Episode Transcript
Josh Hill [00:00:00]:
At executive level, up to 80% of roles are never advertised, right? So it's actually not about who you know there. It's about who knows you.
Luca Marzorati [00:00:10]:
If the first time that I hear back from you is just 2 weeks you've been made redundant, you don't have a network. You have a contact list.
VO:
From KBI.Media, I'm Karissa Breen, and this is KBKast.
KB [00:00:26]:
My guests today are Josh Hill and Luca Marzorati, co-founders of executive search firm North Star Partners. They place tech and security leaders for a living, so they see the market up close. We talk about why executives are now spending more than 6 months between roles, why a big title counts for less the moment you leave, and how anyone can hire with confidence when AI makes every CV look perfect.
VO:
If today's episode lands for you, do 2 things. Subscribe to our podcast, and give us a thumbs up. Hit follow and send it to one person in your network who needs to hear it. That's how shows like this grow. Alrighty, let's get into it.
KB [00:01:07]:
Okay. So gentlemen, thanks for joining me on my show and I've been on your show. So I'm really excited to talk to you both because it's interesting times in the market. Interesting meaning around jobs, people feeling displaced, people feeling not where their place is. So perhaps my first question to really start is We are seeing, and I know some of these people that are very accomplished executives, remain unemployed far longer than expected, or even they've expected, right? So given your roles, has the market genuinely deteriorated or have senior leaders overestimated how employable their title and track record really make them?
Josh Hill [00:01:50]:
Well, first off, thanks for having us. Yeah, the other side of the fence is a little bit different. Last time I was firing questions at you, this time I'm expecting it back. Much the same. Look, it's a pleasure. So to answer that question first and foremost with a straight answer, it's both, to be honest with you. There's some very interesting numbers out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the US. The average unemployability time last year was 21.9 weeks for an executive.
Josh Hill [00:02:13]:
That's gone up in one year to 26. So that's now over 6 months that someone's sitting there unemployed as the average time. What does that mean? That means that there's less roles out there. That means they're more competitive because there's more people looking for them. So the answer to the question, unfortunately, is people are getting hammered from both sides simultaneously. It's a tough run for good execs at the moment.
Luca Marzorati [00:02:32]:
Completely agree. And thank you for having us as well. Plus one. I quote that. Yeah, it's very true. It's very true. Like, to reiterate what Josh said, it's a tough market. It's a period of change, big period of change.
Luca Marzorati [00:02:44]:
And probably executives, yes, they might have underestimated the unemployability time. The fun fact is when you talk to someone and like you understand their experience is what's got you there, it won't take you to the next step most of the time. So that's probably where most of candidates, executive level and even below, underestimate most of the time.
Josh Hill [00:03:06]:
I think also people just aren't ready for it most of the time as well. Yeah, the vast majority of the people who are in that upper echelon of those 24 to 26 weeks, they're not prepared for a tap on the shoulder. They're not ready to go out and be, uh, be on the market. They've probably been in a role for 10 years plus. Luca and I see it all the time. We meet people who come out of companies where they've been there for life, and one day they get a tap on the shoulder and they have to start really from scratch. And that's a big challenge.
KB [00:03:30]:
Do you also think as well, like back in the day, and there's still elements of this, it's like who you know sort of thing. There's still elements of that, but now companies, and we sort of spoke about a little bit before this, they're really looking for that capable person. The other thing is you have to be very specialized. Some of these mid-manager people, Like, I'm seeing them really just like, well, you either have to go to the top or you're going to have to really do sort of more of a grunt work type roles. There's these people that are in the middle, I feel, and maybe you guys would talk more about this. Are they more potentially in the conundrum of not feeling as safe perhaps as the other ends of the spectrum?
Luca Marzorati [00:04:07]:
100%. Like I said, the middle management ecosystem has been the one that's been hit the hardest. Top level, yes, it's the market is a bit smaller. The talent pool is a bit smaller. The demand is a bit smaller as well. But like the mid-management is the one that has been cut quite a lot that increased the unemployability time, et cetera, et cetera.
Josh Hill [00:04:29]:
I was at a conference the other day and Gallup presented some data around how happy people are in work, right? And there's some really interesting statistics in that the younger generations don't want to be managers. Managers are the ones that are least satisfied and the least thriving out of any group at the moment. So it's more work. It's not necessarily more money. And if it is, it's marginal. And they're the first to get cut in almost any big restructure or reduction in workforce. So I think that's a real challenge that we're trying to overcome because people go, well, you can just work with one senior manager and we'll just make more direct reports.
Josh Hill [00:05:02]:
We'll get, you know, the head of, we'll go and we'll just make a VP. I also think that people are kind of sitting there wondering what their career path's going to look like. And I think that it's changed a lot over generations where people now have a lot more careers and a lot of changes of careers, whereas previously people would stay around for a lot longer. And those lifers I mentioned in the last question, they would be able to kind of hang around and still be good for another 10, 15 years. That's not the case anymore.
