Hello, everyone and welcome to the Hirewell recruiting insights podcast brought to you live via LinkedIn live. I’m your host James Hornick partner Hirewell, joining me is fish super fan and the newest partner recently promoted, Jeff Smith. Thank you. Great to be here. Congratulations. I appreciate that.
I wanted to mention that. I have a little story before we get started. You want to hear this one? I do. So are you familiar with my Saturday LinkedIn activities? Well, yes. And you’ve pinged me when I’m also working on Saturday and said that it’s nice to see other people working on Saturday at our company.
So every Saturday, those people who actually follow me on LinkedIn will probably know, I just troll. It’s just every it’s- I’m never serious on a Saturday, whatever I post is always a joke. I’ve been on the internet for a long time. I love just like messing around but LinkedIn is so stuffy, but you don’t want to do that all the time cause it’s not really a forum for it, but Saturday is usually my day to let lose.
I have one little bit backfire, so it was not, I didn’t go as it is the first time I actually had this delete it. Is this the one I participated in? No, this was this past Saturday. So, I’m assuming you more so than I would have, you know, what an employer value proposition is correct? An EVP. So, first clue that this may not have gone, as I was hoping was, I didn’t know what that was until like three months ago.
Like I’ve been recruiting 15 years. Like I’ve vaguely heard. I don’t actually know what it was right until I started talking to people who were big into employer brand, but the reason why I wanted to make fun of it was because I didn’t realize how much companies pay for these things. Like five, six figures for like two paragraphs of kind of fluffy texts.
Like there’s not anything to it. And they get suckered into thinking like this is something they need to like spend a ton of money on. So I just think the whole thing is ridiculous and no one reads these things. You know, you of all people, you don’t like puppy dogs and ice cream. No, it’s just I think that employer brand is really important.
I just think that it’s, your messaging is going to have to evolve and the fact that you would pay somebody else that much money anyway. So, I thought the troll was this. I was going to post that. I had an idea for, you know, like the old Buzzfeed quizzes, like which Harry Potter house are you, or the old one was the thing, like, what’s your, what’s your pamper porn star name, like the name of your pets with the name of your street?
You know what I mean? Just make it silly. So I’m like I posted like I’m going to do a value service to everyone who is sick of paying them all this money for employer value propositions. I’m going to write your EVP for free and all I need from you is a few questions. So I started out with
a couple of serious questions, you know, like actual things you would ask in terms of where is your company gonna be in 10 years now if you’re successful, but then it immediately went into like, what street did you grow up on? You know, are you a Griffend or slither in, you know what I mean? So it’s clearly a joke.
And then at the end I think I said it to made some joke about it and it really doesn’t matter if it’s any good or not, because no one’s going to read it right. The only replies that I got were people actually seriously interested in me writing their EVP and like messaging me answering the questions.
And I realized at that moment time I’ve made a great error. How do we monetize that? I actually felt bad cause I’m like, dude, I was joking. Yeah. Well, I know this is going to segue into- I thought it was clear, but apparently not, but then I honestly felt badand technically speaking I always talk about how it’s a troll post,
and actually it’s probably the first real troll post cause the whole point of a troll is like making people think you’re serious when you’re joking and fulling them, but it wasn’t what I was going for so I actually deleted it so. I did save an image of it if you want to check out later. So I might post it with a clip of this. But I’m usually on top of your stuff.
Yeah, it didn’t last long. So it’s a little- I felt bad. But anyway, also I just hate when the jokes don’t land, but whatever. So segue. Listen you’ve got a good hit rate I mean, if one fell, it falls flat, you’re still doing all right. So, yeah we did have a few topics we wanted to talk about in a slightly more serious manner
Because these are kind of things that we get questions from clients, from people we’ve talked to from candidates, people we’ve talked to on LinkedIn, just general trends we’re seeing in the first was, cause we say this a lot, what do you do when you interview somebody you really, really like? Like you just love this job seeker, great candidate, you just- the position doesn’t fit or you don’t have a position
right, what do you do in those kinds of situations? Because we see it happen quite some often. We also see a lot of companies not do a very good job with it and it’s a great long-term kind of candidate pipeline situation. So that’s kind of what I wanted to lead off with. I think it’s- you’ve probably seen a lot of this.
