This week on The Digital Download we'll have a special guest, Giles O'Halloran.

Managing the entire lifecycle of hiring through awareness, recruitment, onboarding, engagement, exit and even alumni can be a huge headache… but not if you do this in the social domain.

So how can you leverage the world of Social HR?

This week on The Digital Download we’ll have a special guest, Giles O’Halloran an internationally renowned expert in modern HR techniques and in social HR.

This week we’ll address questions like -

* what does the modern HR landscape look like

* what does the future of HR look like

* what is social HR

* how can social HR help your business

* what things can social HR help with

As HR continues to change you need to think about how the digital world effects your staff, your future hires, your alumni and how their opinion impacts on your business.

We strive to make The Digital Download an interactive experience. Bring your questions. Bring your insights. Audience participation is highly encouraged!

This week we were joined by our Special Guest -

• Giles O'Halloran, Coach, Confidant + Consultant to the HR Community at go2-work

This week's Host was -

• Adam Gray, Co-founder of DLA Ignite

Panelists included -

• Tim Hughes, CEO & Co-founder of DLA Ignite

• Alex Abbott, Founder of Supero, a DLA Ignite partner

• Tracy Borreson, Founder and CEO of TLB Coaching & Events, a partner of DLA Ignite

• Rob Durant, Founder of Flywheel Results, a proud DLA Ignite partner

Transcript of The Digital Download 2023-07-14
How can you leverage the world of Social HR?
with Special Guest Giles O'Halloran

Adam Gray [00:00:00]: and he says, quack.

Tim Hughes [00:00:07]: Yeah. Are they new headphones, Tracy?

Adam Gray [00:00:13]: They are new headphones. Thank you for your time. -- told us about this. You should have done a post about really sure.

Tracy Borreson [00:00:19]: Look how much more pink they are than the other ones.

Tim Hughes [00:00:23]: Yes. They're they're nice. In fact, I think tend to treat himself to a perilous. I'm thinking I I was looking at them very -- Enviusly. And, yes, but match your shirt, They they they would. They're it's orange.

Adam Gray [00:00:35]: Yeah. Well, it's almost pink, isn't it? Anyway, welcome everybody to this week's edition of the digital download, which is Rob?

Rob Durant [00:00:47]: The longest running weekly business talk show on LinkedIn

Adam Gray [00:00:52]: 5. Thank you so much. And we're very lucky today to have a a a special guest Giles O’Halloran, who is will let let him introduce himself in a moment. All you need to know is that he is the world authority on digital and social HR. We've done some work with him in the past, and we are in awe of his capabilities in this this area. But before we bring Charles in, let's go around the horn and introduce ourselves. So, Alex?

Alex Abbott [00:01:23]: Good afternoon. Good morning all. Alex Abba, founder of Shapiro and wait for it, Tracy, exultant partner. of DLA Ignite.

Tim Hughes [00:01:36]: Rob.

Rob Durant [00:01:38]: Hi, all. Rob Durant, founder of Flywheel Results based just outside of Boston, Massachusetts. And I am a proud DLA ignite part.

Adam Gray [00:01:52]: Tracy.

Tracy Borreson [00:01:54]: Hello, everyone. I am Tracy Borr. in founder of DLB Coaching And Events where we care about sales and marketing because we care about sales and marketing people. And I am the coolest

Adam Gray [00:02:06]: DLA in my apartment. I I think there's little there's little doubt about that today. Tim.

Tim Hughes [00:02:13]: Hello, everybody. I'm Tim Hughes. I'm the CEO and cofounder of DLA Night.

Adam Gray [00:02:19]: And everybody, I'm at a gray on Tim's partner and cofounder of the LA Ignite. Now without further ado, let's bring in Johnzo Halloran.

Giles O'Halloran [00:02:30]: Charles, introduce yourself, my friend. Thank you very much. And, Adam, thank you very much for for setting the bar so high. I'm gonna bang my head. but I appreciate the very kind of warm welcome in terms of my social media and my social HR background. I don't consider myself the true lead. I do consider myself as I said previously, I'm not an expert on my enthusiast because things are changing so quickly. But, obviously, for anyone who's on the call and say hello to everyone, my name is Jozse. I'm Alleran. I am an HR professional. Please don't hold it against me. So I am a dark cider to put it bluntly. As for that, in terms of my around, I run a small company, which is a freelance HR capability. We focus on 4 Ts really, so training. So developing HR professionals to next stage, we're talking about also talent to help the organization understand what talent is because it's very different different organization. different departments and functions, and what does that look like, what frameworks you can put in place. Also, T for technology, so helping in particular HR and business understand and adopt technologies, especially in things like the social space, where we can use things like recruitment, etcetera. And then finally, T for transition. things are changing their world. So one of the areas that I've looked after for 20 years is helping people understand the impact of things like a good resume, a good CV, LinkedIn profile, how you can hit the dots in between them. So those are the 4 t's. And the nature of my work has taken me globally in terms of what I do, both virtually and physically, So I've worked in the Far East, Middle East, Africa, Europe. I'm afraid I haven't gone too far west just yet. We will see But other than that, you know, the work I've delivered is mainly around HR development, future of HR, future HR practices, and business partnering is my specialty So there you go. I can brief.

Adam Gray [00:04:12]: Indeed, you can. So welcome, as always. And and I'm sure that that the audience have got lots of questions and insights that they'd to get. And, certainly, we'll have loads of questions for you. So so I'll I'll kick it off, if I may. obviously, digital assessment had an impact on everything that we do from a work perspective. And it's no doubt had a an impact on hiring as well. You know, now people don't rely on two sheets of a four paper to decide whether or not you're the right person to they can look at your social profile or social profiles, and they can see not only how you present yourself, but they can look at your history 3. They can see what others say about you. They can see how you behave and how you interact with people, whether what you say and do is appropriate or inappropriate. So it gives surely much deeper insights for for hiring managers and people that are looking to head hunt talent into their organization. And I'm sure that that's a great plus side. But but what's the downside to that because, clearly, it's not as straightforward as simply I make myself look good and then you you give me a great job.