Luca Marzorati [00:05:27]:
I also like, is a, there's a bit of a mobility issue as well. Like people have been successful in a particular environment, in a particular ecosystem, because they've done a good job in that particular company. That doesn't mean that they are transferable into another company doing the same exact successes or replicate those same exact successes in another brand, in another company, in another environment, in another industry sector, et cetera. So that creates a snowball effect on, was I successful because I'd done a good job or was I successful because the ecosystem was perfect for me? That's a big question that most candidates need to be asked.
KB [00:06:06]:
Okay. So then on that note, what does someone in your eyes, because you both see a lot of people across multiple markets, what does not transferable really look like though? When you go, nice person, but not transferable.
Josh Hill [00:06:18]:
I think it's always about specific industry experience, right? So something that I say all the time to a person is, what's your 1%ers? What is your 1%ers that make you better than the competition? And the answer to that is, well, if you've spent 15 years in mining, let's not try to put you into financial services because there are people out there that will have 1%ers over you. And the hard part is that we're almost kind of telling people, hey, look, you've done something for a long period of time. A lot of people want to change jobs or change industries and whatnot. This is not the market for that. It's what makes you better than the other people that you are fighting against or competing with for that role and how do you showcase that value? So transferable skills are almost, you know, less relevant now than they have been, or certainly less relevant now than they would be in easier or better markets.
KB [00:07:06]:
Okay. So then I want to now ask about what people, cause I'm not a recruiter, as you guys obviously know, know a lot of people, people always ask me this sort of stuff. You said if someone's sitting around for 6 months not doing anything, do you think it's beneficial for them to potentially do a less job, less money in order to earn money? But then people have this real gripe to be like, oh, I'm earning less money. What are your thoughts here? Because what happens if they don't get a job for 12 months? Like, I don't know, maybe they've got lots of money sitting in their bank account, but for the average person, that's probably not a reality. So what would be your advice then in this particular circumstance?
Luca Marzorati [00:07:40]:
Well, that's a good question. It really depends on situation, right? First of all, it's subjective. First of all, however, I always say, we always say to people when they get married, etc. Use that time and transform that time in an opportunity. Like we are in a huge period of change right now. Like technology is changing everything, changing the markets, changing the industry, changing the job market. It's changing your career as well. So take that time to really understand what can you do? What's your value proposition? Because again, what got you there won't get you to the next step.
Luca Marzorati [00:08:16]:
So this is the time to redevelop yourself, upskill yourself and understand where are the gaps that are going to make you future-proof? It's understanding your value proposition that is going to make the real difference here. Your experience tells me that you have been good in what you've done. Your value proposition is going to tell me what you're going to be good at. So I believe to answer your question there, I think you need to change the narrative a little bit. Like 12 months without a job completely. It doesn't look good. Let's be honest. Like, get a contract, get something in that industry and like change the narrative a little bit.
Luca Marzorati [00:08:55]:
You keep yourself busy and like keep doing that. That's my opinion.
Josh Hill [00:08:59]:
It's always about storytelling. I know a highly accomplished CIO who worked at Bunnings for a year and a half and he loved it, right? But then, yeah, Luca and I met someone recently who said, oh, I don't want to do anything that's below me. And I said to the guy, listen, I don't want to be rude or not kind of thoughtful or empathetic here, but you should probably think about it because ultimately it's not actually about, hey, look, how are you going to— how's it going to help you get the next CIO job or the next CISO job? It's about what's going to keep you mentally focused on forward movement. It is a really tough gig being out of work. And I think that people, until you're in it, don't understand the mental capacity it takes. And you're getting rejected from a lot of roles. There's negativity everywhere. You're worrying about bills and all that sort of stuff.
Josh Hill [00:09:44]:
At the very minimum, doing another job, no matter what it is, will help you focus on routine, look at what's next, start to kind of keep yourself busy. And the busier you are, the luckier you get, as the old saying goes. And these sort of things kind of happen weirdly out of nowhere. That same person who was working at Bunnings now works in a top consulting gig, and he was always just very relaxed about the fact that he knew he'd get work again. Other people chase it and end up making mistakes. and are back speaking to us again 6 months later. That's a situation you don't want to be in.
Luca Marzorati [00:10:15]:
Yeah, that's very true. That's, you know, when they say go for a walk and it frees your mind, it's exactly the same analogy here. You do something else, frees your mind. It gets you in the mindset, like you talk to people, you do different things, keep yourself busy. Otherwise, it's very, very easy and it's hard. And we've seen many people in that situation getting stuck in the loop and you get stuck in a loop of negativity. And it's very hard to get out of it.
Josh Hill [00:10:40]:
People wait to focus on theirself until they're particularly at executive levels when they're not focusing on their team or their company or everything else. They're working hard, generally trying to deliver. It's not something, it's like a muscle, right? If you don't work on it, if you don't network, if you don't spend time speaking to peers and that sort of stuff, you will come out of this at a disadvantage because people hire people they know and your net worth is, or your network is your net worth even. And never is that truer than when you find yourself out of work looking for a next contract or whatever else. This sort of stuff is the difference between being at the lower end of that 26 weeks and being the one that's, yeah, longer down the line. Hopefully that's not too many.