I’m kind of curious, like what your thoughts are in those situations. By and large, I think the overarching theme for this exact scenario is there’s something that’s attracting you to the candidate, right? Maybe you have an ill-defined job description. Maybe you don’t have full buy-in across the board, but in a scenario where predominantly speaking everybody on the panel is like, yeah this individual is a great fit.
I mean, it’s easy for me as the recruiter to say hire that person and figure it out later but that’s kind of my answer. If you’ve got 70 to 80% of the way there, and this candidate has maybe given you some information that like, wow, they’re going to fill a few other gaps that I didn’t even know existed, that’s value add.
And I think that at the end of the day, no job description is going to encapsulate A, a perfect human being, B, a resume, or C, the actual job that’s going to happen because it’s going to fluctuate over time. Yeah. And I think companies get a little tripped up by that. I agree. I think there’s kind of two sides to it.
So, first off there’s everything you’re talking about where are you as a hiring company just overthinking it? Like, does this person actually, can they actually do the job? And you’re you wrote something on paper saying these are all the things you want and not having an idea is this actually are all of these requirements, realistic defined.
And then how many times have we seen three months later, they can’t find it because it was never realistic. It was just something they kind of invented and then they’re back to square one and kicking themselves for not moving forward with the candidates they had that were good. And those guys are no longer interested because they were just turned off by
how boneheaded the decision was in the first place, or they weren’t kept warm, which is the bigger thing. And conversely, and I would argue the most detrimental is a company that was potentially a competitor or was just a little bit more nimble, actually did scoop up that and picked up a ton of value from that individual.
I think that there’s a second side of it too because the other thing we see is there’s a lot of situations where they actually, they like two candidates, right. They only had one position, you know, they had like two candidates or they like three candidates like they, they keep meeting people
they thought were great, but they just don’t have the headcounts. So that’s kind of separate. So a lot of times it’s not just a bad, poor hiring decision where they punted because they weren’t thinking if they over-thought it. It’s sometimes if you’re mandating that you talk to four or five people you end up liking more than one.
And if you’re a company that’s growing where you know this you’re going to have more needs for this person. You just, you don’t have the budget right now. Like there’s, there’s definitely limitations. And you can’t just bring on everybody just because you want to, like you have to have the business need for it. In those situations where you’ve met people that are great, you know, for some reason, someone else got the job, but you do have legitimate interest in kind of keeping them in mind
how do you play that? I’m going to start by saying that I could get on a soap box right now about- you brought up the mandated number of people to screen, don’t do that. I think that once you see the person that you invariably like, or a collection of individuals that you like, my advice is to make a decision.
The market is hot enough now for the type of talent that,You know, that’s going to improve the quality of your team to the point where you’re going to have to make that call because somebody else will. The window shopping approach just- it doesn’t work. In theory, yes
you want to have like the ability to get a deal or to find the right person. But invariably again, the analogy works because the more you window shop, the more sales you miss. And then you’re back to paying full price. I’m thinking of it like from a longterm talent pipelining approach.
Right? So, there’s- like I said, there’s always gonna be situations where there’s more people that you like that, you know, someone you think could be part of the organization, but you’re a small startup you don’t have the budget to afford; what do you do in those situations? And I think that, I want to say that I think that if you’re the companies that have the easiest time of hiring.
The way they do it is by doing longterm pipelining, where they build relationships with people, they could see join the organization when they have the opening in the future. Every time you have to stop and restart recruiting it’s a drag on both your resources and, you know, if you’ve already kind of vetted some people previously or built relationships with people previously, it makes it that much easier to kind of not have to spend as much time to money on that kind of stuff in the future.
But I guess I want to underscore it with is this is not really a recruiter thing; this is more of a hiring manager thing. If you’re a business, whether you’re in technology or marketing or any other aspect of business and you take your deliverable seriously, you have to know that having the people to help you execute on that.
And it’s not just a short-term thing and what’s going to help me do whatever I need to do this quarter, it’s gonna be thinking two, three years out, you always need to at least know and network people who, you know, can kind of have value. It’s a great point, and I think where you’re going with this is
A, what’s the messaging to the non-selected candidate, that very clearly would be a fit for something in the very near future or intermediate future, especially for a growing company. But the analogy works for larger organizations, too. The companies that are winning the talent war not only are nimble at the point of inception, right?
Like they’re ready to make the hire now, but they’re communicating transparently with those pipelines on a consistent basis. You talked about employer brand, like there’s your brand. You’ve got recruiters and hiring managers constantly following up and talking to you as a candidate about what’s going on in the business.