Giles O'Halloran [00:05:27]: Exactly that. I think, they're asking me, look, as as a whole in terms of technology, HR and the recruiting world is evolving, you know, very in terms of ATS' applicant tracking system, HRMS, the human resources management systems. There are multiple Lorena of layers and and capabilities out there, which is all good. But as you rightly say, people who have a social media profile, how do they connect that dots to the ATS to ATS understand? Can you transition that information across? are things like, for instance, certain language elements included because an ATS might then qualify an individual according to, say, SME, which could stand for subject matter spurt. It could be Willy Dementprised, which case has to be configured effectively. But on the back of that, as you rightly say, there are some big risks around potential discrimination and intrusion. So if individuals, how far do they go it recruiters in terms of looking at your social profile is it appropriate? Are they making judgments that may be deemed as illegal in some countries, potentially discrimination because you're making a judgment purely on data while actually talking to Borreson and balancing it. So I think there are some massive risks about that and that leads to potential profiling. Are you recruiting more of the same? you be discriminating? Are you really being diverse and inclusive in the way you look at things? So I think that could be really quite an interesting space to sort of progress And I think there are some massive opportunities in in in the technology side as much as risks. And, again, we have to be careful of things like fraudulent stuff. You know, people might embellish the CV or their details. How far does that go? because that can be deemed as fraud if they actually get a job as a result of it. So there's so much, I think, it's a real it's a really big minefield in that respect.

Adam Gray [00:07:02]: But but surely from the from the hirers perspective rather than a hiree's perspective, it's easier to to easier to do due due diligence on somebody's level of expertise and their history. I mean, I I always thought you said about lying on your CV. I always thought that was that was part of the game. You know? You you it's a tapestry of lies. You take I I tell you the hiring manager what I think you want to hear, and then you hire me. Isn't that how it used to work?

Giles O'Halloran [00:07:29]: Well, you lied about me being the the world expert about so to lead chance. So there you go. Prime itself. -- role as well. So in case you invite my friend. But No. I think this is where there's a difference between polishing and embellishing. Polishing the content to make sure it's relevant, the person and the people catch it. I mean, do you say that, you know, the time has really reduced over time. People's attention spans dropped, especially over the last 2 decades, more with technology. And also because things like Google, people expect that answer now, I want their fonts. And people who take 8 seconds maybe to look at a CV and what's on it and whether they're actually just pertinent stuff. So it's people have, therefore, trained their mind in their way of working to pick out pertinent employees to make it attractive. But how far that goes is not a matter. Now, yes, you can dig into the data. But more if or not, more people are integrating their online with their CV, etcetera, to make sure there's that consistent message, which is great because you've got to make a pervasive professional profile, the p's there. But I think the worry there in terms of digging a bit deeper, unless you've got some form of due diligence that you can do legally and that you're open about it as well to say that, for instance, whenever I've done recruit with all social media. I've advised them that, as part of the recruiting process, advise people that we will be looking at your social media profiles and public profiles in order to understand more about the candidates that we are bringing in so that you're open to transparent. Because otherwise, you could be deemed as, you know, you can discriminatory or your practices or you could be making decisions around people that are inappropriate in some cultures?

Adam Gray [00:08:58]: Wow. Yes. I guess that may I guess that makes perfect sense. And, you know, I I I think that one of the things is is we kind of move out of the old fashioned way of, you know, you do as I say rather than I do into a more kind of we hope open and equal society in a way of doing things. we do need to be mindful of how we treat people in every interaction that we that we have with them. So, yeah, I think that's really valuable. So now from the candidates, because, you know, previously on on this show, we have occasionally touched on what people can do with their social profiles. in order to make themselves more visible in order to mobilize their network so they can get introductions into job opportunities or even to perhaps become aware of job opportunities that are not yet in the public domain. So if now obviously, if if I'm able to mobilize my network, you know, Tim is in my network. He works at company x. I'd like a job at company x. I struck up a conversation with Tim, and he makes an introduction for me. that's fine because I've gone through the relationship route. And that, we understand how to mobilize, as you know. But if I'm trying to go through the recruitment consultant route, what sorts of things should I be mindful of in terms of how I present myself online? And and what are the risks? Because one of the things that we see is that, generally speaking, people can have one kind of profile or the other. They have a profile which enables them to do what it is they're supposed to be doing. So if I'm in a sales role, the last thing I need to say on my profile is that I'm a salesman because, clearly, if that makes it very difficult for me to do my job. If, however, I'm looking to get a new job somewhere, if I don't have the word sales put on my profile, but Hirera won't know that I'm a salesman because you can't expect them to read and and and read between the lines. So how how do I strike the balance? I'm still able to be productive in my my role in sales, let's say. but also be attractive to recruitment consultants where they can introduce me into into their clients. So you've

Giles O'Halloran [00:11:10]: I think you've layered 2 or 3 questions into that narrative. Hopefully. So what are they? It's just for clarity in terms I mean, the first thing I think it's are you how how do you make yourself attractive as a candidate to recruiters is the first one? Is that right? So I think that goes back to the first thing is make sure that you, as you rightly say, you've got to be mindful of language, current themes, etcetera, the people are looking for. If there are certain job specs I mean, one of the things you can do as a candidate particularly linkedin. I mean, linkedin is the the probably the best tool to use for anything around recruitment because everyone goes there, becomes gravity. But things like that, you can save jobs on your profile, which case you could look at, and that thing gives you an indicator of the kind of things that might come through, gives an algorithm behind the scenes that says, if you like this, you're gonna like this. And so the more you say, even if you don't apply, it gives the indicator to come And what you can do is start to look at those job specs and go, what's the language being used, what are the key hashtags, things that I can use, a wide profile as well, that I can use in other conversations, And what kind of conversation am I getting involved with? Which groups am I in? What kind of things am I posting? What hashtags am I using so that I can be found? and even a link in here that you can find those different hashtags where there are key conversations around where you could then align your things to it and say, right, this is what I'm going to. So you get seen. So there are lots of different reasons. I think it goes back to one of the big ones to consider with anything around recruitment stage and especially with networks, and linked to increase this point, is there was a paper written back in, I think it was 1974 by a socialist sociologist called It could've been a socialist. You know what I mean? It was it was the time. It was quite fashionable then. You know? But it's back in the seventies then. Grando veteran wrote you sociology, who wrote the strength of weak ties. And in that paper, he proved that 60% to 70% of all jobs then were found through networks. not through friends direct, you know, that one first connection, but friends of friends, equates, the second connection, which is the Powergreen team. And so that's been something that we've known for a number of years, and I think the tools out there now have improved upon that. LinkedIn has improved and pushed those numbers up, potentially 70 to 80% may be higher in some fields. But when it comes to advising candidates at the way to use networks, we're effectively auto gauge recruiters, whether they're in house recruiters or other agencies, I use 4x to get people to think. First is Nexus. Nexus is the center point. What is it that's unique about you? What are your USPs if we speak sales speak? What are your USPs that you bring to the party that you can say that's me, that's I'm frustrated for. These are my capabilities and that I can put shine a light. That's the first thing. The next thing is about being a node. So that's being about that connection that shares that engages that is an access around it because you cannot expect others to do what you will you won't do for them. And so this is the power of the network that shared mindset The next thing is about network. It's about leveraging both the nexus and the node elements across your network, making sure there's constant engagement sharing, even just liking things that come up and think, actually, that's interesting Borreson sending someone a birthday, you know, happy birthday, posting stuff and congratulations on your role. You're keeping that to live. But those three ends are then underpinned by another end, which is netiquette. You've got to, as you rightly say, behave professionally and online in order to be seen as the people that want to engage with you, and I think that would be my simple response as a framework.

