Human-First Hiring: Scaling with Psychology, Data, and AI-Assistance

JOSH: Amber, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for joining me. To get started, it’d be helpful if you provide everybody with some background about yourself and what led you to where you are today.

AMBER: Yeah. Well, thanks for having me, Josh. I appreciate it. So, yeah, I’m Amber. I have been in recruiting for about fifteen years, with the last seven being mostly in tech. I’ve been on really small teams of, like, four or fewer, or a team of one, in a lot of my roles.

I’m currently with 1Password on their talent team, which is the largest team I’ve been part of. So it’s been an interesting shift, to be able to compare, like, my experience working by myself, to then being part of a team of about thirty people, on our talent team now. So, I have a background in IO psychology, which I really try to intertwine into a lot of the hiring systems and designs that I build now. But, yeah, that’s a little bit about me.

Great. Well, we’re definitely gonna get into the psychology side of things because I love to hear about your journey from there.

So you’ve been in tech for you said about seven years doing recruiting. For about fifteen years. What industries were you working in before tech?

Yeah. I’ve done a little bit of, I started my career in hospitality. I actually worked for a water park resort where I started as a lifeguard, and then it was like, well, why don’t you train lifeguards? Okay.

Well, why don’t you hire the lifeguards? Okay. Why don’t you hire for the rest of the resort? It kind of just snowballed from there.

And, I kind of actually did that full time while I went to school full time, so that was an interesting time of my life, just pure adrenaline and coffee. I think that was how I survived.

But after I graduated with my undergrad in psychology, I was at this kind of stalemate of, like, what do I do next? So I did a six-month stint in sales, and I always tell people, I love selling dreams, not things. So I pivoted back to recruiting.

And so I worked for a boutique pet supply retailer that scaled astronomically while I was there. So kind of had that startup feel that just was, like, in this high-growth stage. Then I did some in-home health care recruiting, and then that’s when I pivoted, and then over into the tech world.

Nice. Great story. And what drew you to tech? What was exciting about it for you?

Oh, I think it was just that it was the future. And I was just really excited and wanted to be part of what was next in the world, and I knew that that was the next thing.

So that’s kind of what drew me in. Plus, I think, you know, there is a lot of progressiveness that comes with working for a tech company, a lot of better benefits and better support, and they’re all competing with each other in terms of supporting their employees. So you tend to work for some really great places and supportive places, remote work, things like that. And so I think that was definitely the draw.

Nice. Alright. So you’re at one Password now. You alluded to the team being about thirty people or so. That’s and that’s the talent acquisition team?

Correct. Yep.

Okay. Got it. And then do you have a separate team that’s running, like, HR and people ops?

We do. Yeah. So we’ve got a separate people operations team, and the talent team consists of, like, our recruiters. We have a talent operations team that does more of our rec ops and systems. We have an employer branding and DEIB team that kind of supports the external communications.

So and then it kind of brings in this, like, very holistic experience, which is all of the pieces I was personally doing at my previous company. So it’s very interesting to see that difference in, like, having people who are experts in those spaces, like, own those different functions.

Yeah. But that’s cool that you had that previous experience because you can relate to a lot of the things that your team members are trying to do. And Yeah. So with the thirty-person team, how many managers would you guys say you’re supporting?

Hiring managers?

Yes.

Good question. I would say probably between each individual recruiter, and I think we’ve got ten to fifteen recruiters, like, actual recruiters are, probably supporting eight to twelve hiring managers, per quarter per rec load, essentially.

Yeah. It varies over time depending on what’s going on within the business. Now, is it specialized where some recruiters are focused on engineering roles and some are on GTM, or what’s the breakdown look like?

Yep. Exactly. So we’ve got our tech pod, which is focused mainly on engineering and technology roles. Then we’ve got our business pod, which is focused more on, like, your marketing product, those types of roles. And then we have our GTM focused more on, like, the sales, go-to-market type roles.

Nice. And how long have you been with the company?

I’ve only been here for, like, seven or eight weeks. So it’s still fairly new. Yeah. Yeah. It’s still fairly new. Little history there. I was I was unfortunately laid off five weeks into my maternity leave for having my first baby.

So I was doing some fractional work, actually at Going, the company that I got laid off from, and really, really actually loved that. It was a good low key, like way to reenter their workforce as I’m, like, trying to navigate being a new mom.

But this opportunity at 1Password came up, and so it made most sense for me to transition back into full-time. And so, yeah, I’ve been here only for eight weeks. I’m still fairly new here.

Still kind of getting a lay of the land, but yeah, it’s been great so far.

Good. Well, I’m glad it all worked out. I’m sorry to hear that you ensured that was really stressful time, with that experience that you had, but it seems like it worked out and you landed in a good place. So Yes.

Yes. Definitely. The up and up. And so I’m sure seven, eight weeks in, you’re probably drinking from the fire hose and learning everything you can about all areas of the business.

What does onboarding look like for somebody like you? Where are you spending your time in these initial weeks?

Yeah. So, onboarding so far has been just shadow sessions, trying to learn the systems. We’re actually in the transition from Lever to Ashby, which is a migration I’ve personally done at two other companies. And so, it’s been cool to, like, actually be able to deliver some immediate value on that front and be able to share my experience since I’m the only one currently with that, full user experience of Ashby.

So, participating in some of the project work that goes into that migration.