It’s a good feeling. Humans like to feel wanted and if you have that constant communication that’s only going to go- that’s going to take you farther into the realm of when you’re ready to hire that candidate, they’re ready to jump on board. Absolutely. I think that it starts with one-
If you had a position that you ended up not moving forward with him on making sure that the hiring manager him or her. Thanks, gives very clear feedback. So like it has to be very specific in terms of- I mean, they’re going to understand as long as you’re being specific and the feedback is genuine, you know, if you had someone else that had a better match, like they’ll get it, but it has to be coming from place of- you’re actually, it’s not just kind of lip service. Two, you have to keep that, you know, that line of communication open, you know.
Again, this is why you don’t just want your recruiter, HR shooting people emails saying, sorry, we’re not moving forward. This is why you have to actually sit down with someone I’ve had work with with companies that, you know, they’ll actually meet with people they don’t end up going forward with in person having coffee and saying, Hey, let’s stay in touch for something like this
when it comes up in the future. When you look at pipelining as building relationships for when times are right. Like, Hey, they know that as a hiring manager, you know, these candidates might have other things they end up doing, but taking that extra step makes it easier in case like you just never know, you know, where life is going to lead, where it might make sense to kind of bring them on at some point in the future when it’s mutually beneficial .
So, yeah, I’d be shocked if a lot of the comments that arise from this, you know, center around. The, you know, the stock communication that companies get stuck into it or, I think a lot of candidates, at least I talked to, and probably you as well and I think the rest of the company here, is that the idea of having just an expectation. Like when am I going to follow up when and what will that messaging be?
I mean, just setting a template. How that followup is going to look like feels, you know, it helps the candidate understand kind of what the timetable is, but it gives them a touch point. It gives them some sort of structure to that relationship. And it’s just these little tiny things that matter a lot.
And keeping those sorts of candidates, not only engaged, but very much interested in like what you’re doing and the types of people that they could potentially work for. I know it’s time for a segway. I know we were really excited hotly interested in this next topic. So I don’t know, kinda the way they lay this up was I posted something on LinkedIn talking about problems in the staffing and recruiting industry and it got a lot of play.
So, what was interesting is I had a lot of third-party recruiters reaching out to me. Glad that I kind of went off on the rant that I did because they thought that their experience might’ve been unique and didn’t realize that that doesn’t have to be the way it is. So, I guess I’ve been with Hirewell 15 years now, and it’s been a great environment to be in and it’s been a while since I was in like a bad environment, but it’s kind of two things.
One, it’s always irked me how our industry has a bad name and bad reputation. The biggest challenge for Hirewell is not delivering and not getting clients to trust us like our service. It’s just getting in the door that first time, because so many people have gotten burned by bad experience with so many recruiting firms.
They just assume it’s always going to be that kind of experience and let me first start by saying it, not every recruiting firm is terrible, but you know, there’s a lot that are in there, typically the larger firms for various reasons. It’s just an industry that- I think it’s important to note too, that even within like we’re talking, you know, so generally, like there’s still individuals in those companies that are accepted.
Recruiters and that’s honestly been part of our hiring models. We find people who are exceptional in these firms that are just kind of burned out, but, you know, there’s the challenges. The problem is there’s such a short-term focus on immediate revenue and a lot of these larger places, a lot of them are members,
some of them might be public, some of them might have frankly, greedy owners that are completely disconnected from the service delivery and just don’t care. Correct. As opposed to focusing on solving client problems and solving problems for the companies that are kind of doing on staffing on behalf of it, right.
The easy metric to follow is the old school boiler and metrics where if you just focus on activity numbers and focus on- and the idea that if we make our recruiters compete, compete against each other and eat each other, the cream is going to rise to the top we’re going to have the best service for our clients, but it’s completely flawed
ideology, you know. It’s what it really does is create environments where people are focused on metrics that are meaningless, meaning, you know, maybe it’s still a hundred calls a day, or maybe it’s 30 “interactions” where, you know, when you start making arbitrary numbers, you know, and people are in trouble
if they don’t hit those numbers, it makes it more about just having kind of BS interactions that aren’t meaningful. Correct. Instead of actually having good genuine relationships built. And then it kind of goes downhill from there. Then it becomes, you know, you’re working with certain clients or your recruiter.
