Recruitment & HR

LinkedIn just responded to the bias claims. They think they refuted my research. I believe they just confirmed it. Following the recent discussions on whether the algorithm suppresses women's voices, LinkedIn's Head of Responsible AI and AI Governance, Sakshi Jain, posted a new Engineering Blog post to "clarify" how the feed works (link in comments). I’ve analysed the post. Far from debunking the issue, it inadvertently confirms the exact mechanism of Proxy Bias I identified in my report (link in comments). Here is the breakdown: 1. The blog spends most of its time denying that the algorithm uses "gender" as a variable. And I agree. My report never claimed the code contained if gender == female. That would be Direct Discrimination. I have always argued this is about Indirect Discrimination via proxies. 2. Crucially, the blog explicitly lists the signals they do optimise for: "position," "industry," and "activity." These are the exact proxies my report flagged. -> Industry/Position: Men are historically overrepresented in high-visibility industries (Tech/Finance) and senior roles. Optimising for these signals without a fairness constraint systematically amplifies men. -> Activity: The (now-viral) trend of women rewriting profiles in "male-coded" language (and seeing 3-figure percentage lift) proves that the algorithm’s "activity" signal favours male linguistic patterns ("agentic" vs. "communal"). 3. The blog confirms the algorithm is neutral in intent (it doesn't see gender) but discriminatory in outcome (because it optimises for biased proxies). In the UK, this is the textbook definition of Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In the EU, this is a Systemic Risk under the Digital Services Act (DSA). LinkedIn has proven that they can fix this. Their Recruiter product uses "fairness-aware ranking" to mitigate these exact proxies (likely for AI Act compliance). The question remains: Why is that same fairness framework not being applied to the public feed? 👉 What We Are Doing About It Analysis is important, but action is essential. I am proud to support the new petition, "Calling for Fair Visibility for All on LinkedIn". This isn't just a complaint; it’s a demand for transparency. We are calling for an independent equity audit of the algorithm and a clear mechanism to report unexplained visibility collapse. If you are tired of guessing which "proxy" you tripped over today, join us and sign the petition (link in the comments).

THIS is how I build my businesses. I use a simple framework called the ‘Three Bars’ framework which i created to help us see through friction, and to clarify which team members should be HIRED, PROMOTED and FIRED. It starts with asking yourself a very simple question in relation to a specific team member: "If everyone in the organisation had the same cultural values, attitude and level of talent as this employee, would the bar (the average) be raised, maintained, or lowered?" This question doesn’t seek similarity in perspectives, experience or interests. We know that diversity of thought, lived experience, or worldview is beneficial. But it does seek similarity in company cultural values, standards and attitude ✅ At all my companies, we categorise employees as: 🏋♂️ Bar raisers 🤷♂️ Bar maintainers 📉 Bar lowerers This framework has also been incredibly useful when assessing new recruits against current team standards. With every hire, you should be looking to RAISE THE BAR, and just like Sir Alex Ferguson did, if any current hire – regardless of how many trophies they’ve won you in the past – becomes a bar lowerer, you must quickly and decisively act to stop their influence destroying the sacred collective culture

The best founders do one thing brilliantly... Hire. Here’s how we think about finding & attracting A-players for our portfolio companies: Most owners hire like they're running a restaurant. They think more cooks = faster service. Instead, they get a kitchen full of people bumping into each other, burning food, and blaming everyone else. That’s why hiring isn’t a numbers game. You don't need more people. You need the RIGHT people. It’s impossible to build a worthwhile business with mediocre talent. Over the years, we've developed a framework to find, attract, and close the top 0.001%. I call it the 4 C's to Top-Level Talent: 1. CURATE Start hiring before you start hiring. Follow smart people in your niche on Twitter. Connect on LinkedIn. Bookmark stuff that makes you say, "Damn, I wish I wrote that." Treat talent like a portfolio. Study first, invest later. The best hires happen when you're NOT desperately hiring. 1. CULTIVATE Engage without being weird. Compliment their stuff. Comment. Ask smart questions. Send them ideas. The best talent moves when THEY'RE ready, not when you need them. Plant seeds early. Water them consistently. 3. CLOSE When it's time to close the sale, go HARD. Fly them in. Meet their spouse. Pay more than you're comfortable with. I wasn't even looking for a company President when I met Marc. I wanted a CRO. But after one conversation, I knew he was our guy. So I changed the org to fit HIM. That's how good hires work. They change you. Don't squeeze top talent into your current structure. Bend your business around exceptional people. 4. CONTINUE Top performers won't always stay forever. That's okay. Even when they leave, keep them close. My old Head of Content now runs a 7-figure business. We still trade notes. They send better talent than any recruiter ever could. As someone who’s hired 100s of people, take it from me: Your best hires won't walk in the door with a resume in hand. They're already working somewhere else, crushing it. It’s your job to go find them. Hiring the right people is one of the most powerful growth levers for any business. If you want to see exactly how we attract and retain top-tier talent across our portfolio, I’ll be breaking it all down in an upcoming workshop. This is just one of several proven scaling strategies we’ll cover— more info here: https://lnkd.in/e4xUbkV9