And then, yeah, just learning, like, the process. Like, you know, every company hires differently, but the principles are the same, essentially. And so it’s a matter of understanding the operations of how recruiting works at one Password and then bringing my own perspective and experience to the table. And, what I have loved about one Password is they’re super receptive to, kind of identifying those orange extension cords, and want to make processes better and hire people that can bring in that diverse perspective to make those processes better.

I like the orange extension cord analogy. I’ve never heard that, but I’m definitely gonna steal it and use it from time to time. Love it.

Well, not to divert too much, but I’m curious because you just mentioned you have experience at two other companies doing an ATS migration, and now you’re, you know, immediately able to add some value there at one Password. Regardless of the ATS, you know, migration is a big undertaking, and a lot of people have, you know, their thoughts about it. What are some of the things that you’ve learned from the few experiences that you’ve had doing it?

Yeah. It is quite the undertaking.

It is it is it comes down to really being a strong project manager, which is funny. Like, recruiters are everything. I always tell people, like, we’re data analysts. We’re salespeople. We’re project managers.

So, we have this really unique Swiss Army toolset.

And, I think it comes down to, like, clear ownership of of who is gonna own what parts of that migration, making sure that you’re in lockstep with your different teams, be it legal or privacy or engineering, IT, and then, having a very clear plan that is very visible and easy to navigate and easy to read. And then just being on top of your communications, your checkpoints.

I think, luckily, with a lot of the kind of ATSs, like, in my experience, these migrations have been really easy from a training perspective because we’re going from something that maybe was a little more antiquated and not quite working to something, like, much more user-friendly and easier to use. So my experience has been, like, adoption from hiring managers and hiring teams is pretty high, and they’re very excited to use and leverage these newer tools that are coming out.

But I have to give kudos to the team at 1Password and the person running point. She’s done a phenomenal job of managing a very large-scale migration with a lot of roles open, whereas I worked, my migrations have been in, like, two smaller companies. So definitely a different scale.

Totally. Different challenges at both. Right? At a smaller company, when you’re the one person leading it for a one-person or a four-person team, it’s much different than a thirty-person team, you know, from like an adoption and training standpoint.

You know, but also you as a one-person, you know, leading the charge of that. Like, you’ve got to coordinate everything from end to end, whereas a bigger team may have more resources available to you that you can pull in. So there’s, like, you know pros and cons of each situation and challenges that come with each. But it’s great that you have that experience, you know, kind of having to do everything, because then you can take that and, again, understand all the different moving parts even though it might be at a different scale.

It sounds like when you know you’re upgrading an ATS, if you’ve done your homework and you know you’re picking an ATS as an upgrade over what you were previously using, you have to worry less about adoption and buy-in, and people are excited to use it. There’s a little bit of change management just with the fact that it’s something new. But would you say it’s more related to, like, stakeholder and process management to keep things moving along and getting the necessary approvals and things like that?

Yeah. And I think the larger the organization is, the more hands need to be involved. And so, you know, when I did these migrations at companies with a hundred people or less, there are a lot fewer stakeholders that need to be involved as opposed to one password, for example, that has fifteen hundred people at the company and a lot of different functional areas, that need to participate in those decisions. So I think the scale is definitely different, and with that comes different, unique challenges. And, again, rolling out a new tool to fifteen hundred people is a lot different than managing a rollout to a hundred and fifty.

Yeah. That’s for sure. Okay. So thanks for that. I’d love to pivot now to talk. We mentioned it earlier on in the introductions, but your background in psychology, how did you go from studying psychology, having an IO psych background, and then find yourself in recruiting?

Yeah. So I actually got my IO degree because of recruiting. So it was, I was already in recruiting, and I really loved the work that I was doing there, but I had my undergrad in psychology. I thought I was gonna be a lawyer.

I didn’t know that you couldn’t work and go to law school, and that, unfortunately, wasn’t an option for me. So I’m like, great. I have an undergrad in psychology, and I have no idea what to do with it. And so I’m sitting with my partner at the time, and we are talking about my options.

And I had done some research, and I’m like, I think, you know, I could go get my master’s in IO. Like, I think understanding how people work and what drives their behavior at work could really propel my experience as a recruiter, and he’s like, go for it. So, that was kind of, like, where the the like, I started.

And I know psychology at the time actually was kind of a newer, like, curriculum. Like, a lot of people didn’t have it. It wasn’t something that a lot of people were doing. And so, yeah, essentially, like, how it comes into play in my work is that I have a better way of evaluating what actually drives performance. So not necessarily what just looks good on paper, and it teaches you to look past confidence and polish and focus on better indicators like learning agility and decision making under pressure and things like that, which, we know leads to, better, stronger predictors of success, essentially.

Totally. Yeah. We have an IO psychologist on staff here. He’s actually our COO. He came from a company called Wunderlich, which maybe you’ve heard of. I am.

And, yeah, it’s so interesting. Like, when he taught I love, you know, seeking his advice on things we’re doing within our product as it relates to candidate engagement and communication, because it’s like the words you use are so important for the way that people perceive them. And so I have loved his mindset and the approach that he takes, and all that comes from his IO psych background. So I’ve always found that really interesting.

How would you say that it has shaped? I know you touched on a little bit in terms of evaluating candidates, but how would you say it’s shaped how you approach candidate engagement?

Yeah. So I think from a candidate engagement perspective, it’s helped me build better hiring systems. And so, basically, like, I know how people respond to ambiguity and how bias will sneak into unstructured interviews and how psychological safety ultimately impacts both candidate performance and interviewer judgment. And so a lot of hiring issues ultimately come down to behavioral design, so poor clarity, like poor role clarity, misaligned expectations, and lack of feedback loops. And IO psychology has given me a stronger lens to break to spot those breakdowns and then ultimately redesign for better outcomes.