All you care about is getting people submitted to jobs. So you’ve submitted anybody to the job. So then you got job seekers getting all pissed off because you’re smitting into places that turns out they really weren’t a fit for it might’ve wasted their time and waste their time, bringing them in the office, talking with them.
Might’ve waste their time on the phone, total sideway. But yes, that’s correct like from the job seeker perspective, they’re talking to recruiters who might be a speaker doing a terrible job. Speak with them on irrelevant stuff, reaching out to them about irrelevant jobs, which is the big one, every managers out there.
I mean, I think a lot of you are probably privy to this, but there are still organizations out there that have a quota for the amount of people that have to arbitrarily walk into the office and meet with our recruiters. Yeah, but then taking it from the client side, like this is also why does the service levels so poor?
So if you’re a company and you’re used to getting candidates that just don’t fit the job submitted to you, it’s because there’s a unnecessary quote on the recruiting firm you’re working with the internal recruiters to submit people to jobs elsewhere, otherwise they’re fired. And there’s also another thing that’s always got me too, is the amount of overselling that happens like you know, people are in such desperation to make their monthly numbers and they may.
They may not have actually found any candidates that work, that fit a job so they’ll just try to convince companies that are maybe not as attuned to the market and what’s actually a need. And like, they don’t know like what the candidate market’s supposed to look like. And they’re convinced that this so-and-so who doesn’t really have the background they need fits and then things blow up at some point in the future.
Frustration becomes threefold, client is unhappy because they’re not seeing the right profile, recruiters unhappy because frankly they’re running around like a chicken with their head cut off and spending time on non-revenue generate more than likely non revenue generating activities, and the candidates irked because
the recruiter can’t really give a clear answer as to why they weren’t a fit because the role wasn’t qualified well in the first place. Yeah. So these are the musings I have. I like, cause I mean, I’ve been doing this for a long time. I love the recruiting process. I love working with companies.
I like helping people in their roles. And I think there’s a lot of great recruiters out there that work for firms that aren’t great. And they’re being put on needlessly in these kinds of situations. And, you know, part of me likes the fact that a lot of our competitors aren’t good, right. Because it makes it easier to kind of stand out, at the same time too
it’s like, I feel for anyone who has to deal with a bad experience, whether there’s someone working in one of these companies that like having this career, but are stressed out of their mind. And a lot of them just quit. They just get into something different thinking- I mean, you know my story, I burned out and went corporate for almost a decade. They think that this is all that recruiting is working at these awful boiler environments.
Then you’ve got candidates who are getting sick of getting contacted about jobs that are nowhere near their experience are getting ghosted by recruiters and whatnot. And then you got clients that are just fed up with mediocre experience and you know, frankly, they just assume that’s all that’s out there and they continue to struggle with hiring because, you know,they inadvertently shut themselves off to working with firms that actually are good, so. Right.
And to the hiring managers out there right, we understand that it’s hard to discern, you know, who’s what, and I would say that when you have those intake calls and when you’re talking to the salespeople, you’re talking to folks like James or, you know, his counterparts in the industry, You know, like take into the business acumen, it’s all about like, can you understand a problem? Can you be solutions oriented? Or does it feel like we’re just going to kind of throw resumes at the wall?
That’s the big difference. Yeah, no, I think that on the marketings I can talk most- I can talk deepest about the digital marketing space since that’s what I’ve been most involved with past four or five years. But I think that as a recruiter, I guess, as a hiring manager, for trying to figure out who if the recruiter you’re working with knows their stuff or not, how deep can they actually get into these jobs, right?
How deep can they get in terms of understanding your business deliverables, as well as, you know, the latest trends and what can they relate this pack to people they’ve talked to and what environments they’ve come from beyond surface level keywords cause that’s when you know, you’re talking with someone who’s actually taken care with trying to solve people’s problems, that’s going to do a good job for you regardless of what firm they’re working with
and I think that that’s probably the easiest way to vet just understanding how closely they really understand what it is you do and what exactly your business deliverables are and is this someone that has demonstrated they can help me. Yeah, sure. Yeah. The best recruiters ask enough questions to understand kind of like how these ecosystems work within each individual silo.
So I agree. All right. Anything else you wanna complain about on this one?