Adam Gray [00:14:32]: Yeah. That that's fantastic. I mean, I I I do think that LinkedIn is simultaneously And and, you know, I haven't applied for a job for years, many years. Clearly. But LinkedIn is it appears to me to be simultaneously the candidate's best and worst friend from the recruitment of effective. You know, pretty much every job that's in the public domain is going to be listed somewhere on LinkedIn. Somebody is going to be hiring and posting about that. There will be job postings on the job boards and job adverts on there. And, you know, the LinkedIn recruiter tool will will showcase to me those things that that seem to dovetail with my skills or the skills that I I I have So I get that. And from my perspective, there's somebody that's been laid off, and we've we've had a number of kind of sessions over the last 18 months where we've spoken about how can we help you, the audience, you know, if you've been laid off and you find it difficult to interviews and whatever. So as a as a candidate that's been laid off, I'm looking to to to touch many job opportunities as I possibly can and see which one seems to find me attractive in order that I can walk towards that. But I can I can apply with a single click. And the problem with that is that I can load up 50 different jobs and go click click click click click click click click click click. And if I can do it, you can do it. Alex can do it. Tim can do it. Tracy can do it. Rob can do it. And the problem is that the poor hiring managers now got 500 people applying in the first ten minutes of this. And

Tim Hughes [00:16:11]: how do I stand out? Sorry, Tim. You were -- I was gonna say what Rob always jokes is that even as a candidate, we can go apply apply. Apply. Apply. Apply. Apply. On the back of that, the hiring manager is going, reject, reject, reject, reject, reject, reject, reject.

Alex Abbott [00:16:28]: Yeah. that lazy apply.

Giles O'Halloran [00:16:31]: It it is. And that's where I mean, I've actually been through this myself recently. So a a client I was working with, but I did a piece of work for them understand more about I actually went in there first to to identify what was HR need because they're a growing organization from SME upwards they said, we don't have an HR person. And I think rightly say they said, look. Instead of getting to hey. 800 plus people go, oh, we need an HR person. Do we need to bring someone in now and scale it up in order to make sure it works because of what we're doing. So we talked about what that looks like. As a result of that, they offered me either to do the work for, which I don't have the time capability at the moment in order to deliver what they require. But they then said, well, can you help us recruit someone? And I said, well, you could go to recruitment consulting okay, what you're right, the speck. Well, so, no, we trust you. Can you do it for us? And I thought, well, I like the people. I like the company. Yeah. Yeah. I'll do it. So I then for this HR managed for them, and I know myself going through it that you will get, you know, I've got a handle applicants within 3 days. And some of them, you know, and and I think LinkedIn as as a tool did it pretty well, they, you know, as long as you feed the information, these are things you need to tick that get the it will sift some of it for you, and a lot of systems are doing that already be deep for a number of years to sort of qualify candidates. But against the machine looking at what does it think it's looking for, and therefore, we have to be mindful of bias as well in terms of what might be programmed into machines. But in the same light, It did help me then identify a gold ounces. Out of those those hundred candidates I got within 3 days, there was 60 that were relevant that I could then go right. There are 20 that I'm going to interview. I qualified and quickly from downloadable CVs, a look through it. So I found it very, you know, very useful as a tool to quicken things. what I found time consuming, but I still did anyway because it was the ethical thing to do was to write back to every employee retiring point. Every candidate that didn't make the sense and say, this is why, or you don't have to be successful this time because of this, that's the bit that takes time because you have to cuss you can't just go but you can be blank. But I think it's impersonal and it destroys your potential brand as an employer. It was about actually taking time to respond to each individual saying, you have any success because these are where your skills likely fall down, etcetera, versus other candidates. And then briefing the 20 that I took through, and then briefing those went down to about 5 or 6 that went through to the final sort of stages. But I tried to engage at every level. And my feedback, though, I I must say, my feedback from candidates been really positive, which I'm glad, because I treat people as I'd like to be treated myself, and it's just Duke Karma. But that's the bit, I think, as a recruiter, as an extra crewneck salt, that's how I started life. You know, many years ago after graduating as a crewneck salt. And I find it frustrating sometimes that I had 200 or so candidates on my books. You can't keep up to date with them all the time even though you'd like to. And sometimes you feel a bit like a social worker, and sometimes it would simply take too much casework. You don't have the time to sort of do it. And people have very unique circumstances. Some people might be going through very, you know, different relationship problems that might be potentially using the house because they lost their job. And so you're sometimes you are there to help them otherwise. And I think that blend of being human, that's where we add value in that process. this is we can use these machines, we can mindful of how quickly it can apply. But sometimes you've got to put a bit of time and effort into making human. I think yes, it is easy to get all these applications and yes, easy. No. You reject, reject, reject. But it doesn't reflect in your brand because I bet any candidate you speak to will turn around and go, I didn't hear back from that. I never heard anything. I've done anything. And what we've done is completely dehumanize what is realistically a human relationship. And I think that that damages your brand. That damages the way you work things. You're relying on a machine of not the person, and I think you lose that connection then which you're trying to generally make by that word social because that's about people, not machines. And I think we lose sight sometimes then if we don't put a bit of genuine human or anticipate into the way we recruit what we do.

Adam Gray [00:20:26]: And and does that can you is that on both sides of the scale? Because as you know, Charles, because we've worked together. You know, we we drive people that we train to be very personal in terms of how they talk about themselves and their journey to get to where they And, you know, on the basis that you are the best thing that you have to offer, that's what you need to lead with. And, yes, if if if you are going to become my surgeon, I need to know that you know how to operate a scalpel. Clearly, that's that's a given. But beyond that, surely that personal element that, you know, you seem like the sort of person I would like to work with. He's more powerful than the fact that I've been doing this for 15 years, and Tim's been doing it for 16. Therefore, he must be better than me. Because the lots of those things that that we see time and again in people's profiles actually don't prove successful competency they only prove that people have have filled in a template, basically.