Those better outcomes ultimately lead to better candidate engagement and better processes in general.

Yeah. That’s those are all great points. I love to dive a little bit into role clarity.

That’s something that I love talking a lot about of, like, making sure that you are crystal clear, not only internally on what you’re looking for so you have a good thorough process to evaluate for that, But being really clear about what you’re looking for externally too so candidates are aligned with what the role actually is and what success looks like. Because the last thing you want is to get through an entire process, and it’s a mismatch of what the actual position is and what the candidate really wants to do or enjoys doing. And then it’s like, okay. Well, we went through this great process.

This person has all the skills, but they don’t really want a role. It’s like Great. So, how do you know, in terms of the way that you build and design a process, how do you factor that in?

How do you make sure that candidates have that clarity about the role upfront?

Yeah. Absolutely. And it’s and it’s so it’s such a hard thing because especially in these really agile, fast-moving startup type environments, what you need today can be very different from what you need six months from now. And that the team structure can change. Your leadership can change. And so many things and factors that contribute to a candidate’s success once they’re on the job may ultimately change within that first six months to a year.

And so I think as talent partners, as recruiting professionals, the best thing that we can do is ultimately really do our best to understand the business context, especially in these companies. Like, hiring managers might have a more narrow scope or view of what the strategic goals of the business are, or might not be as close to the leadership table or decisions that are being made at that level. And so they’re really thinking, okay. Well, what does my team need?

What does my road map look like? How is this person gonna fit that need? When really they need to understand how this person fits in with the business and the ultimate vision and goals of the business. And I think what I’ve been able to do in my career and in my role is being that gap bridging that gap.

Right? It’s like I’m asking the questions on my end from my leadership of, like, okay. Well, why are we doing this? And what does this look like six months to twelve months from now?

And what are the anticipated changes? And asking a lot of discovery questions to really understand where we’re headed and what might change, and what kind of obstacles we might be experiencing that we need to fill this need for. And so, them being able to work through that with the hiring managers, ultimately building better role clarity around what the business needs, not what that specific role or team needs.

Totally. That makes so much sense. I think you hit the nail on the head with hiring managers too in the sense that oftentimes when they are expressing what they think they need in a position, it’s what they think they need right now. It’s not looking ahead.

And so there’s a lot of recency bias that creeps in. So not only is it what do I need right now in terms of where the business is at right now versus where the business is gonna be at six to twelve months from now, But it’s actually what do I need right now, and it’s also reflecting on some of the very recent problems or obstacles I’ve encountered as a manager. And maybe if we had this person with this skill set, we wouldn’t have had that recent problem. But that’s not really looking at the position holistically and strategically for what that manager is really gonna need for them and their team to be successful six, twelve, plus months from now.

So that’s a really good point. Now, how do you take that and distill that into the JD and into the way that you communicate with candidates? So, you know, obviously, you have that alignment with the hiring manager. You’re really clear internally, but how do you make sure that candidates know what that is externally?

Yeah. I think it’s really just being transparent. I mean, these things should be in parity, and what we’re saying internally should mirror what’s being shared externally, minus any confidential or sensitive information, of course. But I don’t think there necessarily needs to be a huge disparity between what we’re verbalizing internally and what we need internally and what we’re having shared with candidates.

And so I have always believed in a very transparent process because I want you to know what you’re getting into.

Transparent process because I want you to know what you’re getting into. If we don’t have a clear road map for the next six months, I want you to know that, coming in. Because if you are somebody that does well and only perform forms well with structure, this role is going to be your worst nightmare. And so, I ultimately think it’s really understanding kind of making sure my myself and my hiring manager are very well calibrated and then distilling very transparently what those obstacles, what those challenges, and what’s exciting and, like, what impact they’re gonna be able to make and, not putting those rose colored glasses and just being very honest and truthful about it. Because, ultimately, on both ends, that’s gonna be better for both the business and the candidate in the end.

Yep. So it sounds like whatever process you go through with the hiring manager to almost build that, I don’t know if it’s an FAQ or more of a, you know, the high level questions about the position that you were just referencing. And then you just basically take that content, and it’s like, unless there’s any confidential information, this is exactly what we should share with candidates externally. Like, there’s no sugarcoating it.

Like, this is what the role is. These are the things if you like this, this role is gonna be for you. If you struggle with these things that are gonna be obstacles or challenges that come up in this position, maybe this role isn’t for you. Are you guys communicating that, like, at a recruiter on a recruiter call with a candidate?

Are you putting it in any of your, you know, email communication and the JDs? How are you guys making sure that there’s no way candidates miss this important information?

Yeah. A hundred percent. I think there are a lot of companies that are starting to shift to this role isn’t for you if x, y, and z. And I think that’s great, but I also think without context, that can sometimes, unintentionally, filter, like, people out.

And, often, those are underrepresented groups that are filtered out by that type of language and those types of bullets. And so I think I prefer to have those conversations on recruiter screens. So I’ll tell you all of the things you can expect to do in this role. I can tell you, yes, we don’t have this mapped out, you know, in six months, but I don’t necessarily think I love the language of, like, you’re not a fit for this role if x y z.

So I think, yeah, you can be transparent in the job description, but you still wanna get people excited about the impact and what they can do. And then once you get them on the phone, that’s when you can kind of be a little bit more transparent in giving the full context of, like, here’s the situation, because, you know, context is everything in those conversations, and you can’t put all of that on a JD. So, I think I pick and choose, like, what is most important for candidates to know and like, on paper, and then we’ll have that conversation later.

