock the job at the exact compensation that I was hoping for?” Probably. But the search didn’t show you that person.
Renata: One thing that you mentioned in all of this that I think the listeners are thinking, “I don’t know how much I’m valued. I don’t know how much I’m worth. I don’t know what my salary range is.” I think that’s the biggest issue with every candidate, especially now that we’re going remote. Yeah. And they can work from anywhere. So if they are in, I don’t know, a regional town, but they can work remotely for a larger organization. If they had a job in that regional town that was paying them $80,000, could they now be asking for a hundred because it’s a global firm, and, you know, like they really are not aware of how to benchmark themselves. What would you recommend candidates do?
Kyle: Some easy things to do are, like I said, go to states like California and New York, where they have to show salary ranges. Now sometimes companies will be a**holes and they’ll be like, “Salary starting at $50,000 to a million dollars,” right? Because they want to obfuscate it. But most companies put a reasonable range. So, like, if you’re making $100K and you see multiple things saying the range for this is $132K, hey, you’re probably being underpaid, and that is data you can use. That’s number one. Of course, you can go to Glassdoor where they have salaries. But one other thing, this is something you have to have when it comes to you. But like, I know a lot of people when recruiters reach out, they don’t respond because maybe it’s just like, “Oh, I don’t know the job doesn’t make sense,” or “I don’t know the company,” or just like, “Hey, I love it here. I don’t want to move.” I always say, take the call because you want to know, especially if you’ve been in a company for five-plus years, getting into double digits, it just happens. Your salary starts to lag. And you’re kicking butt, but you’re making 20-25% less than someone outside because it’s a conundrum I’ve never been able to solve. But companies will not pay someone who’s kicking butt an extra 25% to get their salary right, so that person leaves, and they spend the exact same money hiring basically a stranger that they’ve just interviewed. So I would say, take the call from the recruiter and just understand if you are being compensated correctly. Especially if you’ve been in a company for a while, because things change. And the one caveat I’ll add about remote is remote can be great. Our company is fully remote. It gives you, as the employer, the opportunity to hire not just the best talent in your backyard, but the best talent anywhere. But candidates/employees should also be cognizant. Like if it’s a fully remote company like ours, it’s not a big deal. But if it’s like, “Oh, you know, 80% of the people are in the office, you can be remote.” Just understand that we’re human beings. And not being able to play at the company kickball game and going to the wind-downs, like, people don’t know you as much. And so, by no kind of nefarious means, your career may not excel as quickly as the person’s in the office, just because they get to build more of a relationship with people, more of a rapport. And if they suck at their job, no. But if you guys are kind of neck and neck in performance, they will likely probably rise higher because at the end of the day, we are social, we’re human beings, and people are like, “Oh, I loved having a beer with Renata. That was so funny. I know her,” versus like, “Oh, I love Renata’s background. We see her every week on the call. She’s got some really cool art, but I don’t know anything else about her,” you know. I say to people, just be cognizant of that. It can be great to work as an employee, but you don’t want to find yourself out there in a silo because that will have the effect on your career that you probably did not want.
Renata: Yeah, all right. You know, a lot of people were let go last year, right? Like we have a lot of people looking for work at the beginning of 2024. When we’re recording this episode, some of them didn’t see it coming at all. And probably, you know, are not really prepared for the job market. What do you think are the biggest things that, let’s say, you’ve stayed in an organization for five years over the pandemic, right? Now you’re having to look for work. What are the biggest changes that people should be aware of in recruitment and selection that did not exist in 2019?
Kyle: So, the level of LinkedIn existed, right? But like, the level of, like, I’ve been on LinkedIn since like you had to convince people like, no, the, “Oh my God, my boss, they’ll find out they’re going to think,” no, it’s not that right now. Like, everyone’s on LinkedIn. And so what’s happened is it has created, I think, a sense of false accessibility, right?
So, someone can follow friggin’ Mark Zuckerberg on LinkedIn and be like, “Oh, I’m gonna send him a DM and like, he’s not gonna see it. Like, it’s not the same thing, right? And so I think that’s going to be anachronistic, perhaps. What I’ve seen is working more now for people looking for jobs is going back to the pre-pandemic.
It’s the shaking hands and kissing babies. That’s better than kissing babies and shaking hands, but no, I’m serious, in-person kind of relationship building. I have found that like, I feel like people crave that maybe, if not more than before, but as much as before, and it can feel like, oh my gosh, now that we have LinkedIn and Glassdoor and Indeed and all these things, I have access to limitless jobs.