Giles O'Halloran [00:21:31]: And I think you're right to highlight that. It goes down to this magic word trust and that's the bit that really comes to the Lorena here. I can't remember that who was the it was the previous editor of wired. He's written a number of books. He's written free, maker. I can't remember the the name. I've got the age now. I've got I take the toilet. I forgot what I've gone there for. Sorry? What age? What? We're talking about? There. I'll go to the toilet. I've got what I've gone there for. So it's what's gonna sound that then? I can't remember. It's it's it and it's pretty he writes some really good stuff. But what I liked about he was talking about social networks and the way to recruit and the way people are working now. He said that fundamentally, in the modern world, there two things that are your currency, and that comes to employment, otherwise, is trust and credibility. Can people trust you and are you credible? And therefore, the credibility And that's been proving you the 2nd connections on LinkedIn. Do people are they willing to reach out? Well, actually, I know there are connections to that person I trust them. And, actually, looking at this profile, they look credible. But do we trust in that individual what they are? And that's that's where we need to look at going a bit deeper, understanding some of the mistakes around trust. So Maestrian Green did a did a wrote a book a number of years ago called The Trusted Advisor. One of the things they highlighted was the exact point there, is about People connect and trust people based on their experiences and the way they do things. And and and the simple way I describe trust that it's taken from someone else completely right, but I think it's true. And that is that trust is the willingness to be vulnerable to someone. That's what it comes down to. And we'll all be willing to be vulnerable to a certain extent depending on our experiences and what we've got. And when it comes to one of the five mistakes that Maestrian Green Highrop highlights, was it was trusting in the technical. And that is they did a it was a really interesting piece of research, I believe, that was done with pediatrician And the number of families were asked, you know, which pediatrician would you go to? They're a set of pediatricians. And you have the least experience and the most experience with all their, you know, qualification certifications etcetera behind it. But what they found was that families did not choose purely based on the qualifications. They chose on which one connected with their child. And that's input that's human. You know, that that's very much and it goes back to what we're talking about. It's about storytelling. You know, we we something in our brain that that goes back to the, you know, very much in terms of our evolution about stories and narratives and what have we connect with a story, help us do so. A no disrespect to anyone on this call in terms of your background, your thoughts on faith and belief, but every faith system in the world is based on a story. and therefore we connect with that, and that gives us a sense of belief. And it's that story, that connection, that trust that I think we've got to we can't afford to lose with technology, and that's why I'm a strong believer that the future work and where we're going is not simply binary, it's not just simply human or machine, it is a combination of the 2. It's about blending technology and talent. You shouldn't lose or dilute the the difference in opportunity with both.

Tracy Borreson [00:24:38]: Okay. I have I have somewhere a question I'd like to ask based on this trust thing. So we have trust and we have social media, and we have HR policies. And when I think about I was having a conversation with someone yesterday about Like, how can we show up on social media? Because as soon as we get hired by a company, I'm gonna be handcuffed in terms of my social media policy because I'm not gonna be able to do anything. And so when I look at this from a trust perspective, like, How how does this play throughout the process? Right? If I if I'm a candidate, I wanna have and I'm an expert of some sort. I I like to show this on my social media profile. I like to have my own personal Lorena. They also have friends who haven't been hired because they refuse to not maintain their own personal brand once they've been hired by a company, and the company's policy is that you can't view own thing on social media. So those types of policies versus how we're using social media to, like, look for candidates. How would do all of these things need to come together to actually create trust between a company and a campus

Giles O'Halloran [00:25:51]: So I think there's a lot in there, but definitely, I think, is is a work a value question in terms of, you know, what do you think? Because why why recruit someone if you've seen they're so good at what they do, and then bring them in the door and muffle them. It just loses loses the value of that conversation. so when I when I so going back to some of the social media legal training I've done with with organizations where, you know, getting people to to understand how you use social media effectively from business perspective, but avoid the legal risk because there is potential legal risk with reputational damage. You know, you can spent a 100 years creating a company and have it destroyed within 10 minutes of what goes out on a hashtag. So, you know, when we look at that, one of the things I look organization to think about is there's three layers you need to consider when you are doing things. It's legal, easy ethical, and is it reasonable. You know? And we look at legal. You've got to follow the lawful stop in what is right because to prevent certain, you know, people speaking and selling stuff, you can't do that unless it's a pretty then you've got the next level up, which is around the ethical. Is it the right thing? And, again, there should be giving people guidance on how to use social media more effectively. Not telling them no, but how, and I think this goes back to your point about there's some HR that fear because actually it's gonna reduce their workload because, oh my god, someone's put that out there, someone's put it out there. Well, actually, is that HR's job? Well, no, maybe it's marketing's job because that's their list. So why should HR be the gatekeeper and everything? It shouldn't need to be. In the same actually, where does the manager come into this? That's when I question. When when should HR be the surrogate? We should be actually the individuals advising the managers on them actually doing their job fully. That's what we've got to think about here. But in the same light, that reasonable bit at the top, which I know is taken really from UK And Commonwealth based law. But, reasonable, is if you ask any average individual in the street, is this right or wrong and they give you an answer, that's what's deemed reasonable. So we've got to treat people and adults to make sure that we do things reasonable. That they they respect that it's a 2 way thing in the contract. You know, that's what a contract is. It's bipartisan. If we pay you to do stuff, etcetera, you've also gotta behave yourself. There's some implied terms there, and there's that trust. But but we've also got into context. I know this from my own background, when I've been deviated or or developed vetted for for the military and and some of the work I've done with sensitive clients, there is stuff you can't put online. you know, Adam, as as I see this previously, I went quiet for a couple of years, purely because some of the work I was doing was in the security and policing space, and therefore, you've gotta be sensible. And you've got a reason about what you do put out there because you might therefore highlight different things. You might highlight individuals that might put other people at risk. gotta be careful on because there is a tool out there called in the intelligence world called aggregation where if you can pull lots of data from different sources, it's likely to point out all that indicator of this. So I have to be careful of all that. So I think you've got to be reasonable on both sides of the equation. It's not one side or the other. It's a nonbinary scenario. And there has to be that open discussion. But to put your case in point, I had this exact problem in a previous organization whereby, ahead of legal case, he said, Charles, what do you just support here? we need to have an we we need to have a social media policy. I said, right. Okay. Why do we need a social media policy? So what we need to control this Well, I get what you're doing. That might be the baseline to start from to stop the certain behaviors we're seeing. But I don't argue we need to look at guide Let's train people to use it. Let's give them the guidance to support and get managers to manage the people. That's what it should be rather than with a backstop all the time in the Fireflies. because all will ever be is for a firefighters. But what I did put to put into context, the conversation I said is that there will be those individuals that it doesn't matter to try and help them. They're gonna fall by the way. And I said, you know, let's put it into legal context. I asked her. I said, so do we have laws in this and they said, of course, we did. I'm a lawyer. I said, yeah. Get her. I said, do we have prisons? I said, well, yeah. I said, what does that tell you? It doesn't matter how many rules policies you've got, still gonna have a minority that break the rule. That's a reality, but we shouldn't create a policy to manage the minority. We should consider the majority that most people are likely to follow the rules. And we have disciplinary scenarios. We have procedures around grievances, etcetera, that we can we can Borgo, you know, we can use, like, disciplinary methods. All we have to do we'd have to write multiple policies. If if they are behaving incorrectly highlight that under, you know, the the right point in the discipline process, then that's what we should be looking at. But we should get people to say, look, we all treat as adults. But if you act inappropriately, then we will deal with it. And let's treat good products who are more likely to be so because there are punishments if we look at, you know, prison for example. Prison isn't the only out But if we look at the disciplinary process, if, you know, exit isn't the only outcome as well, you might get her, oh, no, rewarded, you might get training, mediation, Just like with a with a with a police for example. You might get a caution. You might get a fine. You don't have to go to prison. So I think this is where I use that as a content to say, we have to look at the majority and use trust, that magic word, will also let people know and communicate them, you know, this is on your watch as well. You've got to be careful out what you put out there, but we'll trust you. Well, let's work in a reasonable way to make that work together.