Totally. I think it goes both ways in the hiring process from that perspective. Both parties are trying to consistently gain more context about the situation as the hiring process goes on. Right?

Candidates want to know more about the company so they can continue to opt in to the rest of the process. But like you said, there’s a time and place to like, you’re not just gonna unload every single thing about the position onto the candidate on the first step of the process, because it’s an overwhelming amount of information at that time. And without maybe somebody being able to talk through certain aspects of it, you miss context. Just like you wouldn’t ask a candidate to go through, you know, twenty-five interviews or assessments or all these hoops, at the front end of your process, when it’s like, you know, you want to unpack context at each stage where it’s appropriate.

And so I think it goes both ways, in that sense. And, plus, the other thing you mentioned, I think, is really important. There’s a lot of research out there that shows, like, the information or the bullet points that you put in a JD. Like, some populations will take that as an opportunity.

Like, that’s an opportunity. Like, oh, yeah. I aligned with two out of seven of these. That’s great.

I’m gonna apply. This sounds great. And some are like, oh, I don’t align with seven out of seven, so I would never get this job or would never be interested, so I’m not going to apply. And so I think that’s where context is really important because you don’t want to potentially lose a great candidate. After all, they make assumptions based on the information you put out there.

So that’s a fine line. I don’t know, it’s more of, like, an art in some ways and a science of what content do you give at what point in the hiring process.

And then jumping back to science, you mentioned psychological safety, particularly as it relates to, I think you said, interview performance. So I’d love to know what you mean by that, how you see that play out, and how you, as a TA leader, help create that for candidates and, quite frankly, other stakeholders in the company that are involved in the process.

Yeah. Absolutely.

I think there’s definitely a multifaceted approach to it. It’s, again, transparency in every step of the process, like giving candidates insights into what they’re gonna be evaluated on. I don’t know why more people don’t do that. I think, like, you wrote papers in school and you always got a rubric, so you knew exactly what you were being graded on.

And we don’t provide that same. We expect people to get on a call with somebody they don’t know at all and perform extremely well under pressure when the stakes are often very high for some of these folks, and recall on the spot twenty years of their experience in their career. And it just it it is just crazy to me that we feel like people can perform under that kind of pressure. And so, I like giving very detailed context about what candidates can expect in a call, and I’ll even go as far to include the questions that they’re gonna be asked because I don’t think gatekeeping interview questions, unless they’re very skill based questions, is is going to help us assess them better or help them perform worse.

You know? And so I think that is, like, one piece of just being very transparent about what they can expect, and they go into the interview very well prepared because they know what they’re gonna be asked or what they’re being judged on. Because at the end of the day, when you’re in an interview, you feel very judged, as much as we try not to make it a judgment.

But then it’s also on the like, hiring team side, is making sure interviewers are very well calibrated.

So they’re not, excuse me, making decisions based on vibes or gut feel, having very structured interviews so that we are asking candidates the same question and aren’t making decisions on if this is somebody I’d like to get a beer with after work.

And then training, like, making sure that we do bias training, but also, you know, with some of the AI tools and, like, AI note takers now that are recording interviews, being able to actually go back and watch those interviews and, do some actual performance training on interviews, is really helpful as well to help people understand. Like, kind of your demeanor in this interview doesn’t create a very safe and welcoming space for this candidate, or vice versa. And so, how can we adjust and modify, especially in a remote world where a lot of body language and that kind of context is lost? So, yeah, it’s a lot to create that psychologically safe space in interviews. And I don’t think, historically, we’ve always had a strong focus on it, so we’re trying to change a long time of behavior that, you know, wasn’t supporting that type of environment.

Yeah. It’s interesting because interviews historically are kind of like standardized testing, where it’s like, what are we actually evaluating for? Because the reality is, like, outside of the standardized test or outside of an interview, if you’re in a workplace, you’re gonna get some context on what you’re working on.

You’re gonna get some guidelines on what does good look like, or what you know, if I’m a manager and I’m giving you something to do, it’s like, hopefully, I would give you some guidelines on what I’m expecting. You know, from a quality standpoint, but also from a completion standpoint, and from a measurable standpoint.

And so I don’t think that should really be any different in the hiring process. Like, why wouldn’t you set up your candidates for success? Because it also allows you to see did they prepared? Like, I gave them all the information.

And so it’s like, if they come and they, like, clearly haven’t prepared or looked over the questions I gave them or know who they’re meeting with, like, look. You gave them everything they needed to be successful, so that’s telling as it is. But then on the flip side, for the person that does really prepare and thinks thoughtfully about their answers, if you ask the right questions, the fact that they could prepare for it almost like you said, if it’s a really technical question that you need, you know, them to know two plus two equals four right on the spot, then, like, that’s a little bit different.

But if it’s a behavioral question and you’re asking about some previous experience, like, yeah, give them some time to reflect back on it. I can imagine that there are so many candidates who get a behavioral question in an interview.

They think of the first example that comes to their mind, and then the second they leave the interview, they’re like, I had five other examples that are probably better examples, but that’s just all I could think of that was the per first thing that popped into my mind. And so I think, like, when you give them that information upfront, it allows them to prepare and put their best foot forward, and that’s what you would do for them when they’re in the workplace.

So I feel like that gives you the best sense of who they are as a candidate or a future employee. What do you think?