Right. But at the end of the day, if a human being doesn’t see your job… so let’s say this for job seekers: apply for a job. Let’s say this typically happens.
You apply for a job. You’re the 113th applicant, it’s been open for six days that week, the search, or the company has got their four, hopefully final candidates for their final round interviews.
And the goal is hopefully we’ll make an offer. They’ll accept it and we’re done. So, when that recruiter, the recruiter working at that company, they’re not going to spend time… like, you could be a hundred out of a hundred of the KPIs for that role, but you applied too late. They’re not going to spend their energy going back to that because it feels like it’s in good shape.
They’re going to work on the brand new search where they have zero candidates, right? And so one of the things I tell people, and I never had a problem when people did this when I led talent acquisition for Yum! Brands, sometimes people would apply for the job on the website, but they either email me or hit me on LinkedIn.
Say, “Hey Kyle, I applied for this job. I’m really interested in it. I just want to let you know.” And when people do that, they’re not trying to skip the line. ‘Cause I hate when people would, they wouldn’t apply for the job. They’d just be like, “Oh, I’m gonna skip the line and like, you’re going to talk to me on LinkedIn and think I’m awesome.”
But whenever people did that, I 100 percent either myself, or one of my recruiters looked at the resume to make sure they were fit or not, because I appreciated they did the right thing, but they’re doing the extra bit of like human being. I understand that some tree falls in the woods type thing, right.
So, I well, even we have all this technology. Think about the people that you like, and more importantly, the people that like you because the example I always give is we’ll go back to Zuck. You’re at a conference, you’re stuck in an elevator for five minutes with Mark Zuckerberg. You start talking about food, soccer, taekwondo, whatever.
You’re like, “Oh my God, this is great. He’s like, ‘Oh, here’s my card. Hit me up sometime. Let’s talk again,’ right?” You’re on cloud nine. You’re already daydreaming about being the next Sheryl Sandberg or whatever, right? By the time he gets in that next meeting in the private jet, he’s dealing with billion-dollar questions.
He has forgotten about you. Yes, he could change your life. He can make you generationally wealthy. He has no impetus to do so after a five-minute meeting, right?
They had a great relationship with you. You love them, not love them like that, but you value them.
It was really a good relationship. And they’re now an associate finance manager at Meta. That person is going to find that job that you’re interested in. They’re going to make sure that the HR team, they sit it through the internal, like, you know, employee referral program and they’re going to, “Hey, HR, not, not, not, ‘Hey, we’re not his resume.’
We, it’s been two weeks. She hasn’t heard anything. You know, you guys want us to do this, but it doesn’t work if you don’t talk to the candidates,” right? Like, I’ve done that for candidates, people care. And so I said, I like to say it’s the strength of the relationship is so much stronger than the influence that the person has if you have a weak tie.
So that associate finance manager will likely be more powerful in your getting that job at Meta than the five minutes with the guy who owns the company. It just is what it is. And so sometimes people get excited and they shoot for the top, but like, I’ve seen people get jobs through EAs that supported them and thought they were awesome.
So they tell their new boss, “Oh, I know so-and-so in my old company.” And that’s how they get the job from the electronic assistant from the executive assistant. So I just want people again, it comes to relationships and the people that you really know. And the people who know you will vouch for you and support you.
Renata: I have two comments to make that completely validate what’s happening in my small sample of clients. The clients who are doing better now, at the beginning of 2024, are the ones who took my advice and attended conferences late last year. They had conversations with their colleagues, expanded their network a little by meeting new people, and met people from their profession whom they hadn’t seen in a while. That’s what the pandemic did – it just removed some of those connections. By attending a professional conference, you can rekindle those connections again. And they are much better and more advanced in their search than those who did not attend conferences or do any one-on-one catch-ups. The others, who are at home applying for jobs, think that they are doing a great job by making very good applications and doing a lot of written work. It’s part of my framework for people to write down their stories and get ready for job interviews, but that’s not enough. You have to combine things, and it’s more holistic than that. So, it really does validate that. The other comment I want to make is about the example you used with Mark Zuckerberg and a contact at Meta. You can translate that to LinkedIn. I’ve been telling people and teaching clients how to use LinkedIn. Yes, you can send a message to a top voice in your profession, but that person has 400 comments under their post. Whereas, someone you’ve worked for, who is a decision maker and could potentially advocate for you or give you a job, does not have anything in their inbox on LinkedIn. If you reach out to them and ask for their advice, or, you know, suggest catching up, they will be more inclined to get back to you. You can apply that example virtually as well as face-to-face.