Adam Gray [00:30:55]: So last week, we had Doctor Grant Van Ulrichorn, and he spoke about the fact that when individuals go through change often as part of a corporate change, but also in their lives as well. the expectation from a corporate perspective is, right, we're walking this way. And then off the organization goes, and you're coming with us because you're part of the organization. And he said, but but surely, how many people how many of you have ever been trained on how to embrace change? Of course, nobody put their hand up. Okay? because it just doesn't happen. It never happens. So you can accept change or you can reject change. And this idea that you're an individual, there are the ramifications for that in this space can be quite profound, but also the fact that that as an organization, you assume everybody is gonna behave a certain way and go a certain way. And the reality is they don't, and that's why many transformations fail. But as a leader of an organization, many times leaders are stuck in the old world. This idea that I'm gonna tell you what to do, and then you're gonna go away and execute that. And, actually, that may have worked last millennium,

Tim Hughes [00:32:11]: but it certainly doesn't work today. So how do we

Adam Gray [00:32:16]: how do we reeducate those people at the top of organizations that think that how you're gonna behave on social, how you're gonna present yourself, how you are going to represent this organization, that's an instruction that I'm going to give, and you will follow this to the letter. How how do we educate them? Because this is a top down problem, isn't it?

Giles O'Halloran [00:32:39]: It is. And I think this is where, you know, number 1, they need to be open to to training on how to use social media effect fleet. That's where we can use tools like reverse mentoring, whereby those who might be more more more youthful in the organization, who have that exposure, the other generations, they may have and and we can use that as a way of connecting the dots because actually they the leaders then start to see through that relationship. There are other ways are thinking other than their own, and there's that exchange of ideas without and out of doubt. That's really useful. And we are working in a in a multigenerational workforce. now. You know, we've got 4 layers of generations probably in a 5 shortly. But that is an you, I I'd argue. Because before the Industrial era, you probably 4 generations, if they live that long, all working on the same agrarian farm or or farmstead etcetera. So that's nothing really new, but it's going back to somewhat we know. I think going back to what you said, like, this idea about change it and and and and the way to do it. Everyone focuses, and I use the 3 t model, as a way of doing it. I like my threes because it's easy to remember. I was gonna say you're into you you you -- Yeah. -- sneeze. I like 3. Because people remember them, and and it goes back to my military out in terms of keep it simple, stupid. If you give people rights, remember these 3, they go, ah, they've got a click. It goes. But when we talk about change, everyone wants transformational changes. It's the rebranding of the word change, which everyone's Lorena be fed up with, already fed up with, and they're Lorena go back to change because why humans are cycling. But we'd look at that good transformation, but transformation use the the biggest change, the hardest change, it may pivot the entire organization, change what you do completely. That's why it's called transformation But it doesn't happen overnight. It's not quick. It takes time to build, and it builds to the bottom up. It doesn't build necessarily from the top down. And in the same light, because you won't repeat on the journey. A lot of people feel stuck at the other level of training, which is transactional, which is where they're only doing those little bits on the day they which don't necessarily align where the organization's going, but they're just doing the let's see what's on my debts and move on that base. The real sweet spot for us, which what I I work with HR professionals on, especially in business partnering. It's called Transitional. That's the bit we need to focus on, where we use merchants like nudge, how do create sustainable change? And one of the best ways to do is is things like a pilot. you do a pilot scheme, do pilot. People feel it's a safe space to do things, and they do another pilot on top of another pilot. Before you know, you're nudging people jet beyond that journey. I'm going back to the in terms of the the three t's, the transformational thing. I was gonna say something as an example on that. It'll probably come back to me shortly. You're you're at that age again, aren't you? Yeah. Do you know what? It's just it's the end of the week as well. So I'm looking forward to my retirement colleague, Jason. the point here is that when we look at those those 3 levels, we we focus often, often too much on the transformation. Ah, that was it, transition. Give you an example of where that proves point. We all remember delightful period called COVID. And there was a period then where everyone went, you know what? We turn our organizations. We transform what would be 10 years in 10 days. No. You didn't. That's a reality. What you did is you gave people laptops and said, good luck. Had they went home, and it actually look 10 months for people to adjust to. How do I use Teams? How do I connect with people? What system do I have access to? How do we have a conversation How can we work virtually? It took 10 months to adjust those capabilities so people feel confident, capable of what they're doing. That's transition. which then does transform. And that's the limiting trick I think we're doing. So going back to those point about leaders, I think there are opportunities to get leaders to engage with other parts of the organization round tables was something I use as as a as a business partner in in a previous organization to connect the dots between this is what leadership was. Okay. Well, then let's get the round table of different people. parts of the organization to go, what are your thoughts, how do you balance it? There are lots of tools out there in order to create the chain. Whether you use Cotters Eight stages, whether you use Nguyen, etcetera, Those frameworks are there. We can use them. That's what they are frameworks because we're not humans. We don't just and we're not we're not machines, we don't just follow the I think there are lots of frameworks and and opportunities for us to use these kind of frameworks to help people transition because that is a sweet spot, but it does need a vision. These people to understand it. And going back to I'm gonna give you 3 c's now. If we start to get people to think about chains, the 3 c's they're gonna look at here, is having commitment, are they willing to? Nothing happens without the willingness. And this is the individuals? Yeah. This is individuals. So it's about commitment. So, you know, you can have the best person doing their job, but unless they commit it, they're not gonna need the best work. And so you've got our commitment as a baseline. then you've got capability. Are people able to adapt and change? And therefore, that capability, we can train people. But we want to give them time to do so and how we do that. And the final bit of top, which we forget when it comes to transformation, is capacity, is the Apex, because there's a limit, because people there are some people who go, do you know what? Are willing to up to that point, but forget if you're on that point. That's why I'm out of here. Or there's others that go, yeah, probably change, but what we're focusing on is we need to change by this time, and that's the problem with with change programs in my view is that they focus on the end date, not the end date. And I think we miss a trick there because, again, we're not we are humans, different people change at different times. And if we take into account that very simple pyramid to start having those conversations at a basic level, we start to feed that conversation up to hopefully get the right answer.