KB [00:11:19]:
And do you also think, where does this whole, oh, I don't want to do something. I was a CIO before and now there are no roles, but I don't want to take a less role. Is it an ego thing? Is it an Australian thing? Where does that come from? Because the thing that gets me is you're not the CIO. You're not the big dog anymore, mate. You're the one that's getting, trying to get a job in the market. So this is the part that gets me a little bit. People then even introduce themselves. Hi, I was the ex-CIO of X company, but you don't work there anymore.
KB [00:11:46]:
So how can you, like, I get it. You can talk about it in theory, but I've, it's a very unusual thing when I'm in and I'm sort of speaking to someone and they straight away say, I'm the ex of this company, which was 5 years ago, mind you. So what are your thoughts here?
Luca Marzorati [00:12:02]:
Good question. It's a bit of everything, to be honest. It is a bit of everything. Yes, it's an ego thing for sure. People again, has been relying on title for a long time. What they need to be asking themselves again is like, what's your value proposition next? I don't really care you've been the ex-CIO of XYZ or ex-CEO of blah, blah, blah. I care. Which problem you're going to solve for me? I care as a business owner, someone is going to hire you.
Luca Marzorati [00:12:32]:
I care. All right. You have like this specific skillset. You have this value proposition. You bring this kind of value to my company. What are you going to solve? Have you done it before or how are you going to do it? That's what the value proposition is going to be for them.
Josh Hill [00:12:49]:
As I'm sitting there thinking about that, using some case studies from people we know. The ones that are generally seeing the best results are the ones that are willing to just get their hands dirty. Nothing is beneath them. The amount of times that we've placed something that's been like, can you come in and do something for 2 weeks that ends up being a full-time gig? You know, people need to be— humble's not the right word because that has different connotations, but they need to be willing to kind of just get in and get it done. That's what people are looking for in this market, and that's what will help separate you from those 1 percenters again, the competitors who only want to be the next CIO or something, or that kind of thought process. But yeah, we have those conversations every day and unfortunately the market is undefeated. It will humble people. There's people out there that just unfortunately have been there for a long period of time.
Josh Hill [00:13:36]:
And I think that until they kind of get their own headspace right about what they want to do and what they will and won't do, it's a bit of a dead end. Yeah. It's a bit tough to kind of showcase to them why they should do it. The ones that succeed are the ones that are just going to go in and get it done.
KB [00:13:50]:
Okay. So speaking of humbling, I want to talk about money. Now people go, hey, I got this job, but it's $5,000 less. But I'm like, mate, when you do the tax, you do the hoo-ha, this conversation in your mind, the $5,000 is nothing. So are people hung up on, I got this number before, I must get it again? There's just something about it. Even if it's $2,000, like I've heard people go on about $2,000 Aussie dollars less. So is that— what is— what is— what's going on here?
Josh Hill [00:14:20]:
Well, first off, KB, we're not in the business of making people take pay cuts, but when your pay cut isn't actually a pay cut because you're earning zero, everything's a plus, right? So that would be my approach. I always say to people, listen, it's all about value. And I think people are more flexible now than they've ever been in terms of salary because, you know, there's so many things that make a differentiating factor on a couple thousand here or there. Generally speaking, executive-level candidates are a lot more open to those kind of discussions than juniors. I think you'd get people, we've argued over $2,000 and $2,500 at the point of doing deals before in junior roles. That's totally understandable. But yeah, people attach value, their own ego to that money. And I can understand not wanting to work for less than that.
Josh Hill [00:15:04]:
But also I think that over an extended period of time, the market will tell you what you're worth. And if you're getting offers at a certain rate, there's a reason for that.
Luca Marzorati [00:15:14]:
Yeah, I agree on that. Like, first of all, it's a market thing as well. If the market pays that, you can't really fight it, right? Like, you can't fight the market. That's simple offer and demand. Also, yeah, it really depends on the experience, like junior, mid-engineer, people at the start of their career tend to be more attached to the small difference, small gaps. While executives, they know it, like value brings money usually, and they usually own their experience, own their value. Like they know if they bring good value, if they do a good job, money will come. Simple as it is.
Luca Marzorati [00:15:48]:
So I don't think like the best one gets stuck on the $5,000, $3,000, $10,000.
KB [00:15:54]:
Okay. So I want to move on and talk about building a network. So Josh, you mentioned before your net worth.
Josh Hill [00:16:02]:
Network is your net worth.
KB [00:16:02]:
That's it. Correct. Which is also a full-time job. Now I know you guys are very big into it. I'm very big into it. But would you say most executives only start networking after being laid off? Now I, and I say this because I know people out there that got laid off and then they're like, I don't know anyone because they've worked in the same company maybe for 40 years. They didn't need to know anyone. They had everyone there.
KB [00:16:28]:
And then when you're laid off, you know, you don't, you're not as valuable then to people anymore. So what do you think about this?
Luca Marzorati [00:16:36]:
I take this. So, well, that's a, that's a big deal for us. We all, uh, we're building network for a living, right? If the first time that I hear back from you is just 2 weeks you've been made redundant, you don't have a network. You have a contact list. And I know exactly why are you calling me. That is fine. That's completely fine, but that's too late. So yes, like the best executive, the best people, not only executive, start networking way before, like from the beginning is a networking journey.