Kyle: Absolutely, it’s so true. And I get it because during the pandemic, people were able to keep working, which was great. Like, people had a lot of success during just the screen era, but that era is gone. Now, it’s just, you know, we’re doing it because it works, not because you offered to fly me to Australia. But when possible, the in-person connection is important. Part of me thinks it’s silly, right? Like, do you really need to know what I do for fun or about my dog to understand that I can help your business? Maybe, but I think what it really comes down to is that you could have two companies who could both do whatever the job is. Maybe one even has a slightly better reputation. But companies boil down to the individuals in them. While Company A may be bigger or better and have a bigger track record, if you don’t have the relationship, it impacts things like, “Hey, we just had an issue and I’m not going to be able to pay you for a couple of months.” When you have the relationship, the response might be, “Okay.” Versus if you were just a number on a spreadsheet, the reaction might be, “So I guess we’re going to sue you,” or whatever. That’s where it really comes into play. And I think it’s the same with people. As you talk about LinkedIn, I often counsel people to look at all their connections. Even if you only have a few hundred, you’re probably not tracking people every day. So, you might have someone who works at Company B, but they’ve been at Company C for 18 months and could help you, but you don’t know it. So, audit your connections to see who might make sense to reach out to, who you can support, and who can support you in your job search.
Renata: Yeah, that’s true. I’m developing a LinkedIn training, and I’m going to include that – to have a look at your connections. It’s a great idea to just go to the connections and start scrolling down and reviewing everybody. You may have forgotten about people, and they can certainly help out. I’m thinking of changing directions here now because you made a comment that really stood out to me. I’ve read some articles you’ve written and watched some of your previous interviews, and I think this was a comment you made somewhere that made me really sad, and I want to explore that with you. It’s the comment you made about diversity in hiring and the fact that you saw a momentum in 2020 for diversifying executive teams, but in your opinion, that has disappeared now in 2023, when you made that comment. I wanted you to explain what’s going on here.
Kyle: So I’m going to give a mostly USA perspective just because that’s my frame of reference.
Kyle: And there are times where it doesn’t make any business sense, right? Like, if you’re running a business and you need a role filled as soon as possible with someone capable. And let’s say it’s a tough job.
It’s a job where there aren’t a whole lot of people in general to say, “Oh, we want a woman of color just because that could possibly hurt your company.” Right? But I think the most important thing is the reactionary aspect. It’s kind of what I said before. A lot of these companies, you get to a certain level, they go to the same big firms, the same pool of candidates, and there’s not going to be a lot of diversity there.
And so that’s what happens. Versus just literally saying, “We’re going to hire the best person, but we’re not going to only stay in these kind of homogeneous pools. We’re going to expand where we go.” Like, here’s what I always tell people.
I always joke. I say, “Listen, don’t just think of creative talent endeavors when you want black and brown talent. Think of us when you want the best talent. There is going to be black and brown talent in there.” But here’s the thing. We’re going to give you Consuela, Chun Li, Lamont, and Chad. And if Chad is the best person, that’s awesome. That’s okay. Sometimes Chad is the best person for the role, but unlike the others, we’re not going to give you four Chads. Right? And so we’re going to give you the variety and the ability to say, “No, Chad was the best person, but we looked at everyone.”
That’s all people want. I think anyone who’s “other,” even if you’re a white woman, a veteran, differently-abled, or whatever you say, no one wants a handout. They just want to be given the opportunity to compete. And right now, it’s very hard to get interviews for some of these roles.
If you’re not of a certain profile, didn’t go to a certain school, or aren’t in that certain group of “yes pile” people, right? And so, hopefully, because we have LinkedIn, there’s such an easy way to find and source talent. Slowly but surely, hopefully, that continues. But I’m very curious to see how things go in the future with the DEI.
The joke is, you know, you’ve seen the private stuff with like Bill Ackman here, and that’s education, but it’s still a job right at Harvard. And so people, you know, Elon Musk, DEI, DEIMS, DEI, cool. I posit this is when I wish that I was like a head of HR at a really big company. And they just let me do all the weird stuff I wanted to do.
