For more years than I can count, I’ve devoted my time to learning as a priority.
It keeps me engaged, satisfies my curiosity, and fills the gaps between the daily tasks that bring a return.
Occasionally, what attracts my attention is relevant in the near term, but it is never my intent to discover something immediately practical. Instead, the sparks that fire my imagination typically go into a Tomorrow File - a folder I began keeping during my years at J&J, where budgets always wait for a proper use case and the right timing.
Fast forward to today however, and the explosion of published content by billions of people curating their own version of reality online makes separating signals from the noise of unreferenced opinions and badly designed research - even (or maybe especially) within HR and Talent Acquisition - a task way beyond my pay grade.
Still, for the next few weeks I’ll share what causes me to pause and ruminate about where we’ve been, where we are, and where we can go. If any of this sparks a thought or two, please let me know. Here are four signals I’ve encountered this last week that stand out from the noise:
The Use of AI in HR at ServiceNow
Kyle Forrest’s January newsletter, Human Capital Insider, includes a link to an interview podcast with Brandon Roberts, Group VP of AI and Analytics at ServiceNow, on their four-point strategy around the use of AI in HR. Kyle is Deloitte’s Chief Marketing Officer for Human Capital.
It’s a deep dive well worth studying (and I mean taking notes) if you are seriously invested in data-based decision making.
AI will Change Recruiting in 2025 and Beyond
Kevin Wheeler’s January newsletter on AI’s impact is well worth a look. Subscribing to get Kevin’s ongoing insights is even a better play. (Available via Substack).
I’ve also written or spoken about a couple of these and think his predicted adoption rate of 18 months may struggle – not for the technology but instead because we are unable to adopt the inevitable change as fast as the technology will let us. Kevin goes into each of these in more depth in the newsletter:
- “AI Agents will become (much more) powerful and valuable for many recruiting tasks.” References Glen Cathey’s November article which is right on target.
- “AI will handle much of the sourcing, screening, early assessment, and conversation with candidates under human oversight.” This is a significant shift ‘in kind’ that will be resisted as automation takes over the top of the funnel. In my scenario written almost a year ago, I noted that it will vastly improve the candidates’ perception of fairness.
- “…a comeback (Crypotcurrency and Blockchain) is occurring, and blockchain will become mainstream for credential validation.” I buy this as long as the tech finds trusted partners. This has already been a decade in the making.
- “AI-savvy recruiters will remain essential.” Without a doubt recruiters will thrive when upskilled to automate tactical solutions and when demonstrating they are capable of problem solving and executing on the strategies that improve the pool of quality prospects. Order takers will be gone by 2026.
- “Candidates will increasingly use AI to apply for work, tailor their resumes, answer assessment questions, and interact with chatbots. (etc.)”
Mastering the Art of the Rookie Advantage
Brian Fink’s newsletter, The Talent Architects, is always designed to goose recruiters to do better. Last week’s issue was no exception and a great example for those new to recruiting.
There is a unique power to being a rookie…to recruiting itself or just to any new job. The time you are perceived as new and your ability to influence outcomes should not be squandered. If nothing else it sets the stage for how you will be perceived. Plan well. Ask dumb questions. Look for quick wins. Demonstrate a commitment to listening before you act but willing to act for the right reasons.
The DE&I Pullback at McDonald’s
The latest news in rollbacks by employers’ commitments to equal opportunity is the spate of articles last week about McDonald’s.
When I read multiple headlines that quoted McDonald’s as stating, “We are retiring setting aspirational representation goals”, my first thought was what does that even mean?
None of the articles for or against seemed to offer a definition - they just opined on an assumed outcome. An outcome that wasn’t obvious, nor was it obvious on how to find McDonald’s original announcement - as only a couple of the articles bothered to link to the primary source.
Once there, however, the content of the company’s ~1000 word statement was overwhelmingly focused on defending their newly adopted commitment to ‘Inclusion’ as one of their core values. This newly minted language replacement for ‘DE&I’ would be easy to point as parallel to Johnny Taylor’s latest light bulb moment as SHRM’s CEO but, I digress.
In all fairness, McDonald’s claims some great results:
- ‘30% of our U.S. leaders (are) from underrepresented groups’
- ‘We achieved gender pay equity at all levels and in every market’
- ‘We met our supplier diversity U.S. system wide aspirational spend goal of 25% of diverse-owned suppliers…three years ahead of schedule.’ (I guess this goal wasn’t so aspirational)
- This past year, McDonald’s Franchisees recruited the largest number of applicants from underrepresented groups in their history.
McDonald’s also touted their past efforts to conduct civil rights audits, assess the shifting legal landscape of recent supreme court rulings and their impact on corporations, and finally, applauding their ongoing efforts at benchmarking with others who are re-evaluating their programs (really? versus those recommitting to their programs?).
However laudable their past efforts were, they were missing a clear declaration that they would hold themselves accountable in the future and be as transparent as in the past for equitable treatment and equal opportunity where under representation of protected classes was still evident.
Instead, they quite muddied the waters implying - at least to me - that they had done enough and that any further attempt to place importance on measuring things like diversity of slate were simply unrealistic i.e. ‘aspirational’. In the end their statement translates to “we did good but we are taking a break like other folks."