Alex Abbott [00:37:50]: Wow. What was the 3rd c again?

Giles O'Halloran [00:37:54]: 3rd c is capacity. Capacity. I think. Yeah. So you said it's all it's it's up it's all underpinned by magic words in every organization called Culture. That's 4 c's there, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. It's it's the 3 c's for the individual, but the culture is the organization too. I'll just pull that in there. Yeah. Bye, Giles. enough.

Rob Durant [00:38:17]: I I wanted to pick up on one of your first set of threes, the three p's that you talked about. pervasive professional profile. I've done quite a bit of recruiting myself for salespeople for tech Companies. And honestly, in my experience, pervasive professional profiles, there's a real low bar out there in terms of what you're up against in the the terms of the competition. But I wanted to get your take on what you think of as pervasive, 1st and foremost, should my Facebook account look like my Twitter account. Look like my Facebook. Look like my LinkedIn account and Instagram. Or am I allowed to be for lack of a better term, different people on different platforms.

Giles O'Halloran [00:39:13]: So I think that's a very good question. And there again, isn't a binary answer to this. And it will come down to nature of the organization. But say, for instance, if you work in a in a US perspective, if you work for US DOD or other 6 loans, which may be related to homeland security. They will take into account what your opinions, your thoughts, and ideas are because there's a potential risk about that, which we've seen in recent cases in the US with, you know, individuals being taken to court for different things. So I think you've got it again. This is about reasonable about, you know, you take a risk with anything you put out there, which we all know as professionals. Personally and this is my personal belief. is that different platforms can be used for different ways and for different reasons. You can be different personalities on those. You know, I might use one platform for one thing. So Facebooking, for example, used my friends and my family. That's it. But because that's what I see it at. Yes. There is a professional element to it, and I'm mindful of how I communicate for that very same reason. But that's what I use for that, whereas LinkedIn is very much my professional. I don't anything about person because that's just the way I operate. That's the way I to search then. Not really I balance rather than simply blend. A lot of people will blend their message out there. So I think if people want to be pervasive, it is, but it's having a consistent message that you want a professional to pick up on, and that's the bit to remember because If you want another professional to pick up and say, like, consistent, okay, we see them on these different platforms out of this way, we can do that. And the classic example is, you know, you might have a Facebook profile or one thing which is about you, and you you they've got privacy options. Without that, you can close down privacy options. A nice way to control what people see and how they can access. But in the same light, you know, having that basic profile. If you're consistent in your behavior the way you do things across Twitter, linkedin, etcetera, that's great. But, also, it's not stopping you having multiple Twitter profiles. You might have one that is personal, which is I can be x, and I can be anonymous character, or I can be this individual professionally. So I don't think there's one single ask that. I think you gotta be mindful of what is the environment you're operating in. Who are the kind of clients or people you work with, you've got to consider the different platforms the way you want to become come across, which is a personal choice. There's just the magic 2 words they're a human agency. You make a choice. There is So in answer, you've got to consider your own perspectives. But you've also then considered what is your brand out there if it is taken. Because once you've released it into the social space, You have no control over it. Even with privacy settings, if someone has a a tag, etcetera, they can share it otherwise, and we all know that it's got screen captures, etcetera. So I think Building pervasive profile, if you wanna do professionally, is be mindful of how many platforms you use and what you put out there. You can still be yourself, but be careful how you communicate. That goes back to that netiquette concept. But I think you've also really mindful about if you're operating a certain environment, you've gotta take there's a risk to it.

Alex Abbott [00:41:58]: So so I've got a quest question about sorry, Tracy. I can see your lips moving. I guess you're on mute. I was totally on mute, but you go first. Well, I was I'm I'm changing the subject slightly, so I don't know if your point is related to what Giles was just talking about, if it is, go.

Tracy Borreson [00:42:20]: I I was just gonna say from the, like, personal perspective, like, I'm a fan of looking at your profile as if it's a mirror of you. And so, like, my Facebook profile is more for my personal friends, and I do, like, mom stuff. things on there, but I'm still proud of what I see on there. If an employer looked at it, what they would see is that I'm a mom. And if you don't like that then, I'm probably just gonna, like, for you. Anyways, my LinkedIn profile looks a little bit different. Well, I'm very active on my LinkedIn profile. I talk about more business types of things. my Instagram profile, not a huge fan of Instagram. So it's just, like, it exists so that people can tag me on podcasts and stuff that I But the podcasts that I want are good reflection of me. So I I'm just a fan of looking at it from that perspective. Do you feel like it's a good presentation of you even if the representations aren't exactly the same because I think then your personal brand consistency is good. but maybe the messaging and number of posts and things like that aren't exactly.

Giles O'Halloran [00:43:27]: Again, it's a blend. And it goes back to what do you think is reasonable, what extensible, what what what, you know, portrays you. But also, to be honest, you know, I if we if we look at social being the way people use you very rarely get people host stuff. A lot of people use social media as a way say that the the world's really bright around me. I need to compete. It will also say that's great. I'm great, etcetera. And And and I worry about some of the effects that it may have on people's psychology longer term. This goes back to this digital well-being piece. We know that from things like FOMO, if you're missing out, the people oh, no. I'm not part of it. And I know when I've looked to know I discussed it with Adam briefly in terms of threads. You know, if you're an Instagram user, I I looked him with, oh, I'll have a look at threads. said, you have an Instagram account? Well, I don't know an Instagram account. I don't use it. I don't have the time for people around me. Even though I think it's an interesting tool. It has some great uses. I don't have the time. So that's me, right, threads us out. And it's interesting that the the CIBD, who I work with as as a both an associate and as a as a lead for business partnering in partnership and I think they're amazing the way they think. They have set up there, but they've rightly said, you know, you have to be mindful of privacy risk and all that kind of stuff, and if there are risks with it. But if you can't use it, you know, and you don't have the time, then then what's the point? So I think going going back to some of the very day. You've gotta be mindful about what is it you wanna put out there. Be careful what it is you put out there. So it was whatever you're comfortable with. But always remember, we see this with trolling on any of the social media platforms, there'll always be someone to twist something. And I think you've got to be very careful about is that you might say something, and then well, you said this, no, I didn't. It's just you've taken it like that, and that's where it becomes problematic. And I think also that the point you make about when you're putting stuff out there about you, what you want to portray. Because we do sometimes want to put a a a positive image out there about what we're doing, how we're doing, especially in the sales environment where you or when it was, like, me as freelancer. You wanna say, this is the good work I thoroughly enjoy what I'm doing. You've also gotta remember that are people polishing it is and that goes back to your scope for circle head out here, that goes back to trust. So can you trust over the people put out there?