Yeah. And I think it shows you it’s a great opportunity to just showcase your values as a company. Like, one of 1Password’s values is to put people first. And so if we’re not doing that in the interview process, like, that’s where it starts.

And so I think, you know, I totally agree with you. I think there’s I’ve worked with a lot of hiring managers who have had a lot of pushback of like, well, I need them to think on their feet, navigate ambiguity, and this is a great way. And it’s like, it’s not, though. The stakes are really high, and they’re up against who knows how many other people.

This could be the difference between them paying their mortgage next month. And so I think it’s it’s very shortsighted for us to think that people should just be able to, like, perform. Now, again, like you said, I think it’s it shows a lot when a candidate, like, has done the preparation, and it shows a lot when they haven’t. And I think that’s a really good indicator and can help us easily, kind of, source out those folks that, you know, weren’t prepared and didn’t take the tools and resources we gave them.

And I also do that with feedback through the process, too. Like, if I’ve had a candidate that kind of just went on rants through the interview and wouldn’t stay on track, I give them that feedback before they get into their next interview. And if they listen to the feedback and they take it, huge signal for us. That’s a great signal for us as opposed to them not taking it.

And, again, great signal for us. So I think we can do a lot better as humans to just humanize the process and, understand that, like, we’re not looking for perfection in an interview. We’re looking for prior performance, and how can we draw that out in the best, like, most efficient way, that creates that safe space for people.

Yeah. And then it’s really interesting that you bring up giving a candidate feedback in between interview rounds. Of course. Because it’s one thing to give them interview questions and interview prep, and they prepare all that type of stuff.

But it’s another that you give them this feedback and how do they act on it two days later when they’re meeting with the manager. And, of course, like, you know, they’re not gonna become a completely different person or, like, completely learn a new skill or something in two days. But if it’s something that’s, like, pretty tangible and low lift to improve on, or even you know, I’m trying to think of an example. But even if you give the candidate information about the manager that they’re working with.

You know, I know that this is really important for this manager, so they’re gonna wanna hear you talk about your experience related to X. It’s like, does the person do something with that information? And that’s a really strong signal. So it’s not just about, like, here’s the interview kit and interview prep.

It’s contextual about the previous interviews and the upcoming interviews, who they’re meeting with, all that kind of stuff. And so to your point of, like, selling dreams and lifting people up and, you know, wanting to put people first as one of your values, I feel like that’s something that all TA leaders and recruiters can do is take that extra step to give the candidate the information. So not only can they make decisions themselves, but they get the information so they can improve and act on it, and show their coachability and how they respond to feedback throughout the interview process.

And that helps you learn something as well, helps both parties learn something.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that’s where you elevate from just being a recruiter to a true talent adviser and to true talent partner is, you know, not just, like, moving people through the rack and moving people through the process, but really trying to find the best person, that is both going to, like, level up the team, that’s going to be a high performer.

And I think that’s the best way to do it is to create a system through the process that supports that.

It’s interesting. I like you bringing up talent advisor, talent partner, because I think, again, going back to, like, the psychology background. There is something in the language there if you compare that to, you know, a recruiter title. Right?

Recruiter definitely sounds very one-sided, like, and you hear people talk about all the time. Like, you’re trying to sell the candidate on the company. It’s like, well, not like, yes. But that’s only one side of it.

As a partner, as an advisor, you’re really a steward of the process. And, ultimately, for long-term success for the company, you needed to be a good fit on both sides. So you’re advising and you’re being a partner to all the stakeholders in the process. It’s not just about the internal stakeholders.

It’s also about your candidates. So, if you embrace that type of role, I feel like it puts you in a completely different mindset for the way that you approach how you treat and help your candidates get through the hiring process.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I will say, you know, I’ve been in both roles. I’ve been in roles where, my it was just a team of two, and we filled two hundred and eighty roles in my first year there.

And at that point, things have to be transactional, and I didn’t have the opportunity to be that strategic adviser as opposed to owning, you know, because my rec load was twenty to thirty to forty at that point. I see. As opposed to some of my other roles where I have, you know, ten or fewer recs at a time, I can be a much stronger strategic adviser.

So that’s a push for companies, right, to make sure that your recruiting capacity is at an appropriate level. Because if it is, they’re going to help you find better people and the best fits, as opposed to doing this high burn and churn where, you know, yeah, they’re gonna fill your roles, but are those people gonna be here for a year from now? Are they are they bringing in, you know, strong quality of hires? And it’s hard to.

So I don’t wanna say that it, like, is an easy thing to do, and you definitely have to have the systems behind you to be able to kind of act as that adviser.

Absolutely. Like, there’s no doubt that different environments create different challenges. Right? For example, you’re at one password now.

There are thirty people on the talent team. You guys have a lot more capacity to do just more things to improve the process, and other companies are running with one or two people that are handling, you know, thirty racks at a time, where they don’t even have a second to come up for air. And so those different environments create different challenges. And so I think, you know, as a TA leader, you kind of have to be real with yourself about what type of environment you’re in.

If you’re in one of those environments where you don’t have, you know, all the resources and support to do the white glove type of candidate experience that you’d love to deliver, you have to think a little bit differently. Like, how do we do this at scale? What can we do given the current strict constraints of our environment?

Of course, you could go to leadership and talk about the benefits of maybe increasing capacity on the team to do more things and how that flows into the business. But when you’re in the thick of it, you know, it’s taking a step back and thinking, okay. What can we do in this situation, given what we’ve got? Yeah. I want to talk you know, so the way I first came across you first of all, I’ve seen, you know, some of your content on LinkedIn, and I think it’s great. So I’ve seen a lot of your posts now. But the way I first came across your name was actually on a LinkedIn post.