I would say, every, so let’s say Renata, you are the chief diversity officer, right? No. Starting today, you’re the chief officer of white supremacy, but you’re gonna do everything you did before, all we’re changing is the title. So that would mean Elon Musk now has to say white supremacy has got to go. That’s my dream, just to do just a little bit of trolling. But I think that eliminate the titles but do the work.
That’s the most important part. So if someone’s chief diversity officer now, they’re like chief HR officer. One cool as long as the work gets done. That’s the most important part. You know, here in the U.S., we’ve got an interesting election coming up. There’s been a lot of backlash with DEI, so it’s going to be weird.
Renata: It will. This conversation is very interesting. I think the chief diversity officer is a special person because that person needs to know that ideally his or her role will disappear. Right? So you don’t want to… Yeah, you know, ideally, the target for a chief diversity officer would be to disappear in three, five, ten years. I don’t know how long it would take.
Kyle: Disappear.
Renata: Save the idea. Go ahead.
Kyle: I was going to say, disappear because the work’s being done, not disappear because everyone’s hacked it. But like, to your point, I can’t think of any company that has a chief “Don’t Kick People in the Nuts” officer. Right?
Renata: Yes.
Kyle: Because who would do such a thing? It’s not such a big deal. So like, to your point, you hope that the need happened, or it’s just like, this is just a part of the culture.
Like we don’t have a chief “Don’t Steal People’s Lunch from the Refrigerator” officer either. Like, years ago, we hope as human beings in this society, we start to do. And so I’m with you.
Renata: It’s not a very commercial way of thinking, but it’s very common in the for-purpose sector. So if you go into, you know, anti-poverty foundations, of course, the people who set these things up want to end poverty and they want their organizations to disappear.
So if you set up a business or an organization like that, you want it to end. And part of that way of thinking is kind of built into commercial environments so that people can understand that these things need to be done and they need to have a target. It could involve things related to energy, the environment, climate, and diversity, but because people have built-in structures of career ambitions and set structures, they don’t want to disappear.
They don’t want their jobs to disappear and that’s problematic. One thing that I thought about when you were talking about diversity in the shortlist is that I have feedback from big employers here in Australia and also from recruiters who are really disappointed with the fact that they have a diverse shortlist, but the recruitment ends up always going to Chad, you know. Recruiters feel very annoyed with that because they get a brief that’s very diverse and inclusive, and full of the best intentions. But when it’s time to make a decision, the decision is often conservative. They feel good about seeing a diverse shortlist, but they still choose the conservative candidate.
And this employer, this very senior person who has a huge team, brought me and this other friend of mine, a diversity expert, for a chat. He reached out to us via LinkedIn. We were quite surprised because, you know, he’s quite senior and I’m not going to share his name or the name of the organization.
And he said, “Look, I’m having problems with my chief people officer. I’m having problems with every functional department because I can see the shortlist and I see the stats and I see the diversity. But the new hires are all basically white men and they feel good about it, but I don’t.”
Kyle: It makes me think, and again, you know, it makes you wonder. If we assume that the diverse candidates were on parity in terms of experience and education, then it becomes just like, “Yeah, but I can drink a beer with this guy and I kind of relate to him,” right?
Or, are you filling it with women or people of color who are almost there, but not at the level of Chad, perhaps?
Renata: I don’t think that’s it. I think that’s the feeling they have, that they are not there yet. And that’s feedback from this CEO I mentioned before. It’s because people see the word diversity and they do not understand what diversity actually means. It means a diverse upbringing, a diverse career trajectory, especially for women. It’s not linear, as we all know. So you look at the resumes and you may think this woman is not ready yet for the role because they don’t understand that diversity is more than just her gender or the color of her skin.
It’s much more than that. It’s broader than that. I think this is really what’s playing in their minds when they’re making decisions towards Chad. Yeah.
Kyle: Like, just being frank, she was like, “Listen, because it was a very well-meaning hiring manager. Like, ‘I love diversity, but like, I don’t understand why, you know, it’s hard to retain.’”
Like once we get them, she was like, “Listen, you’re a great person. I love you. But how often do you hang out with black people when you’re not at work? When was the last time you had a black person over your house that wasn’t there to fix something or whatever?” And they’re like, and she’s like, “So that’s it.”
It’s like, you don’t necessarily know or feel comfortable because you’re not used to it. And so you get weird. So let’s get you comfortable with the idea and just be honest about the fact that you haven’t had these relationships, but you’re willing to do it and just be open and take it from there.