Luca Marzorati [00:17:13]:
Like that's where you build your network. It's not only like building and creating your circle of trust, But it's building also those so-called weak ties. The weak ties are the most important thing in your career. The weak ties are the one, the people that you met at a conference once and you stay connected, you exchange the business card, et cetera. Those ones are the one, one day you reconnect again. Those are the ones that give you the best, the most benefit in your career search.
Josh Hill [00:17:44]:
At executive level, up to 80% of roles are never advertised, right? So it's actually not about who you know there. It's about who knows you. So it's about building your brand. It's about making sure that you are seen as a thought leader so that people want to talk to you because you'll get roles come to you. The hard part is then if you're in a competitive situation, you know, you may as well buy a lottery ticket putting a CV in these days to a Seek response or something like that. The best work is done behind the scenes. We often have to advertise things because customers want us to as part of the process, but generally speaking, a lot of them are already lined up. They know someone who's going to get the role or at least be in the shortlist.
Josh Hill [00:18:22]:
And it kind of leads to that decision fatigue I mentioned earlier. People start to go, oh, that would be a great role, but it's not actually a role that they're going to get because it's either already internally lined up or they're doing it because they have to for process. And yeah, I think people need to realize that being out there and being known, it's not actually, it's not always necessarily for the good of the business, it's for the good of yourself. But those 2 things go hand in hand. And the best networkers get roles thrown at them all the time. They turn them away. And I think the best, or the biggest difference that I see there between those that are sat waiting for long periods and the ones that aren't, are the ones that can clearly articulate why they are better and have done so over an extended period of time via LinkedIn or Substack or various different mediums. Why? Because people are engaging with their content and they want to be seeing that person and the opportunity to have that person work for them.
Josh Hill [00:19:11]:
Oh, what an exciting opportunity. Now, I don't have any stats to back this up, but I also think they would probably earn higher salaries than people that don't have it as well. I'll have to do some research on that.
KB [00:19:22]:
I was going to ask that because I guess that would then squash the whole, the $5,000, I've been paid less. Because would you say, if you look at 2 candidates, both the same technically competency, but one is more well-known, do you think that A, they could potentially get a higher salary, B, they're going to blitz the other person?
Josh Hill [00:19:40]:
I think that there's lots of people that aren't known that are fantastic at what they do, but the ones that are really well known will always get really good jobs. And this is gonna sound terrible, but there's a history of people that fail up. Why? Because they've worked in great jobs, they've worked in big companies, they've worked in big opportunities, and they keep getting other big opportunities. Why? Well, because they've worked for someone that's a competitor there and, oh, well, we would like that too. That's not necessarily their competency, that's their reputation. or the reputation of the brand that they're trading off. So I think that yes, to answer your question, generally speaking, the person that is known and could demonstrate capability and I guess, you know, reputation again will do better than the person that's unknown. But there are still some absolute fantastic people that don't even have LinkedIn accounts.
Josh Hill [00:20:25]:
It's rare, but it's still out there.
Luca Marzorati [00:20:27]:
Yeah. It comes down to validation. If you have a network that can like vouch for you, it helps. Like it doesn't mean like if you have a bigger network, if you are well known, et cetera, et cetera, you consequently do a better job? I don't think so, but it helps to be validated. And in this market, like from a recruitment perspective, it definitely makes a difference. It's a validation journey and it's an economy of validation, it's an economy of credential right now. It's trust and validation are the main 2 key things right now.
KB [00:20:59]:
And so, Josh, you said before, there's going to be someone who's going to get that role. How do you become the someone that's like, yep, I'm lined up. Know Josh and Luca, had beers with these guys for 12 months. They're going to line me up perfectly. I'm going to nail the role.
Josh Hill [00:21:13]:
Well, yeah, I mean, you just answered your own question really. I mean, let's be honest, right? We want to work with people that we know and trust because we, by extension, are vouching for them. So if we're going to put you in front of a customer, we want to know that we know you, right? And I guess the way that we look at that is by building those relationships, taking the time to invest in them. Plenty of people do. It helps us feel a lot more secure and safe putting you in front of a highly valued customer for us. The best way to do it is, I think, always to humanize. You know, go out, reach out to people, talk to them about the person behind the CV, get them to understand why you want the role, all those sorts of things. Don't just send a CV and hope for the best because like I say, lottery tickets in some cases have got better chances.
Luca Marzorati [00:21:57]:
Yeah, 100%. Like if you post an ad up, for any kind of role head of level, you get like 700 responses straight away in Australia. So in the US, like multiply that at scale. It's about like knowing the person. It's a fun paradox that this technology AI change bring to us. Like AI makes presentation a commodity because everybody can present themselves in a good way with a good CV, very aligned with the job description, very, very aligned with what you've done, et cetera, et cetera, that align with the problem that the company want to do. But what makes the real difference is how do I validate that? How do I trust that? Makes the human component even more important than it was before.
Josh Hill [00:22:37]:
Yeah, it's about trust.