Well, let’s see, I’m looking up at the board, I’ve been in the boiler room, I’ve done the busy work, I did burn out. Yeah, no, it’s nice to be back at a place that I think value solutions oriented, kind of, you know, business focused, like problem solving. And to James’s point, if you’re not talking to somebody that you feel has that,
stop that conversation. One more topic for today, and I know this isn’t- I don’t even know if I have a real definitive, like stance on this one. It’s just how things- it’s more. So I want to hear your stance like I cause it’s just -how things have changed is what really fascinates me over the past, you know, 15 years or so, Job- hopping
like, is that still a thing? Like what is job hopping now compared to what job hopping used to be? Right. I’m a job hopper. How long have you been with this now? I’m working on five and that is that’s easily my longest tenure. Previous to that you were definitely a job. Previously I was a frog, yes. Listen, my feelings on this is I think there’s a lot of societal pressure from
you know, our parents’ generation had- listen, they had things like pensions and there was a safety net. So there was a lot of incentive to stay at companies longterm and from a societal structure, like it made sense. I get why, you know, my parents stayed at their places of work for long periods of time.
It was fulfilling and all of these good things. As you know, and the rest of Hirewellkind of knows, like that model has changed a little bit. I kind of dig like my whole team is a group of millennials and gen Z-ers, as yours is. And I like the idea that they won’t just say, well, Hey, this is the way we’ve always done it
so I’m going to kind of just fall and step in line. And it kind of gets back to the whole point of what we were talking about in question one is if you’re a company that’s nimble enough to recognize those tiny little shifts and add the extra 2k to the offer package or add an extra work from home incentive, like these little things, the likelihood of you securing that talent is just going to exponentially increase.
And conversely, if you’re not offering that, you’re putting yourself at risk to, you know, these folks, on the cusp of being the largest portion of the employment pool, is saying buzz off. I think so it’s kind of fascinating from a generational perspective cause like if our parents’ generation or the people who are nearing retirement age right now, or people would have retired, like it was common in those days we’ll work with their career, all one company. But you and I probably grew up
aware of that and knowing- we’re like in the middle- that’s not normal anymore. But like when you take it, like people who are getting out of school now, like that’s an absurd thought. It’s like the idea you would say your whole career, one company, it’s not even something that they don’t have a memory of that growing up.
Right. They’re like wait, companies exist for more than 20 years. It’s like, how can you have long-term commitments to companies the way you used to when you know, if you go back and look at, you know, companies that most, the biggest companies, a lot of the biggest companies in the world didn’t exist more than 20 years.
I should have brought some stats up on this one, but like, you know, there’s companies go out of business or get acquired, and there’s just not the level of loyalty to employees. I shouldn’t say loyalty it’s just the rapid pace of change, you know? So like I think that having, if you’re an employee having blind loyalty to a company is a detriment to your career because you know, companies are constantly innovating.
They’re always constant trying to find the new thing and if you’re not taking that same mentality about what you’re doing with yourself and if a company allows you to do that allows you to kind of develop yourself then you should definitely, you should stay. But, you know, I think that’s the biggest reason why people should look for new positions nowadays is that they’re no longer being challenged, that whatever they were hired to do, whatever they’re hired to build has already been done.
Once that happens, like you’re just in maintain mode, you know? And I think that- cause breaking this down, if you look at different industries there’s still things that are very different. So if anybody works in a startup, you know, I don’t think there’s really expectation for if you’re a developer, somebody has stopped
you’re going to have to be at these places very long but, there’s still I guess, the reason why we’re having this conversation, there’s still that bias at some companies, right? The large organizations that they want people with a longer tenures, but the argument can easily be made. If you were trying to hire a software dev or a marketer, or somebody has an innovative model,
how could they have possibly been at the same company for extended amount of time, right? Yeah. It’s the classic catch 22. We’re talking about fulfillment and I think all humans want to be fulfilled. The definition of fulfillment from a societal standpoint has changed over time. And it just so happens that right now it’s about innovation and it’s about, you know, the fulfillment can to your point happen from within.
Good candidates are going to, and employees, are going to stay at companies that provide good benefits, whatever the case may be. They make it specialized so that it feels uniquely that like that it’s that employees and that they’re challenged. And if you don’t have like a good mix of those three things, again, you’re at risk.
So yeah, we’re going to see more of this. So unfortunately like, even if you are anti job hopping yeah. You’re kind of Sol anyways, cause that’s the gonna be the profile that you’re going to continually look at. True. Here’s the thing, taking it back a step and to give the other counterpoint to it, you know, there are people in society who are flaky, like there’s always people who are just not very good at their job..