The fact that 81% of young people set to inherit large wealth are planning to fire dad's financial advisor is not a surprise. The surprise is how few legacy wealth management firms and private banks have any plan to address this whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they have meetings about it and pay consultants to "produce educational content" for the household offspring. But then they also have million-dollar minimums or payout grids disincentivizing FAs from taking sub-$5 million accounts. And that's why they're going to lose and you're going to win. They don't want it badly enough. They're not willing to put time, effort or capital on the line. Here are three actions you can take right now: INVEST in hiring and training younger advisors. Feed them now so they'll be ready for this opportunity when the time comes. It's a leap of faith to put new prospective clients in front of less experienced CFPs. Have faith in your next-gen advisors. Take the risk. SEGMENT your service tiers so that there is a grown-up, beyond-robo solution in place for HENRY (High Earner Not Rich Yet) households that doesn't infantilize them. Treat young adults like they're important to the firm, not a side business or a farm team. Educate them about what you're doing to the point they can repeat it back to you. CREATE so you can get in front of the inheritor generation, winning hearts and minds on the platforms they use. Communicate in an authentic way. Under 40's will not be marketed to by brands, they want to believe in you and your people. Do you believe? If not, they won't either. Read Robert Frank for CNBC https://lnkd.in/ewdUzVTk

How we talk about DEI is important. How we do the work of DEI, to actually achieve #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion, is far more important. As we head into 2025, I'm hearing a lot of buzz from well-meaning practitioners looking for ways they can rebrand the DEI status quo of one-off trainings, zero-budget lunch and learns, and volunteer burnout-inducing cultural celebrations so that they can continue with their workplace's business as usual under a new name. There is no rebrand in the world that can save ineffective practices. Long before this latest wave of backlash, practitioners leading this work have pushed for organizational DEI to become more accountable, measurable, and impactful. We've all seen organizations with rampant discrimination in promotion and hiring, with broadly inaccessible facilities, websites, products, and services, with toxic workplace cultures lacking respect, value, or safety for those in them, and with leadership teams leading with neither trust or transparency...boasting about their underfunded, poorly-attended, and undersupported DEI events to show their "commitment" to this work. If that's the status quo you're trying to save, forget about it. 🎯 Effective DEI work in 2024 was rigorous, measurable, and principled. It sought to identify problems before (not after) prescribing solutions, with the goal of improving diversity, equity, and inclusion outcomes. 💥 That same work in 2025 will look like strategic human-centered interventions with pre- and post-measurement to identify progress—or lack thereof—toward removing barriers to thriving in the workplace. 🎯 Effective DEI work in 2024 was systems-focused, not stopping at individual-level solutions like coaching or training, to root out systemic biases enabling homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion at scale. 💥 That same work in 2025 will look like organizational development and change management, to ensure that policies, processes, and practices across every workplace are enabling everyone to succeed. 🎯 Effective DEI work in 2024 was rooted in the collective, drawing on allyship between different identity groups to lend our collective power, influence, and resources to each other's causes. 💥 That same work in 2025 will look like coalition-building and organizing for mutual benefit, building trust between people from differing backgrounds to push for a better status quo that benefits everyone. When we give into fear and go on the defensive, we risk losing the creative edge we need to imagine a world better than the one we're familiar with. 2025 might be a hard year for DEI, yes. But the good, hard work behind it isn't going anywhere, not if practitioners stay focused on the impact we're working to achieve and continue honing our craft. Stay sharp, folks.