KB [00:22:38]:
Do you think because the Australian market is inherently smaller, the United States, there's like 343 million people that live here versus 26 million or whatever the number is. Do you think it's even more important that people are really on their network? There's just more jobs here. There's just so much more going on, but in Australia, hey, there may be one good CIO job that comes up every 10 years because that person's going to stay in that job for that huge retailer. They're not going to just move around, whereas here there's a lot more. So do you think there's even more effort to be done in the Australian market?
Josh Hill [00:23:11]:
Definitely. Yeah, in my experience, um, working across both sides of, of the coin there, A, American executives get it. They are natural. If you were to sit there and say, hey, you should be networking, they're like, yeah, I've been doing that my whole career. That's what got me to where I need to get to. Why? Because internally it's so competitive to move up the ladder in American corporates as well. So I find that the executives in the States are generally far more well-equipped, for want of a better term, at this kind of discussion. And I think that because you're in a smaller, more competitive market here, it is exactly that.
Josh Hill [00:23:44]:
You need to be the person they think of and the person they call. In this case, and in a lot of the roles that we do, we hate competition. Why would I want to send 8 or 10 people? Let me just send 1 or 2 and let's hope they nail it. Why? Because it makes the whole process more succinct, more efficient, more effective. And for the candidate, it's increasing the chances from, yeah, let's say 33 or less to 50/50. I mean, that's how it should be. Customer comes to us and says, hey, I need a new CISO tomorrow. We've got a 2 or 3, we'd send them immediately.
Josh Hill [00:24:15]:
That's all about trust. But if they didn't spend that time getting to know exactly what they wanted or why there was value in their skillset, I think it'd be really hard to do. So smaller market means that it's harder to stand out or that there's less roles to stand out in. And I think Australians don't do the self-promotion very well either.
KB [00:24:32]:
Okay. So then you said if it's exactly that, so if it's exactly that, that's the model. Why aren't more people doing this? Why aren't— so you've got the American executives, they get the game, you know, they're doing this stuff. But that's what the Aussie folks need to do. But I don't really see that as much. So where does that come from then, Josh?
Josh Hill [00:24:51]:
I also think it doesn't get rewarded as well here. So your existing networks are more important than the networks you try to create almost in Australia. There's a weird ecosystem of where you went to school and which uni you went to and, you know, what sports your kids play on the weekend and that sort of stuff. And it's very beneficial. We've seen it, we've benefited from it numerous times. I think that this is going to get me in trouble, KB, but I think that Australians just are pretty happy, right? Like they don't need to go to the extra mile. Whereas whenever I speak to the American executives, they are always, what's next? Where can I go harder? I think it's a lot easier to stand out as a really top performing executive in Australia because you're surrounded generally by people that are more laid back, a little bit more laissez-faire about things. And, you know, they're earning good money and doing well.
Josh Hill [00:25:39]:
I think that the American ecosystem is far more hungry, far more what's next, far more I want more. Whereas most people are pretty comfortable in Australia and that's not a bad thing.
Luca Marzorati [00:25:51]:
I add to that and I agree. It also comes down to businesses and hiring managers and boards. Like Australia is unfortunately far behind compared to US at board level in terms of diversity, into like proper diversity. I'm going to speak about that. It's technology representation, cybersecurity representation, all this kind of thing that we're very passionate about, as you know. And that creates as a consequence that there is this trend of, I want to hide it. Better the devil I know. I don't take the courage to go and find something different, find something that is actually gonna make a change.
Luca Marzorati [00:26:35]:
It's a trend, unfortunately, in Australia, trying to fight it, trying to change it, but it's the matter of fact. For example, going back financial services, if I hire a CIO or a CISO or anything at executive level, I want someone that done financial services. I want someone that exactly done that. Now, is the safest pathway, is it the right one? Maybe. Is it gonna make a real, real difference? Probably not. So it's just a matter of fact right now in Australia that we're trying to change. But yeah.
Josh Hill [00:27:14]:
Hiring teams are very risk-averse here. Yeah, it's the safe bet. You know, the dark horse candidate that we like to send in every single shortlist that we put through sometimes, yep, absolutely, that looks amazing, but more often than not, it'll be a carbon copy of the person that was in the role previously, but with a different brand.
KB [00:27:30]:
And that would then constitute a safe bet hire. Is that right?
Luca Marzorati [00:27:34]:
Yeah.
Josh Hill [00:27:34]:
Well, because imagine that you're sat in front of a board 6 months later, you've invested a lot of money and time and effort into getting your new CEO, CIO, CISO, whichever C-suite vernacular we wish to use. And that person hasn't worked out for whatever reason. You can sit there and look the board in the eye and say, hey, I have done all due diligence. Everything pointed to this person being fantastic. They've done this, which we would want to do. They've done this, which we needed to do. It's one of those things that I think allows you to go, well, it wasn't my fault. I tried everything.
Josh Hill [00:28:03]:
We did it right. You know, we'll hire another one, but from another big similar brand and we'll see what happens from there. Whereas I think the companies that are innovative and driven as startups and that kind of thing, they will generally go, hey, I can see the value in what that person can bring and not the value of what they've done more recently. Which is a small but really important difference between the two. It's, all right, that person's done this, we can use that. Not, oh, that person's done that, but they haven't done it in an environment like us. And we hear that kind of challenge all the time.