Because what sometimes happens is people have the greatest intentions, but if you hire a bunch of diverse people into a company with hiring managers who don’t really know how to interact and there are cultural differences, and if you don’t work to address that, then it’s like, “We hired a bunch of women, but they don’t last in this culture. We hired a bunch of [people], but…” What are you doing to make sure that you provide a safe landing space, make them feel comfortable, and provide an environment where people are welcoming and understand? It’s not just easy. It’s like, “Cool, let’s put them in here. And they’re just going to be one of the gang.”
Renata: Yeah, yeah. Now, in my last job that I was hired for, before I signed the contract, I asked to have another meeting with my future boss, Ken. If you’re listening, you know it’s you. And I said to him, “You know, I have an accent that is not just an accent. I am South American. I am flamboyant. I like to speak. I sometimes speak too much. We are going to clash. You are British; I’m a Latina, right? And I want you to be comfortable with that, and if that’s okay, I want us to know that that will be part of the dynamic here because in my previous job, just before that one, they wanted diversity, but they didn’t understand it when they got it, right? And that was a lesson for me because I can’t expect people to just understand. I feel like I need to educate as well. Maybe the next generation won’t need to do it. But right now, my clients, if they are ethnically different from the majority of the hires in Australia or overseas, if they are from different countries or religions, if they need to go through Ramadan, whatever it is that they need to do, that needs to be discussed and educated. And part of the narrative during the recruitment and selection or during the onboarding, if they feel more comfortable, just has to be. You can’t just expect people to join the dots. They won’t.”
Kyle: Well, you know, what’s interesting is that no idea is original. I’m sure it’s been said a while ago. I was thinking a lot about American football this weekend. Sports is one of those areas where people from different backgrounds—I don’t want to say ‘forced’—but consider college or professional sports, right?
You have people from different backgrounds, races, upbringings, economic statuses, etc., figuring out how to work together to be successful. Like, I think I read a book about the—crap, is it the Blacks? The rugby team in Australia? Is it…
Renata: All Blacks is, is, is New Zealand. They’re from New Zealand. Yeah. Awesome. Yeah.
Kyle: A very diverse team of people from different backgrounds melded together and working well. So I’m just thinking, we do have these examples of diverse teams working together successfully. It’s like, how can we take that sports mentality, where it’s just like, “Oh, you look different. That’s cool. You’re good at your position.”
That’s all that matters, out of sports, right? Where it’s just like, “Oh, it’s totally cool that we look different.” Look at an American football team or basketball team. It might be majority brown or black, but there’s going to be, put it this way, a lot more diversity than you’d find in a boardroom of a Fortune 500 company.
I’ll put it that way. Yeah, so maybe we can learn something from them.
Renata: Absolutely. I love using sports as analogies for my coaching, so that’s a good way to sort of wrap it up, Kyle. I loved our conversation. We could just go on and on, but it’s been super fun. Thank you so much for taking the time to reach out. This is just a great audience for what you have to say, for what you’re trying to do in HR technology with your firm, and the way that you’re engaging your employers and, consequently, the candidates as well. Is there anything that we haven’t touched on that you would like to share before we go?
Kyle: If you’re looking for an executive search firm that likes to add value to their clients’ data for their pricing, why don’t you go over to hirecte dot com and get your guarantee. It’s a five-day quote that doesn’t change. So again, your price is fixed. You can manage it.
You know what it’s going to be. It’s not going to change regardless of what you pay your… and I’ll leave that.
Renata: What about the candidates? What if there are candidates that want to work with you? Because this podcast is mostly listened to in the US, would you believe? In the, you know, I’m in Australia. Australia is like 30 percent of my audience.
Kyle: Really?
Renata: Yeah, 60 percent US and then a little bit here and there in the UK and Canada.
Kyle: You too can go to HireCTE dot com and submit your resume or information. So that if we have a job that currently fits, then our recruiter will absolutely reach out. But if we don’t have something that fits at the moment, now we know and so when we kick off a search, you will be in the list of people that we reach out to.
Renata: Remind us of the key areas that you operate in again. It was finance, HR, go-to-market, and product and engineering, right?
Kyle: Finance, HR, go-to-market, and product and engineering.
Renata: Okay. Excellent. Love it. Thank you. I may visit you one day.
Kyle: Please do. Well, it depends on what time you come, but if you come in the summer in Charlotte, you will be very warm.
