Thank you. I normally only say it internally for recruiters to deal with rejection.
It's not designed to be rude, it's not like the manager and candidate are bad - it's that they have different motivations.
I believe that if we had full transparency, no one would ever get hired or ever work for a company.
But that's just based on Plato's noble lie from the Republic.
That was the theory. It failed in court over and over.
The idea of a fiduciary responsibility was first recognized by Franck Cushner.
The class action lawsuits that followed made it clear. You can't blame the broker. Here's the piece he authored with Paul Holmes, the legendary ERISA lawyer.
https://t.co/EHnR9FVeYJ
@fiago7 Virginia and NC. Blue Ridge Parkway, Charlottesville, Lexington, Winston Salem, up to Chattanooga.
Lots of historic sites and beautiful landscapes.
What is the difference between using a fill-in-the-blank template and using an AI?
Not in quality of the output, but in terms of the "realness."
Let's say I go to the internet in 2004 and pull a legal template for filing a motion. The template has a fake case on it, because it's a demo and the paid one is behind a subscription wall.
Compare that to popping into an LLM in 2026 and drafting a motion.
Is there a difference? How about the difference when caught?
Is there a difference if you're not caught and it works?
How about resumes.
What's the difference between copying someone's resume with similar titles to me in 2000 and having an LLM write me a resume in 2026?
@moladukes That's just experience, wisdom, and common sense talking.
It really is a challenge when tech is bought to solve a problem that is more process than reporting. And no matter how well-intentioned the vendor, the people using the software have to want to use it.
What if the point of your HR Tech software was not the stated benefits in the demo, but instead a way to build relationships with the rest of the company?
I was thinking about this while talking to a vendor the other day, and it led to several interesting phone conversations about what it takes to be a great TA director.
The mechanics of external headhunting have largely been solved. You follow the script, do the work, and focus on the task that is closest to the money. This works largely because external headhunters can afford to work on the best jobs and the best candidates. They can walk away.
Internal recruiting has a lot of similarities, but you can't fire an internal client. This means you have to beg, plead, instruct, cajole, persuade, and influence managers to work with you.
This is why internal TA directors have to preemptively build relationships with the rest of the company. This is very hard, especially when you move around, because telling a hiring manager or an executive that they are the reason their search is failing takes an enormous amount of tact.
When is the right time to tell someone their baby is ugly? When is the right time to have a quiet 1:1, versus going public, or involving upper management?
When you think about some of the best people in our industry, they have this part of the job down. They build trust early so they can tell the hard truths later. They get into the weeds early, so that when obstacles come up, they have the information to find a win for both their recruiters and the hiring manager.
So what is the point of HR Tech? What is the point of your dashboards and your PowerBI reports and your Workday and your Net Promoter Scores? What's the point of your intake meetings and referral software and your short-form video?
What if - the actual value - is in the way that you roll it out to the field, which helps you build relationships with managers and executives?
Companies say they are looking for AI-first talent, but they don't mean it.
If I build an agent that automates 75% of my candidate experience, leaving the high-touch conversations and relationship building to me, recruiters would lose their mind.
I feel like I need a prove me wrong here.