Luca Marzorati [00:28:32]:
Yeah, all the time. And, uh, that's where, like, when you hire executives, like how we do executive search is creating consensus at hiring manager level. That could be like boards, uh, and C-level. That consensus is probably the hardest part, but that's where the magic happens. Like we've done recently a search for like an MD CEO role and like creating consensus with all the board directors was interesting. Let's put it this way. There was like so much divergence between the responses from every board director. And it was like, when you create that consensus, it's like, guys, you say that you want that.
Luca Marzorati [00:29:10]:
This is what exactly what you want. And then you measure all the candidates through the process that go through against those criteria that all the board and all the hiring managers create consensus on. That's what makes a difference.
Josh Hill [00:29:23]:
People hire people that are like them and breaking that mold is hard. It's human nature.
KB [00:29:27]:
We'll come back to that in just a moment after a quick word from our sponsor. Handling sensitive health data? You already know security and compliance aren't optional. Whether it's ISO 27001, SOC 2, or GDPR, Vanta helps you build trust while staying focused on patient outcomes. Their platform automates up to 90% of the work so you can hit your compliance goals faster and scale safely. Visit vanta.com/kbkast. That's V-A-N-T-A.com/kbkast to learn more.
KB [00:30:03]:
So then sticking with the hiring side of things, would you say, because it is a competitive, tough market. Would you say companies are very focused on searching for this flawless candidate? Now, whether they exist, they don't exist, who knows? But are they people— I've looked at job descriptions.
KB [00:30:21]:
I mean, I haven't tried to apply for a job in like a decade, but I'm saying that people said, we need all this experience. It's like, well, where are you going to get this person from? You're just not going to get this person at that salary with all these things. Are the people hiring these people becoming more scrupulous? Like, what's going on here?
Josh Hill [00:30:38]:
I think a bad executive hiring can cost up to 5 times the salary, right? So if you look at it from that angle, that what we just talked about, that risk-averse hire, that's not a bad bet. That's why that happens. And also what we're seeing in a market at the moment is because you get such a massive response to an advert, like let's say for this role that we— Luca was just talking about, we would find 5 to 10 people who were perfect. Now, what that means is that if you are 1%, 2% different than exactly what we need, the client can be really picky at the moment. If they want something very niche, they'll get a couple of people at least that are really niche in that space. Our job is to help try to open up their thought process a little bit and say, hey, look, have you thought about this? Have you thought about that? Some customers listen more than others, but I think, yeah, the the idea of the unicorn in certain skill sets is becoming almost impossible. But in the executive space, you will get very good people because they're all there for a reason, right? That no one, well, almost no one is really bad at their job and gets to the level of the C-suite. People are there to add value and they are good.
Josh Hill [00:31:48]:
So I think the hard part for us is actually going through 600, 700 CVs and discerning good from great and what those minutiae differences actually mean to the customer. Because, and Luca will attest to this, you'll sit in front of a room full of people and each and every one of them will be really impressive. And you are then determining whether or not they proceed through the interview based on one or two little niche things. That's how competitive this market is right now.
Luca Marzorati [00:32:13]:
Yeah. And validation comes again as a very big topic here. Like, uh, board and hiring manager becoming very, very risk adverse. And like in this market, because there's exactly what Josh is saying, so many candidates, very, very good candidates in the market, like hiring managers become entitled to like take the time and to finding and wanting that unicorn. Now, is that the right thing to do? I really don't think so. I think the real deal is nail down the 3, what do we want from this role? What are you exceptional at? And which problem can you solve? Like going back at that, going back again to that, then you assess that deeply through a like throughout process against the candidates. And like the human component came again very, very strong in this because like at the end of the day, are the intangibles at executive level that are going to make a difference? Because like, as Josh say, like you probably find like 10, 20 candidates that can do the job well. What exactly you want as an hiring manager, as a business to be exceptional? Then you nail down that.
Luca Marzorati [00:33:19]:
When you assess that, you don't need to go and find the next unicorn, like, because otherwise, like, you make poor decisions and you risk losing some of the best candidates in the market.
Josh Hill [00:33:30]:
I think the other thing to add to this, which just kind of all starts to bring back into full circle, not only are people out of work for longer in that unemployed period, that 22 to 26 weeks, but most search processes have extended too. So used to be about 4 to 5 months. It's getting up towards 8 for most C-suite hires now and boards, 9 to 12 months. So if that's the case, it's taking longer. You want perfection because you've invested 9 months into it. You have expectations that are being met hopefully, but definitely based in perfection. I can get why people want to really take their time with these things, but our approach has always been, well, we can run the similar type search in probably a 2-month period. and give you the same results.
Josh Hill [00:34:14]:
Why? Well, it's all about getting good people in front of other good people and established networks, communities, all these sorts of things, knowing who's good before you even get the role in. That's where the difference is at the moment. And that's what cuts down that time of being unemployed as much as possible.