Alex Abbott [00:45:37]: Yeah. It's it's interesting. I you know, I wanted to ask you a question specifically about ethics, the use of AI, but not necessarily on social media. Although we could maybe talk about that as well, but where

Alex Abbott [00:45:55]: employees are starting to use AI not just to help them do their job better, but do their work for them.

Alex Abbott [00:46:06]: And do you do you see this as a a problem?

Alex Abbott [00:46:09]: Is you know, we gone beyond that now, or do you see this as a problem where, you know, people could be hired to do a job and it's not actually them and their skills doing doing a job. It's the AI doing it for them. Is that a problem even?

Giles O'Halloran [00:46:25]: Maybe, but, again, that depends on the bigger point about performance. How do you measure performance? And if someone is working smart but not hard, and they can use their brain for other things. Because if they've automated some of their processes and work that's taken the minimal side out, good luck to if they can use their brain to be more creative and innovative, share with other people, build a better brand for the organization, which all the stuff they couldn't do, then isn't that a positive? So I think that there's that side of it to consider. Without that, there are people, you know, that might use tools that to do that, not do their work, and and then sit back and do nothing. But with all due respect, they're the ones that companies worried about when said, they're gonna spend all their time on Facebook, or they're gonna get you and spend, you know, spend 2 hours on a cigarette break. is those same behaviors. So it's the behaviors we need to look for there. But I have no issue. So, you know, AI, there's this big fear that, you know, it's going to take on everyone's jobs, etcetera, take over this out and the other. And, yes, that can be one extreme. But there are other other things in between there. There's no one single future. There are multiple different And I'm a strong believer that AI should a machine should complement what we do. I mean, if you look at some of the if you look at digital human by Dave Coplett, who used to be the chief of the vision for for Microsoft. Brilliant book that looks at exactly that, the idea being we should actually work with machines going forward because that's where the benefits are. So there'll be AI that help us. And we can help the AI, and it can work in in in time just to make things better and actually create better work and working lives as a result. So I think there's an opportunity. And that means AI doesn't again, it doesn't have to be this binary situation, whether it's with AI or it is without. My thing here is I'm a strong believer in not just AI, it should be IA, and that goes back to using AI. IA is intelligence augmented. That's what we should be doing. It's not just AI's intelligibility, how we're using technology and machines to create better work, to do better work, to be more innovative, to create communities of practice, to create ways, better ways of this is why some of the future HR skills I think about virtual workforce management, created communities that are learned from one another inherently and adaptively through these technologies. So I think there's more value to be had with AI currently in that narrow AI status than there is as a fear. But, again, we can't blame the technology it's people who use the technology and how they use it, just like with social media trolling and and inappropriate behavior. And just like with the AI, how they'll use it, You can't blame the technology for human agency.

Tim Hughes [00:48:47]: People make a choice. Do do you know what? I heard I've I've heard someone's actually using they're using this thing called a spreadsheet. they should be using the calculator -- Mhmm. -- and adding it up on the Abacus.

Giles O'Halloran [00:48:58]: How about one of those? Why is it going to have to use Excel spreadsheets?

Tim Hughes [00:49:03]: Yeah.

Adam Gray [00:49:04]: So at the very beginning, you said about how the tools that we use to identify people that should come in for interviews. Sometimes those can have prejudices or are built in the image of the people that have created them. So really interesting question here from Donald. How do you bring that balance? You know, how do you make sure that that someone who is different from you? You know, different gender, different ethnic different religious background. How do you keep that balance in place? Because there may be cultural or linguistic differences between them and you. which may for may fall foul of some of your initial selection processes. And, I mean, I think one of the things that all of us would would acknowledge very openly is that when you have more balance in a group of people, the it's more effective. because, you know, otherwise, you end up in an echo chamber where everyone's just nodding and agreeing with what and you you never move forward with that. So so how do you do do you do that when you're recruiting? How do you keep that that that appropriate balance?

Giles O'Halloran [00:50:13]: And I don't if I had the answer, I would be an absolute billionaire. There'll be no doubt about it. You know, I've and that's the problem, I think, is that going back to Donald's very, very good question. You know, for a start, you're asking an almost middle aged white male, which is a great opportunity there in order to tick that box. But I think we have to think about here. Is that the word that I think that Donald used really well is is Nuance. It's how you use it and to what extent. And I think it's taking into account all those different things that matter. And you know, it's it's like saying it's like using the word African, for example. African is not one single thing you've got sorry. You've got West Africa, East Africa, different cultures, tribal mindsets, cult you know, every alamist police versus Muslim versus, you know, there's not unfortunately, as humans, we like to box things. When it comes to diversity and inclusion, EDI, whatever you wanna call it, my biggest issue is it, is we get people to tick a box. Actually, if we talk about EVI, there shouldn't be a box. It's about the the different blends and stuff that that we have in terms of that thinking. And I think that's where we sometimes get it wrong. So I think what we need to do this is there was a what's her name? Hannah Fry. I love Hannah Wright. She's my professional crush to be bloody. And she had me when she said the, quote, she was intellectually promiscuous. Oh, I love that. But what she she's a very good speaker and an authority globally, I think, on on AI. And she highlighted all these risks around AI. And highlighting the US system, for example, that they applied AI as as a judge, but as a judge in a court, and it murdered people, quite simply that. You know, in terms of the there was no nuance of balances in terms of people's backgrounds, other things that might have indicated their behaviors. It was a tick, as long as like an expert system. Right? You didn't do that, and in fact, that's it there. as they highlighted that we'd still need this human overview. So I think with the AI that we're using, we've got to be careful that, yes, we'd we'd We're mindful of who builds the AI and what the frameworks they build within it. We need to stress test them. We need to have the other parties part of it. But also, we need that ethical element above it, which we are getting, you know, in terms of people making decisions based on the AI on other things so we can balance it. And that's where I think that human nuance comes into it. I don't think we've got it right because not every human is perfect, because we're not. And everyone on this call comes from a different background, different way of thinking. We are all wired differently. And I think we take this account that we try and minimize the risk, but we'll I don't and we'll try and mitigate it, but I don't think we'll ever get rid of because even as we go now, if you look at things like, for instance, the LGBTQ plus or any other way you want to put it in there, these are different groups of people that we've pulled together as a community. But sometimes even they are very difficult, their mindsets and and disagree. So I think we have to be careful by putting in some safeguards I don't mean safeguards in terms of policies, but practices that we should use. So for instance, make sure we stress test who's building these technologies under what guidance and what parameters and what kind of ethical scenarios are we putting in there in the same light when we use the data, make decisions as we're doing even today with things like if you look at GDPR and use of data, you you you can't make decisions that the data says x. You have to have a conversation with someone to assess that data and then make a human assessment. The data informs you, it provides insight it doesn't tell you the answer. And I think if we build those those ethical systems in place by using humans, that, again, gets that blunt balance I was talking about intelligence augmented. how we create technology and talent to get better solutions. So, hopefully, that goes somewhere over the last year. But I don't have the answer because if I did, I'd be absolutely

