Latest / The Talent Brief / Give Them a Reason to Stop
Transcript
- Give Them A Reason To Stop: I want to challenge something today, and depending on which side of the hiring table you're sitting on, this might make you a little uncomfortable. Because we're constantly telling people they need to stand out, be memorable, differentiate yourself, show people what makes you unique. But here's my question Are we actually encouraging individuality or are we teaching everyone to follow the same script? Welcome back to the Talent Brief. I'm Jeff Ganter, and today we're talking about something that affects all of us, whether you're looking for a job, leading a team, running a business, or simply trying to be heard. Giving people a reason to stop and pay attention. After more than 20 years in recruiting, I've seen this play out thousands of times. I've interviewed candidates with extraordinary credentials, impressive resumes, great companies, years of experience. And yet sometimes after the conversation, I couldn't tell you much about the actual person. Not because they weren't talented, but because everything they shared sounded like something I'd heard a hundred times before. And then there were candidates who didn't necessarily have the most impressive resumes. But something happened during the conversation. They shared an experience. They challenged an assumption. They told me about something that didn't go as planned and what they learned from it. And suddenly I was curious. I wanted to know more. That's something I've always loved about recruiting. The moment someone stops giving you the answer they think you want and starts having a genuine conversation. Now I'm not suggesting candidates should walk into interviews unprepared. Preparation matters, but there's a difference between being prepared and being programmed. And I wonder how often we confuse the two. Which brings me to something I find particularly fascinating about today's job market artificial intelligence. Now anyone who knows me knows I'm a fan of AI. I use it. And I think the possibilities are extraordinary. But I keep coming back to this contradiction. We're telling candidates to use AI to optimize their resumes. Match the job description. Identify keywords. Highlight relevant skills. Reformat everything so it gets through the screening process. And listen, there's value in that. Especially When you're trying to navigate a hiring process that can feel overwhelming, impersonal, and sometimes downright confusing. But here's what I'm wondering. If everyone is using the same technology to match the same description, how different are we actually becoming? We're encouraging individuality while teaching conformity. And I don't think that's necessarily the fault of the technology. It's how we're using it. AI can be a fantastic tool for helping someone articulate their experience, especially when they struggle to find the right words. But there's a difference between using AI to clarify your story and allowing AI to create a story that no longer sounds like you. I was at a party recently and someone raised a fascinating question. Would you feel more comfortable interacting with AI if it sounded like a computer instead of a human? And it got me thinking, we're making technology sound more human while sometimes making our own communication sound less like ourselves. Isn't that interesting? And maybe the question isn't whether AI sounds more human. Maybe it's whether we're becoming so comfortable with polished, predictable language that we're forgetting what genuine communication sounds like. Because AI can help you find the words. But those words still need to represent you, your experience, your judgment, your personality, your perspective. Maybe the goal shouldn't be to sound more impressive. Maybe it should be to sound more like yourself only clearer. Now I don't want this conversation to focus entirely on candidates, because hiring managers and recruiters were part of this equation. Think about how Often we describe the ideal candidate, a particular number of years of experience, a specific background, industry knowledge, technical skills, and then somewhere in that same conversation we say we're looking for someone innovative, adaptable, curious and capable of thinking differently. But are we creating an environment where those qualities can actually show up? Or are we so focused on checking boxes that we're missing the person sitting right in front of us? I've always believed an interview should be a conversation, not an interrogation. And sometimes the most revealing moments aren't the answers to the questions we planned. They're the unexpected moments. The follow up question, the hesitation. The candidate who says, Actually, I see that a little differently. That's when curiosity becomes important. Because the most polished candidate isn't necessarily the most capable. And the person who struggles to articulate an answer isn't necessarily lacking the skills to do the job. Are we hiring the person who's best at interviewing or the person who's best suited to do the work? Those aren't always the same person, and I think that's worth questioning. Because this conversation goes well beyond hiring. Think about your professional life. You show up, you work hard, you contribute, you take responsibilities, and sometimes you wonder why nobody seems to notice. Or maybe you're leading a team and you assume everyone understands your vision because you've explained it several times. But have you actually connected with him? And personally, how often do we assume people know what we're thinking or feeling? We expect them to recognize our efforts. We assume they understand our intentions. We hope they'll notice what we need. And then we're disappointed when they don't. I've certainly been there. But here's something I've had to remind myself. People can't always recognize what we haven't communicated. That doesn't mean we need to become louder, more demanding, or constantly promote ourselves. It means we might need to become clearer, and there's a difference. Now I want to be careful here because I don't want anyone listening to walk away believing that if they're being overlooked, it's somehow their fault. It's not that simple. There are talented people passed over every day. There are hiring systems that need improvement. There are recruiters overwhelmed with applications and candidates who are exhausted from trying to navigate processes that don't always feel human. And telling someone who's already doing everything they can to simply try harder isn't particularly helpful. But I also don't want us to lose sight of what we can influence. How we communicate, how we tell our stories, how we help people understand the value we bring. And for those of us making hiring decisions, how willing are we to question the assumptions we've built into our processes? Because if we're teaching candidates to optimize themselves for technology, shouldn't we also be questioning whether our technology is helping us recognize exceptional talent? Or simply recognizing the people who've learned how to navigate the system, that's a conversation worth having. And this is where signals versus scripts come into the conversation. The script says if I work hard enough, someone will notice. If I use the right keywords, I'll get the interview. If I say what they want to hear, I'll get the opportunity. And maybe those things help. But the signal might be asking something different. Am I communicating what actually makes me valuable? Does the story I'm telling reflect who I really am? Am I trying so hard to meet someone else's expectations that I'm losing what makes me different? And if you're a hiring manager, perhaps your signal is asking whether you've become so comfortable. With a particular type of candidate that you're overlooking someone who could bring an entirely different perspective. Not lowering your standards. Questioning whether you're measuring the right things. Because sometimes the most valuable thing someone brings to the table isn't what you expected to find. One last signal. Here's my challenge this week. Imagine someone has just 30 seconds to understand what makes you different. Not your title, not your years of experience, not the perfectly optimized version of your resume. You. What would they remember? And more importantly, would it actually reflect who you are? If you're a leader, recruiter, or hiring manager, I want you to turn that question around. When was the last time someone surprised you because you were curious enough to look beyond what you expected? Because standing out isn't always about being louder. Sometimes it's about finding the courage to communicate something real. And sometimes recognizing someone's value requires us to stop looking for what we already know. Give them a reason to stop. And give yourself a reason to question what you might be overlooking. Trust the signal, question the script. I'm Jeff Ganter, and this is the Talent Brief. If someone came to mind during this conversation, perhaps someone struggling to recognize their own value, or someone could benefit from looking a little closer, share this episode with them. Sometimes one conversation is enough to change what someone sees. including what they see in themselves. Thanks for listening. See you soon. Bye.