Luca Marzorati [00:34:29]:
I think there was like research from Korn Ferry, I read some data around that, like from job posting to hire at the executive level globally, From 2022 to 2026, it increased 65%. It's absolutely exceptional numbers. Imagine that.
KB [00:34:48]:
I want to know, why has the hiring process now taken longer than where it was before? Like, what are people doing? What do they want to see? Or is it all the things that we discussed? More specific, they know they can get someone with the exact thing that they want, will go a bit longer. What's going on?
Josh Hill [00:35:05]:
My hypothesis is that there are tougher economic times than there have been in a while, and that leads to people being more risk-averse, which means that they really want to make sure that they're all comfortable. Everyone's 100% comfortable. That's our person that we're going to hire and they're going to be fantastic. Now, unfortunately, that's not how the world works in recruitment, right? If you're working with a human being, they're imperfect. Things change. You know, these sorts of things happen in particular when you've got timelines like that. But I think it's a bit of a perfect storm. AI's in there, you've got all the other challenges going on at the moment.
Josh Hill [00:35:37]:
People just aren't hiring at the same pace they used to. That being said, oh, the other thing I think I'll add into that is that there are significantly more steps to even get a hiring process started. So we see it in our day-to-day at the moment, and it's replicated in conversations we're having in the industry. What would usually take 2 weeks to get sign-off and approval now has to go through an extra 2 or 3 steps. CFO has to sign it off. So you've probably got a month from the time someone says, hey, I want to engage you to do X, Y, and Z, to actually being able to even get something signed and then start your kickoff. So if all of that starts to add up, it's not surprising that you see those kinds of numbers that Luca quoted because everyone is taking longer to sign anything at the moment.
Luca Marzorati [00:36:15]:
I'm going to point out something here that maybe it's going to get me in trouble as well. I think it's a problem of responsibility taking. at executive level. As we say, we all agree economic times are a bit tougher. I think like if you have a C at the beginning of your title, own it. You got there for a reason, own it. Like you wanna make a decision, make it. I'm speaking with like business owner every day, consulting business, small business owners, small business, ASX listed business.
Luca Marzorati [00:36:49]:
They all say the same, especially here in Australia. Decision-making is taking way, way longer. Why? Because exactly what Josh said, the decision process needs to go through millions of steps these days. Like before, it was like, you're speaking with the CIO, you're speaking with the CTO, you're speaking with the CISO, make a decision, bam, done, sign off. Now it needs to go through procurement, CFO, HR, many different steps, and then sign off by the global position in the middle of nowhere. Uh, God knows why. It's taking longer and this is a snowball effect on the, on the whole process, on the, on the whole economy. And, uh, I don't think it's a good thing personally.
KB [00:37:28]:
This is interesting. So, okay, Luca, just staying with that for a moment. What was coming to my mind was now companies are like, we've got to move faster than our competitors because of AI and we've got to stay ahead. So if people are going on for a protracted amount of time, how are they going to stay ahead if they're getting sort of bogged down into HR and procurement and, you know, old mate in the United States, They are then losing time on actually focusing on the executive to push their business along from a competitive advantage point of view.
Luca Marzorati [00:37:58]:
Well, you nailed it there, right? It's, uh, I think if you are an executive, you want the executive to take the lead and take ownership of what they do. But there's this paradox of going through all these loophole and, uh, risk aversion, uh, steps that, uh, are gonna like, yeah, slow down everything. That is creating problem, unfortunately, and that's why I see if Australia doesn't step up on this, I think we're gonna be left behind and we can't afford that as a whole, as a country, as an economy. Things are changing and need to change. We're speaking with like companies and business owners and executives that are making that change and are like acting faster and owning what they do. But we've seen like the handbrake pulled for a long time, unfortunately. And I think that handbrake needs to be pulled down.
KB [00:38:45]:
I know you say that because people are people. What if you spend 8 months getting this person in, they go, you know what, I'm just going to go back to the UK, I've decided I don't like Australia. You did this whole hoo-ha and then it's over anyway. So
Josh Hill [00:38:57]:
happens.
KB [00:38:58]:
Well, that's what I'm saying, it does happen. So look, I get it, and no one wants to make the wrong decision. No one goes, oh, I made the wrong decision and paid the recruitment people and now I'm down all this money. I get it. But at the same time, no one's going to work there forever anyway. So it's like you have to find the happy medium around, yes, we've got to hire properly, but also there's other factors that could get this person to leave. Maybe there's a restructure. I've got to fire this person whether I want to or not.
KB [00:39:23]:
So, how do they, or have they mapped out in terms of saying, well, if we spend longer trying to get the right candidate, we may actually be up versus shortening the time to hire the right candidate that they should be working on revenue-generating activities?
Josh Hill [00:39:40]:
I think, yeah, some of this comes down to the makeup of boards and risk appetites there as well, and leadership, right? So let's use AI as an example, but we can probably replicate this across all technology sectors. If I don't actually know what you do, I don't understand why I need to hire you maybe, but someone's told me I have to because of competitive advantage and everything you mentioned. How am I going to actually judge whether or not you're any good? That's what is dragging things out. People saying, oh, we need to be doing AI. Great, love that. What does that mean? Well, let's go hire someone to do it for us. Let's figure that process out. But they've never had one, so they're almost venturing into uncharted waters.