Tracy Borreson [00:53:49]: stuck catch. Okay. So he he -- But isn't this sorry. Isn't this a cult doesn't this come down to culture at the end of the day? Because like, either as a culture of the business, you're gonna just sap and, like, you're gonna choose that, yes, we can use this data, but they're we want the human nuance. care about diversity and belonging. And so we're going to look for those things. We're going higher for those things. Like, this is an to me, this is where the hybrid is breaking between humans and technology is that that humans create the culture and if the culture matches, then we can do those things. But if the culture doesn't match, it's not as simple as being like, okay. Let's put a DI or DIV or EDI policy in place. Right? Like, it the the culture has to match Is that true then?

Giles O'Halloran [00:54:39]: I think it is, again, to some extent. But if we look at that and some of the organizations out there recently that have tried the same thing, and then being destroyed, in terms of their commercials, the way you've done things. If we look at things like Bud Light, if we look at scenarios currently with Lenwood Jerry's about the backlash in terms of some of their communications, where some of the thoughts and ideas might be January aggressive for this and when it's done. And again, I think we've got -- it's a complete balancing act in terms of what leadership culture that's created, the culture of the people around them, because the leaders might talk the talk, but do they walk the walk? There's a massive thing there. You know, they can tune like this, talk about things, I am this, but behind the closed doors, no, they're not. And that's just propaganda, not practice. And so therefore, what also, you've got to have a business as viable. So you've got to take that you can preach certain things or do certain things, but unless you practice them, believe in them, and they integrate with the wider society, not culture of Lorena organization, but culture outside, that's something to consider, because otherwise, you can grow your socials, but you may not be on your variables in terms of your financials. and that becomes problematic. So it's a massive balancing act in today's world. Unless you go to social media, again, can be a make or break or a a fantastic force multiplier, multiplier, not fly, multiply in terms of your business opportunity.

Adam Gray [00:55:59]: So here's a great question we've had from Rob. And, you know, we we sometimes joke about this. You know? You've you've you've got a marketing director. They've done a dreadful job. You fire them, and then you need to hire a replacement and you use the same job spec and description to hire the enablement? Surprisingly, you get somebody that's exactly the same as the person you should -- Sure. Sure. Sure. Yeah. So so this is a big issue, though, isn't it? This is a big issue though that you talk about boxing things in. You know, it's like we need somebody that ticks all of these different boxes, and that's what we're hiring for even though that's the last thing in reality that we need.

Giles O'Halloran [00:56:37]: So there are there are a couple of things here that that I was when I worked HR to get to think about, or or recruiters to advise them. Firstly, stop thinking about the now, think about 2 years down the line. You should be recruiting not for now, but 2 years down the line. Why? Because you get someone on board, they don't have to be go through a probation period. They have to go through their first appraisals, blah blah blah. And so you're only getting up to sort of the norming performing maybe 12, 9 to 12 months down the line, where they feel comfortable, they're in, they know what they're doing, how they're doing, they connect the organization. And then you look at out 12 months, what do you need to achieve by? So that's the first figures. We don't do that. So, of course, the job the the job space will have to change because in 2 years, every job will probably change because of the different nuances That's the first point. 2nd one is your spot on. Why are we going back to the same thing all the time? One of the things that I think we should be doing, and one of the things I've done in do is said, this is what we think things look like, and this is our perfect person. If I gave you this job, what would you do differently? This is what we've done in the past. What would you do differently? because that's when you spot talent. Because they'll think outside the box. They all look for innovative ways of doing things and go, well, I disagree with that, and it might do that. Okay. Let's talk about it more. I've been really energized by some of the conversations as a result and then go, right, this person, you do need to speak the exact next, etcetera, because we get a different way of thinking because that's what you want. And that then is supported by the right processes behind it that that bring that to light. And sometimes, you know, every every employer puts out there that the 100% spec that they're looking It actually is. You're never gonna get it. So you've got to have that on this conversation. What is your comfortable fit? Do you want 60, 40, 80, 20, 70, 30, And what if it's You're never gonna get it. Yeah. You're never gonna get it, but, actually, maybe you don't want it anyway. Because you put it wrong in the first place. Exactly. Exactly. And the people that are setting the job you know, if I'm hiring somebody as head of marketing, it would be reasonable. to assume that the head of marketing would know more about marketing than I do because they're gonna be the head of marketing. See but that goes back to so why ask HR to write the spec? all sees the HR going right the job spent. I I was pushed back. So this is your job, this is your people. I'll work with you. You write what you think then I'll build the nuances and make sure you're not discriminating and help you do so because then I'll advise you because that's the value add. Because you know your people. You know what you're looking for. I'll advise you and help you and put the nuances and these are languages. These are kind of things that can be picked up on a search. And that's the value add, I see.

Tracy Borreson [00:58:55]: I like to tell my clients. about marketing jobs all the time because I am like, oh, are you, like, super happy with how your marketing is performing? because that's the only scenario, which it makes sense to hire somebody to do exactly what the last is. So we are absolutely approaching time now. So -- Mhmm. -- thank you to everybody on the panel.

Tim Hughes [00:59:15]: Particularly, Giles, I guess, today. Right on, Giles. Thank you to everybody on the audience. Hope to see you in 2 years' time, please.

Adam Gray [00:59:22]: This has been the digital download, which is Rob

Tim Hughes [00:59:27]: What is it now? Oh, Lorena distance running. He's running. We we

Giles O'Halloran [00:59:31]: So you're doing it now. I think memory's everywhere now, isn't it? But thank you very much, everyone. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. See you all next week. Bye bye. See you guys.

Alex Abbott [00:59:43]: Bye bye.

#socialselling #socialenablement #digitalselling #HR #digitaltransformation #socialHR #socialbusiness #linkedinlive #podcast