I can’t remember who posted it or what the exact question was, but it was through the context of, like, who are the best people and talent using AI today? So I wanna pivot to talk a little bit about AI because that’s how I came across your name. Somebody gave you a shout-out in the comments, and that’s what made me initially reach out.

And so I think this is a good bridge to talk about that because we talk about you setting candidates up for success, giving them information ahead of time, allowing them to prepare.

I imagine in today’s age, are you seeing some of that come back into the hiring process in terms of, like, the preparation was really let me throw this in the chat GPT and come with scripted answers to the interview questions. What are you seeing?

Yeah. That’s a that’s a great question and great point. And I think I saw a news segment where a teacher talked about how, you know, how she’s adapting in the classroom for the use of ChatGPT. She’s not banning it in her classroom, but it’s her responsibility now to evolve her style and her curriculum to adapt to ChatGPT.

So it’s like, sure. Write your essay with ChatGPT, but then we’re gonna come into the classroom, and we’re gonna work through some different problems together on the essay or whatever the case may be. And I think the same goes for us. Like, we need to embrace AI.

It’s here to stay. It’s gonna evolve and change how we work. And, honestly, I see I think of AI as a force multiplier.

It should remove friction from the process. It shouldn’t be removing people from it. And so with candidates, like, we ask application questions and, yes, almost every person is like ChatGPT, the quest, the responses are the exact same, so you know automatically.

But one, it does make the candidates that are not using ChatGPT or are really good at using it, so it doesn’t sound so scripted, stand out.

And two, like, it still gives people, like, a really good indication of how they’re using tools. And, like, at 1Password, we are embracing an AI, and we want our teams, too. So we want to ask people, how are you using AI in your workflows or to enhance and be more productive?

But it does change the style in which we interview. Right? And so with prescript answers to interview questions that I’m being transparent in giving you, then I need to make sure my interviewers are comfortable probing. Right? And the probing is where we can get a better signal as opposed to just taking that surface answer to the question I provided that they plugged in and now have a script to. So that probing is where we’re going to get the better signal or the most signal from.

Yep.

And it starts with, like, good questions, right, that’s Yes.

Initially, draw out real-world experiences that ChatGPT may not know about this exact scenario you ran into one time at work five years ago. So it starts with good questions that draw out those examples. And by giving them the candidates ahead of time, like, there’s no reason to use ChatGPT to make that stuff up.

Like, I can just have the time to think about that and make sure I put my best foot forward in the interview process. But how are you coaching the hiring managers to probe? Like, what does that look like for you? How do you help them figure out what the right follow-up questions to ask are based on the initial response?

Yeah. For sure. I think one is interview training and talking through that a lot in training, using recordings, and being like, okay. Well, this is where you could have asked this probing question and probably gotten a little bit better signal.

But I also think that it’s having some structured interviews and having probing questions, like, integrated into that. And, like, they can change a little bit based on the context that the candidate’s providing, but I think there is still a way to provide a framework to hiring teams and interviewers to then be able to, like, do those follow-ups. But I’m also no stranger to doing a follow-up interview or follow-ups. Right?

Like, if we did not get the signal, I would rather have one more interview to get that signal and directly address those things head-on than pass on a candidate just because we’re scared to say, like, we kind of messed up on our end. We, like, didn’t do a great job, or didn’t get this signal. Like, we need one more. Like, if they seem good and, like, you think for the most part, if you can get this extra signal, like, they’d be higher, like, have that follow-up.

I’m sure that they’re gonna be willing to do it, if that means that there’s a potential that they get an offer.

Totally. Plus, it’s a learning experience for the hiring manager because you do that follow-up interview one time with the candidate, and they’re like, oh, to your point, they’re using recordings. Well, this is now, like, a real-world experience where they could learn from, oh, yeah. If I had just probed about this or asked about that or asked these follow-up questions, maybe we wouldn’t have to have this extra meeting now.

And so it helps them learn for the next time. So when they’re in a similar situation, even though the candidate’s gonna be saying different things, it’s like they understand conceptually how to dig a little bit further to make sure that you do get the signal that you’re looking for. So, hopefully, it’s not like a repetitive thing where it’s like, okay. Every candidate gets the hiring manager step; we always need a plan on having another fifteen-minute call after that, because we didn’t have signals.

It’s like, you know, hopefully, they learn it.

Address it.

Yeah. Exactly. Right. Yeah. Let’s put that up. I also like, you know, the fact that you guys are using AI internally, and so you’re expecting your candidates to be resourceful, and you’re asking them about how they’re using it. Are you giving them any sort of guidance upfront about using AI in the hiring process, or are you leaving it up to them to determine on their own?

Yeah. So we leverage, like, we have some AI language of how we as a company, our philosophy around AI, on every kind of job post that goes out publicly.

And then we’ve got some questions, like, and we can provide some additional context on how, like, AI might show up in their specific role.

And then, like, we use AI note takers during the interviews. We give them more context on, like, why we use this and how it is actually very beneficial to them, and us as a company to just make stronger decisions.

And so, again, like, transparency, but then also knowing, like, we don’t have it all figured out, and AI is changing every day.

And Yeah. Nobody does. Right?

Yeah. Like, we’re gonna need to adapt as time goes on and evolve. And so, you know, it’s all I think we’re all in it together, and so we’re just doing the best we can in terms of, like, the tools that we have at our fingertips now.