"Hi Mark, we received this CV 5 times this week." This scenario never fails to bemuse me. Let's set aside terms of business for a moment—whether retained, exclusive, or contingent—because this issue cuts across all recruitment models. Here’s the heart of the problem: We’re dealing with multiple factors that create this mess: 1️⃣ Candidate Behavior: Some candidates apply through multiple channels for the same role without disclosing their prior applications. Transparency matters here—if you’ve already applied, just say so! 2️⃣ Rogue Agencies: Certain agencies mass-send CVs with attached terms, often locking candidates out of the process entirely. Worse still, this can leave companies caught up in avoidable disputes and duplicate charges. Misrepresenting a candidate isn’t just unethical—it’s illegal. 3️⃣ Too Many Cooks: Engaging too many agencies for one role leads to chaotic processes where it’s all about "first past the post." Spoiler alert: this never ends well. 4️⃣ Stale Roles: When roles stay open for months, candidates get re-submitted over time, creating confusion. The same candidates think it’s a different job and apply again, perpetuating the cycle. 5️⃣ The "Magic Mystery": Here’s one that will blow your mind. I’ve seen agencies resend the same candidates’ CVs every 6 months as terms expire, then claim a fee when one of those candidates gets hired—without the candidate even knowing! Shockingly, some companies have lost in court over this tactic. 🚨 Duplication is the silent killer of recruitment efficiency. Finding the right candidate can take 30-60 days, only to discover duplication derails the process. So, what’s the fix? There is a solution, but it requires action from all parties: ��� Candidates: Protect your CV. Always ask where your details are being sent and give explicit consent before representation. Work with recruiters who discuss roles in depth and are clear about where they’ll submit your profile. ✅ Companies/HR/Hiring Managers: Streamline your agency pool. Limit the number of agencies per role—2-3 specialized agencies should suffice. Have a “B-list” for backup - But if you insist on using multiple agencies - Get an ATS system to upload candidates too, which will alert the recruiter ASAP. There are few out there, some not that expensive. ✅ Agencies: Retained or exclusive search is often the way to go. Retained ensures focus, while exclusive keeps it simpler and less intense - but as long as the process is good, will yield a fair result. Both approaches reduce duplication headaches. But if you open a role up to another agency, ask yourself why. what is happening? Finally, choose wisely. Don’t default to “first past the post.” Insist on proof of representation—signed or emailed consent from the candidate. Quality recruitment is about partnership, not speed. Let’s stop duplication from undermining the process and elevate recruitment to the professional standard it deserves. What are your thoughts? 

Louder for the people at the back 🎤 Many organisations today seem to have shifted from being institutions that develop great talent to those that primarily seek ready-made talent. This trend overlooks the immense value of individuals who, despite lacking experience, possess a great attitude, commitment, and a team-oriented mindset. These qualities often outweigh the drawbacks of hiring experienced individuals with a fixed and toxic mindset. The best organisations attract talent with their best years ahead of them, focusing on potential rather than past achievements. Let’s be clear this is more about mindset and willingness to learn and unlearn as apposed to age. To realise the incredible potential return, organisations must commit to creating an environment where continuous development is possible. This requires a multi-faceted approach: 1. Robust Training Programmes: Employers should invest in comprehensive training programmes that equip employees with the necessary skills for their roles. This includes on-the-job training, mentorship programmes, online courses, and workshops. 2. Redefining Hiring Criteria: Organisations should revise their hiring criteria to focus more on candidates’ potential and willingness to learn rather than solely on prior experience or formal qualifications. Behavioural interviews, aptitude tests, and probationary periods can help assess a candidate's ability to learn and adapt. 3. Partnerships with Educational Institutions: Companies can collaborate with educational institutions to design curricula that align with industry needs. Apprenticeship programmes, internships, and cooperative education can bridge the gap between academic learning and practical job skills. 4. Lifelong Learning Culture: Encouraging a culture of lifelong learning within organisations is crucial. Employers should provide ongoing education opportunities and support for professional development. This includes continuous skills assessment and access to resources for upskilling and reskilling. 5. Inclusive Recruitment Practices: Employers should implement inclusive recruitment practices that remove biases and barriers. Blind recruitment, diversity quotas, and targeted outreach programmes can help ensure that diverse candidates are given a fair chance. By implementing these measures, organisations can develop a workforce that is adaptable, innovative, and resilient, ensuring sustainable success and growth.

