Contact Us
Questions, comments, ideas for future content? Contact us below.
If you ain't self-promoting, you ain't trying.
https://vimeo.com/1103189814?share=copy
Sometimes CEOs just ...
Innovators in the recruiting space since 2001.
Our sister company. Helping people become better job seekers.
Visit Hirewell.com
April 10, 2023
Partner at Hirewell. #3 Ranked Sarcastic Commenter on LinkedIn.
Flashback to my early days
Early in my career, I submitted a candidate to a long time client who made it to the final interview. As a conversation starter, the exec off-handedly asked “so how’d you come across us?” to which the candidate replied “oh, I saw the job ad online and applied.”
The exec, flipping through notes, spotted the actual source (us) and said “wait, you didn’t come through Hirewell?”
“Who?”
A few things happened next:
👉 I learned my relationship with the candidate was absolute sh*t.
That’s on me. I owned it. Pile on in comments if you must…
👉 The client passed on the candidate. Entirely based on ethical grounds.
Why would someone lie about something so mundane? Then double down when they could have played it off as a mistake or moment of confusion?
👉 The candidate learned that a common mantra at the time (maybe still?) of “it’s always better to go around the recruiter” is garbage.
When I pressed the candidate afterwards, they fed me the line of “no offense but everyone said it’s better to go direct.”
Of course, they didn’t realize that we placed that exec, the head of HR, and half the team. Our referral actually carried a lot of positive weight.
Fast forward to today. Extreme “lie about it” scenarios are rare. But some of the same underlying issues are common:
How should candidates think about going through vs around a recruiter?
How do (and how should) companies view direct vs recruiter submissions?
Why do people (like the exec above) think differently than a candidate might expect?
It depends, it depends, and it depends.
I see 3 types of companies:
1. Those who rely on us to find their talent once they’ve chosen us to manage their hiring process.
2. Those who try to find any reason at all to not pay fees. Even after willfully engaging with agencies.
3. Those who legitimately got it all sorted out on their own. (Respect.)
Look, we know agencies aren’t cheap. Companies know it. Candidates know it. The entire world knows it.
But some companies value their partners as a strategic function in their hiring. While others do not and see hiring as a transaction.
In group #1, a recruiter relationship helps. In the group #2, it hurts.
The question is: do you really want to work for a company that looks at business the way the second group does anyway?
—
Side note: if I’m a job seeker right now, I’m using any and all means necessary to find a new gig. Job boards, 1:1 networking, recruiters, communities, the full spread. There’s no right or wrong way. Don’t let any of the online hucksters trying to sell you a job seeking course tell you otherwise.
Partner at Hirewell. #3 Ranked Sarcastic Commenter on LinkedIn.
More blogs from James Hornick
Duh.
Traditional job postings are dead. (Maybe they were never alive to begin with.)
3 reasons why ...
Hiring trends truly are Groundhog Day
3 trends we’re seeing in hiring. By new, I mean in a “what’s old is new ...
Follow up from yesterday. I can argue both sides of anything.
I asked ChatGPT to make a list of jobs that AI ...
Check back tomorrow so I can tell you why we actually are ...
Everything is easier, except talking to people
https://vimeo.com/1092152471?share=copy#t=0
Old man ...
Coming Soon...
See all Talent Insights Blog entries....
Our Latest Featured Episode
No results found.
Plenty has been written about AI over the past two years. For much of that time, AI has been more hype than reality. I THINK 2026 is when that starts to change.
Here’s the first in a three part series of where we see AI going in the recruiting world.
———-
For the last few years, most companies treated AI like a recruiting assistant. It helped draft job descriptions, summarize resumes, and speed up outreach. Useful, sure. But it didn’t fundamentally change how hiring worked. And oftentimes, things needed to be double checked before hitting send.
I think that’s going to change.
In 2026, we’re seeing the rise of agentic HR. These are systems that don’t just support recruiters. They can execute work autonomously inside defined guardrails.
That shift is forcing talent leaders to rethink what recruiting teams are actually responsible for and what still requires a human.
From Copilot AI to Agentic Recruiting Systems
Traditional recruiting AI waited for humans to click “next.”
Agentic systems don’t.
They can interpret real-time funnel data, align to hiring goals, and take multi-step action. That includes adjusting sourcing spend, coordinating interview schedules, and triggering workflow changes without manual oversight.
This isn’t automation layered onto old processes. It’s the early version of a self-driving recruiting function.
The Metric That Matters More Than Time-to-Fill
Time-to-fill and cost-per-hire still matter. They just don’t fully capture what’s changing.
A concept showing up more in 2026 is Return on Autonomy. It measures the value created when humans and autonomous systems are paired intentionally.
In plain terms, the question is simple.
Are we using technology to eliminate busywork, or are we just doing the same work faster?
Because speed doesn’t help if it leads to worse decisions, a weaker candidate experience, or more noise in the funnel.
Why This Changes the Role of TA Leadership
As agentic systems absorb transactional work like screening, scheduling, and coordination, the role of recruiting leadership shifts.
The best TA leaders are spending less time managing process and more time doing what actually drives hiring outcomes. That includes aligning hiring to business priorities, building trust with candidates, and improving decision quality.
The real opportunity of 2026 isn’t more AI. It’s that recruiters finally get to focus on the work that requires being human.
The Mistake Companies Are Making Right Now
Here’s the trap.
Companies adopt advanced recruiting technology but keep the same habits. Long approval chains. Inconsistent communication. Unclear evaluation criteria.
When that happens, speed increases, but trust collapses.
Candidates don’t experience innovation. They experience silence, confusion, and a process that feels even more impersonal than before.
In 2026, the human experience of hiring is becoming a differentiator again because so many companies are getting it wrong.
What Talent Leaders Should Be Thinking About Now
You don’t need a total rebuild tomorrow. But you do need clarity.
The companies winning in 2026 are asking the right questions.
What parts of our hiring process truly require human judgment?
Where are we slowing things down out of habit?
Are recruiters trained for strategic work, or just process management?
Do our systems increase transparency, or just efficiency?
These aren’t technology questions. They’re leadership questions.
What’s Next
Agentic HR is changing how recruiting works. It’s also creating a new challenge.
As employers deploy autonomous systems, candidates are doing the same. The result is an emerging AI-on-AI hiring arms race that’s flooding pipelines with highly optimized but low-trust applications.
Next in this series: The AI-on-AI Hiring Arms Race and How to Protect Hiring Quality Without Breaking Trust
A lot of companies are going to try to AI their way into faster hiring this year and still end up with worse results. If you want to build a recruiting model that actually works in 2026, one that balances speed, quality, and credibility, we can help. Reach out if you want a second set of eyes on your hiring approach.
No results found.
Our Shows