Yep. And how would you advise people in TA who are looking to get started using AI in their own hiring processes? Maybe they haven’t done anything before. Maybe they’ve dabbled a little bit with ChatGPT, and that’s about the extent of it.

Where do people start? How do they know the practical use cases? How do they know best practices? Like, where would you point people to?

I think there’s a lot of great Slack groups out there that, it’s kind of where I started in, like, getting more information on. I think almost every TA Slack group I’m part of has, like, literally an AI channel.

So I think that’s a great way for people to kind of get started, is just perusing those channels, reaching out to their network.

Lots of posts on LinkedIn about AI these days.

And, you know, I think evaluating what tools make the most sense within your workflow or what tools you actually already have that you just might not be using. So, for example, a lot of these ATSs are coming out with AI features and releasing AI features that maybe you’re not using yet. And so that’s a great place to start, it’s just like, let’s use what we already have and then expand on it, when we can make the business case that this makes us more efficient, this gives us better signal, this helps us make better decisions.

Yep. That makes sense. Use something that’s built for you already for a specific use case, and then your use of that gets buy in from the stakeholders you may need buy in from internally to explore more use cases that you may need to experiment with yourself, versus some out-of-the-box feature from a vendor that you’re working with.

Yeah. So, like, my last company, we weren’t using, like, AI note taking, and it was pretty new to the market. And so, I made a pitch to my boss. I’m like, let me just use it for my recruiter screens, and we’ll see how it goes, see how much kind of time saving it gives me.

And let’s track to see if, like, our quality of hires or my pass-through rates, like, improve over time just based on the fact that I can focus and engage in the conversation instead of, you know, I’ve got five back-to-back screens a day. Like, I’m having to transcribe notes at that point because I can’t keep everyone straight. And so, AI empowers me to fully focus on the conversation as opposed to typing those notes, and then I can ultimately make the business case for that.

Our pass-through rates have improved significantly.

We’re saying, I’m saving this amount of time in drafting and writing feedback. I’m way more calibrated with my hiring teams because of this.

And so I think, like, start small, and then you can always bridge it out. And so, like, we ended up rolling it out to the whole team at that point, and people love it. And I think it has led to stronger hires, better conversations, better signals, fewer of those we need a follow-up to the follow-ups kind of conversations.

Yep. And that obviously, you know, the the the downside of when you’re not using tools and you’re experiencing these issues of, like, hey. We need follow-up conversations, or it’s taking us longer to now review all the notes or type up the notes. It just drags out the process.

And, ultimately, if you’re in business, that means it takes longer to get the person that you need and then takes longer to get them to productivity for the company. And also I think it’s interesting because you bring up, like, just even AI note takers, and it’s it’s interesting how I feel like most companies, like, if they have a sales team, there’s not gonna be a lot of questions around, you know, tools that we’re investing in, like an AI note taker for the sales process because of the impact it can have, the sales rep’s efficiency, because some stakeholder is able to easily tie efficiency from a sales rep to revenue.

And so it’s, like, an easy, no-brainer kind of decision. And so I think, you know, when you’re in TA, got to take it a step further to tie, like, the benefits of whatever tool we’re using to some business outcomes. So if the person doesn’t understand, you know, the benefits of certain metrics improving in the hiring process and how that flows down to the business, you need to help them understand. And so you need to figure out some way to tie it.

So just like you said, our passer rates are improving, or our time to hire is decreasing, or whatever it is. It’s like, okay. Well, that means that we get somebody in a seat faster. If we get that person in a seat faster, they’re ramped more quickly.

So if they’re a salesperson, they’re getting to revenue more quickly, and so that’s obviously good for the company and us hitting our target. So it’s like sometimes you just got to connect the dots, for the people that are just like, why you guys could just take your own notes. Like, why?

You’re like, well, because I have no time to do that, and then it has all these effects downstream.

Yeah. Absolutely. And and it was dollars. Right? I’m like, this is how much money we’re saving in my productivity alone from the fact that I’m saving this much time drafting up feedback.

Yep.

And then, again, like, tying the interviewer’s time to dollars. So showing them how much money they’re saving by investing in this tool was ultimately what secured it. So, I completely agree. Like, you need to show the business impact because we’re a cost center. So, like, you know, we got to show that, like, we do contribute to revenue just indirectly.

Yeah. I mean, look. That the whole organization does, right, in some kind of way. But, yes, obviously, you know, most people look at it, like, just on the GTM side and say, okay.

This is how it’s the easiest to, you know, create revenue attribution for is on the GTM side with anything you invest in. It’s a little bit harder in other functions of the business. So Yep. That’s where it’s up to the leaders of those other functions of the business to help connect the dots for somebody who may not see the full picture of how those benefits flow through.

The other thing I wanna talk about related to AI is candidate perception.

How I know you mentioned you’re explaining to candidates why you’re using, you know, the AI notetaker as an example again. How are candidates perceiving your use of AI in the process, and, I guess, how much explaining are you doing to make sure that candidates feel comfortable, and what’s, like, their response or sentiment to that?

Yeah. That’s a great question. And I think every, you know, person has their different, like, perspective on AI. I would say, generally, people understand the use of it. I think from, like, an AI notetaker, for example, kind of easy to understand. I can give you a one pager spelling out exactly why we use it and how we use it.

I think the things that people are more hesitant about are the things behind the scenes that they feel like resume review and AI participating in resume review and, like, removing that human judgment or element from it.