It shouldn’t be dangerous to speak your mind in any meeting or in any conversation at work. But employers know that it is dangerous, and that’s why they send out confidential employee engagement surveys. 68% of respondents to my poll on LinkedIn last week said that these surveys are not really confidential. If you know it is not safe for employees to speak their minds at work, that’s what you should focus on – solving that problem! It’s like there is a wall of goo between you and your employees, toxic goo, and rather than get rid of the wall of toxic goo you simply send a little paper airplane over the goo wall and tell employees to read what you wrote on the paper airplane, write something on it yourself and find a safe way to get the paper airplane back to you. That is both foolish and unethical. If you know it is not safe to speak your mind at work and you just send out a survey instead of tackling the real issue, you have failed at leadership.

Most people get Reference Checks wrong! Here's how to get them right 👉🏻 Throughout my journey, I've had to make 1000s of hires and often struggled with evaluation through the standard interviewing processes. I read somewhere that ~60% senior hires go wrong even after the most meticulous processes so I wondered how to improve the odds. 🤔 What I discovered is that there's no substitute for spending time with the candidates and conducting ‘unnamed’ ref checks through your own network. But what I also learnt is that not every ref check is the same and you can end up with very different outcomes depending on how it’s done. So, through reading and experience, I came with the best practices that I christened with the acronym "PEARL", and here it is for the FIRST time🔥 P - Promise Reciprocity Busy professionals don't dole out intel freely. So, you must offer to return the favor – something as simple as “If ever you need my help for a ref check or otherwise, I'd be happy to help". A senior leader will immediately see its value & perhaps become more ‘available’ on the call. E - Ensure Confidentiality This is critical, especially in India. Candor is not part of our culture, so assure the referrer that you understand the sensitivity of this call and will keep it 100% confidential. Also that you'd expect the same if they ever choose to call you for a reference. If you still sense some hesitancy, maybe throw an ‘offer’ of a good-faith NDA. Don’t worry, nobody ever takes it up but it makes them less guarded. A - Ask questions that force specificity (close-ended & open-ended) Broad questions like – "How was their work ethic?" “Does she work hard?” - are a complete waste of time. You need to ask 2nd order questions that make it comfortable for the referrer to answer without feeling like they're maligning the candidate. For eg - “How do you think we can help the candidate grow?" is better than "Can you tell me about their weaknesses?” R - Retrieve critical insights Actively listen and probe for specifics. Did the candidate consistently meet deadlines? Why or why not? How did they handle pressure? Did they run towards solving problems or look for directions to carry out? These details paint a picture beyond the resume. L - Learn rehire potential And finally, the golden question – "Are you willing to re-hire or work with the candidate again? Why or why not?" Regardless of what the referrer may have said up to this point, most senior folks will have a hard-time giving you a false or misleading response to this one. This is the true gauge of the candidate’s potential and one I put a lot of weight in. To conclude, thank the referrer for their time, assure confidentiality again and commit to a quid pro quo. This leaves the door open for other ref checks you might wish to do in the future 😏 So, there you have it - A PEARL from my collection🙌🏻 Do comment with something that’s worked for you that I may have missed :) #hiring #startups #leadership

Huge news for anyone working in tech in the US: noncompetes will be banned: not just in California (like before), but nationwide. This is very, very relevant for anyone at Amazon (which is the Big Tech that has enforced noncompetes even for low-level engineering positions). But it's just as relevant at other companies that (outside California) added noncompetes to contracts. Other countries should take notice. The FTC has correctly determined that noncompetes is bad for the economy: although undeniably good for businesses that want to keep wages lower, and enforce lower attrition. If you read the ruling closer: there is an exception where noncompetes can remain for executives. The regulation defines as an executive as those making more than $151K/year AND being policy makers. Many senior-and-above individual contributors will make more than this (especially in Big Tech). But they are not policymakers/execs! That's usually Director-and-above. The regulation is expected to be in effect in a bit over 4 months' time. During this time, organizations can sue the FTC to get this reversed: and the US National Chamber of Commerce has immediately announced they will do just this. Still, there's now a very real chance that soon, noncompetes will be a thing of the past for almost all US workers. We've seen what happened in states that did this earlier: California is the hotbed of innovation and startups. It also has a ban on noncompetes. Coincidence? The FTC doesn't seem to think so. Other countries (that still have noncompetes allowed) could well take notice. The FTC ruling source: https://lnkd.in/dFeVcXwr