They flake out and those people are going to be job hoppers most of the time. So like that there is a profile like that exists, but the probelm is that profile side-by-side with the profile of someone who’s really good and just wants to innovate, on paper it’s going to look the same. Yep.
So, and that’s why it’s something I think you need to be aware of somebody made a lot of job moves, but by no means, should that be a reason why you should roll them out without having a much deeper definitive conversation because you need to truly understand why they made these moves.
Was it because they built- did they accomplish what they came to do? Did they finish creating what they created? Did they have good references? Like, did they work at good places that they were fulfilled at or did they flame out? Did they get frankly, you know, fired or whatever for poor performance, you know, which is going to be hard to vet sometimes, you know?
But those are the things you kinda be more in tune to. But I think that the evolution of it is interesting cause it’s like, when I started a two to three three-year job stint was like, you were a job hopper 20 years ago. Now that’s like normal converse. And not to say again, these are all generalities, right?
I don’t want anyone to watch us and say, oh my gosh, that’s me because again, we’re all talking about generalities, but,You know, there’s plenty of people out there who have worked at their organizations for 8, 10, 12 years and you could make a counterpoint that, you know, why haven’t they moved?
You know, have they gotten stagnant? Have they just gotten comfortable? Again,that is a stigma that exists and it may be complete. Yeah, I don’t want to name any company names, but there’s definitely been candidates that we’ve worked with where the company had a strong bias against them because they stayed too long at certain companies that are known as not being very innovative.
So why did this person stay there of all places you know? So that is also kind of the anti-biased and kind of the entire thing, so. I think smart people in all levels of this spectrums candidate, hiring manager, us and everybody involved, pragmatism wins the day. Like if you think about it logically and you are resourceful enough to go out and find the information to the SharePoint, this particular organization has obviously Aidid some other organizations that may not be as innovative.
And that’s probably a pretty legit data point. It doesn’t mean that every single person working there is like that, but you have to be aware of it as- it’s another conversation you have to have. Yeah, I guess my big takeaway and one thing I want to kind of hammer home on this is that it now with where we are now with the state of kind of 10 years at companies, you can’t use tenure alone as a reason to disqualify anybody, whether it’s too short or too long.
You have to have conversations with people and understand truly what it is they’re about why they made the moves they make, why they didn’t make the moves they make, what kept them accompanies. And these are real conversations you have to have. So , some places- the old method 20 years ago of like, Hey, if someone was a job hopper, you know what I mean?
Or even go back further is like, well, let’s throw them in the trash pile in terms of resume. You just can’t do that anymore because, so I guess, taking it back- look at you going full circle. Full circle, full circle, you know, I think that’s the biggest thing with recruiting really kind of on all these topics is we talk a lot about candidate experience.
and I think that it’s really more of the quality of interaction you have with people to really understand what they’re about, and understand how they could fit or not fit in your organization is what the better companies have figured out they need to do, as opposed to being obsessed with volume, automation to rule people out, or automation to let people know they’re rolled out, you know, making snap, judgments based just off resumes
and at the end of the day, I guess, That’s not even a theme I realized we had for this whole year. It goes back to the whole point of the- and we’ve talked about this at nauseum, but like the relationship building from both the recruiter and the organizational hiring manager perspective is just so key.
And being able to walk through like each individual specific narrative is really important to digging into, you know, whether or not somebody is a flake or just hasn’t been challenged and, and every other comparison point in between. Yeah. Anything else you want to talk about this week while you have the floor. I’m very enthused that you started this show with fish, the band fish, this I-came in through the LinkedIn live.
We have to see if we can on the podcast remix, we to see if we can get the same song put in. I couldn’t- the more fish and jam bands in general, the better. I don’t think I could name a single fish song.. That’s okay. Except for the one I downloaded just today, just for you.
We do have, listen, we’re in a good place with other types of music, but yeah. I’m very excited about that. And that’s really all I have to offer in closing. Well, next time we have you have to give me a new track next time we’ll make it a recurring thing. Oh, there’s like 450 of them.
We have a lot of podcasts. We can just do a whole podcast of 20 minute fish jams. If you want. No. Fair enough. All right guys. Thanks for listening to Hirewell’s recruiting insights podcast. If you liked what you heard, and one more insights from our recruiting experts visit hire wall.com/recruiting-insights.
And remember to subscribe to the podcast on apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. See you soon.