And so I think it’s being very transparent and clear about how we’re using AI, but also, like, understanding that there is a line of how we’re using it, and we shouldn’t be removing any kind of human-based judgment from it. So, for a resume review, for example, I’m not archiving candidates based on specific parameters that the AI is auto-rejecting on. Right? I’m still prioritizing based on AI and enhancing my workflow that way, but we’re not necessarily removing that human element from the decision-making that comes with AI. So I think it really comes down to just being transparent about how your company is using it, where you’re using it, and why you’re using it, and how you’re using it.

And that will ultimately ease some of the concerns that come with using these types of tools within the systems.

Yeah. And like you said in the beginning, people don’t like ambiguity. They don’t like Yeah. Feeling left in the dark.

They don’t like not knowing how these things work. And one of the problems is you can go down a rabbit hole on LinkedIn or other places where people are talking about what’s happening behind the scenes in the ATS. And I think it quickly causes people to spin out of control, and it causes people to make assumptions about what is happening and what certain recruiters or companies’ intentions are when they use certain tools. And so I think it’s important to understand that candidates have questions about those things and answer those questions.

And if you can give, as we talked about earlier, more context as to why you’re using it, using AI resume review as an example, it’s not about auto-rejecting candidates based on some keywords that are in their resume. The reality is, and I’m sure you’ve had experiences like this, the market is very saturated. You’re getting hundreds, sometimes thousands, of applicants for a role.

All the resumes are formatted differently. It’s huge chunks of text to read through. If a recruiter’s going through that and they’re expected to go through a couple hundred in a day, you can imagine the experience at different times of the day and how the reviewing resumes is going to be different. But if we can use AI to pull data out of those resumes, structure it in a way that’s more easily comparable from candidate to candidate.

And then allow the recruiter to make the final decision, that’s a good use of AI. And I think the hard part is explaining to candidates that that’s the type of stuff that’s actually happening on the back end. It’s not just like, hey. Well, recruiters aren’t even looking at my resume.

It’s just auto-scoring and auto-rejecting me. So let me go buy this tool that’s gonna help optimize my resume for the ATS. And so Yep. Like, when there’s ambiguity, assumptions get made, and that’s not good for anybody.

So I think the more we can work to clarify what’s actually happening goes a long way for candidates and their perception of these different tools that we use.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I think it’s also, on the candidate side, though, using AI to help you get that visibility. Right?

So, like, there are a lot of free tools out there for candidates to kind of match their resume to the job description for kind of those AI-powered resume reviews. But, you know, to put some context to it, I had a role open for six days, and I got seven thousand applicants. And I was a recruiter team of one, and there’s just no possible way to go through all of those. And so AI helps elevate those people who may have gotten lost in the sub because they applied in the middle, for example, of when the posting was up.

And if I went through those resumes sequentially, I might not have even made it to them. And so there are pros and cons, and there will always be pros and cons with these types of tools. But, ultimately, I think that, like, we shouldn’t be scared of it. We should embrace it and learn how to adapt to it and evolve what we’re doing on our end, both as a company and as a candidate, to enhance it for both of us.

Yep. Absolutely. And as we discussed earlier is there are different dynamics and different situations at play. So, as a candidate, maybe you apply for a role.

You have no idea that the recruiter or the one recruiter who’s working this position just got seven thousand resumes. You can make all the assumptions you want about the process they decide to run, and, hopefully, they’re running a good one. But at the end of the day, that recruiter or that TA team has to make decisions about how they’re gonna most effectively run a process to learn and get to know the candidates that are interested in the role. And the reality is is you don’t want that to be impacted by, like, volume and recruiter capacity and, you know, these things that, like, become impediments to the process, and then they become impediments to you gaining the context that’s necessary to make a decision.

And so there are certain situations that require you to think outside of the box, whether it be with process or with tools, to find the capacity to make sure you can get to know candidates so you can make a decision. And in some cases, there’s gonna be more automation than others, and that’s just a product of the situation that you’re in as a recruiter. And I think the challenge is that candidates don’t know that situation because they don’t get a real-time scoreboard of all the people that apply to the process and what is dealing you know, what the team is dealing with on the other side.

So it’s something that is always gonna be a challenge to balance, but I think, you know, what you a really good takeaway from this episode that you’ve expressed here is just being as transparent as possible, being as communicative as possible, giving candidates as much information at the right time upfront as possible, so they feel in the loop. So they feel psychologically safe. So to wrap this up, I love I know this is, like, a big loaded question, but is there, like, one piece of advice or one tip or a starting place that you would advise people if they’re, like, hey. I really resonated with this episode.

I really want to level up my candidate experience, but I just don’t know where to start. There are so many parts of our process that it’s broken. Like, what should I start with? What’s the advice you would give somebody who’s in that situation?

Yeah. I would say start with your network and peep connect with people in this space and listen to podcasts like this and join those Slack groups because, ultimately, like but, unfortunately, for recruiters, there’s really no training for us. There’s no formal education or program that we go through, and so I think it’s we’d best learn from each other’s experiences. And so there are tons of resources out there. You ultimately just have to be resourceful to go find them, and tons of people in the space are willing to help and share their insights, and help you succeed. And so reach out to those folks that are posting on LinkedIn, and I can promise you most of them want to jam on recruiting and help you, you know, build a stronger process. So I think it’s just leveraging your network and using the resources that are available to you.

Awesome. Well, Amber, thanks so much. It’s been great to jam with you today. I appreciate you coming on the episode and sharing all these insights. I know people are gonna take a lot away from this. So thank you very much.

Thanks so much, Josh. I appreciate it.