Josh Hill [00:40:18]:
And Luca mentioned it before, we're really passionate about seeing increased technologist representation at the board level. That, I think, solves this problem because that person could sit there and be the translator between technology and the board and say, this is why we need this role and this is what that role is going to do. And this is what good looks like. People are trying to make informed decisions on areas that they're actually not informed on. And that's probably where the hesitation comes from. If you had to ask me to go hire, I don't know, a CFO, I could probably do it, but I'm not the best at it. So I would ask someone who was to help me on that. That's what boards are going through at the moment, every single day.
KB [00:40:55]:
And I get that, but then the risk of not hiring the person is probably greater. Like at some point you've got to bite the bullet, whether it's today, it's next week, it's 8 months. So I get that and we're not expecting people to know everything about AI and are we doing AI and is this the right dude for the role? Who knows? But people just got to take that step. So I think it's interesting because it probably goes against the nature of how Australians are, which is very reserved. We're going to go through all the process. We're going to do all this stuff, do these risk assessments and all this, all these things. Now I feel like it's challenging them in terms of, well, we're not used to this. We're not used to making decisions fast.
KB [00:41:32]:
and potentially being ill-informed on the decision that we're making.
Luca Marzorati [00:41:35]:
That's a funny thing because like Australia, and I speak as an immigrant, like came here 11 years ago only, but now Australian citizen, so I can speak as a we. Australia is not an island anymore. It's not an island. Like economically, we are not an island and we, we can't keep acting like that. It's done that time. Like we, we all globalize, like we all network with all different markets. Like most of companies, like play in different markets outside of Australia, and that's their main market as well. So we can't really hide behind that anymore, right? So we are forced and we need to be forced to act accordingly.
Luca Marzorati [00:42:13]:
And AI is changing everything. Yes. I'd say technology evolution is changing everything. We are in this big period of change that creates also uncertainty. And most of the conversations that we have are educational. Because like boards or execs can't know everything. When you hire a technology executive, it's about like, all right, what exactly do we want to achieve? I believe that transformation as well, like coming back to the human factor importance here, transformation doesn't happen at technology level first. Transformation happens at human level first.
Luca Marzorati [00:42:51]:
That's the main thing. If you do transformation on a technology side, you're doomed. You fail straight away. Transformation happens at a human level. That's where we need to rethink and start to rethink about everything. Yeah.
KB [00:43:03]:
Okay guys, final question. As we know, AI can now produce a CV and interview answers. So has that meant more scrutiny in the recruitment space is because anyone now, anyone can fabricate how good they are? And would you say companies are tired of fake candidates? And the fake candidates are very prevalent here in the United States, maybe less so in Australia, but I'm hearing that a lot because obviously my husband's in recruitment, so I hear that through him. So what are your thoughts here?
Luca Marzorati [00:43:30]:
I think Gartner say there's a, there's a projection in 2028, 1 out of 4 profile could be faked in interview process. That is scary. In the US, it's way more common. We've seen that like multiple times, even like 2, 3 years ago already. There's people faking interview, people using AI to answer. That's pretty standard these days, unfortunately. And that creates like, there was this saying that AI will cut out recruitment completely or cut out recruiters completely. It's absolutely the opposite.
Luca Marzorati [00:44:03]:
Now is AI doesn't make recruitment less important. AI does make validation far more critical these days.
Josh Hill [00:44:12]:
Same Gartner study actually said that 91% of recruiters/hiring managers have spotted deception. So someone either not being who they say they are, someone using AI to answer questions. Call us old school, but being able to sit and have a conversation with a human face-to-face, it's honestly, it's game-changing. And I think people want that. There's a big symposium going on at the moment talking about North Korean operators. 300+ US firms have been infiltrated. Infiltrated by deepfakes and people based out of various parts of the world. That's starting to be a thing in Australia and we're starting to see more of that.
Josh Hill [00:44:45]:
Yeah, it's a challenge because that leads to people then wanting to bring people back into the office full-time and other things like that, which people have grown accustomed to not having. The way that they're dealing with it and what I hear from my friends in internal recruitment is that the numbers are astounding. One really large customer that we work with has 40,000 CVs every single month through their business, massive organization, you know, big team of internal recruiters. Now for us, that means that if I can say, "Hey, I know Luca or I know KB, you should speak to them," that saves them speaking to potentially hundreds of people. Our value has become far more intrinsic about who we know in that Rolodex and who's in our community and who we can verify and who we can trust far more than it ever has done. And certainly, you know, the days of transactional recruitment, I think, are really well and truly in the twilight and it's gonna be really more about, yeah, that kind of process, that real heavy-duty trusted verification piece that Luca was alluding to. It's the game changer as it stands at the moment. People want someone that they know or someone that knows someone that they know.
Luca Marzorati [00:45:49]:
I'm gonna say that again because I think that's what's happening right now. We're shifting between an economy of credential to an economy of validation and trust. These are the main 2 critical things in recruitment at the moment. And now they're only going to gain importance. Like, uh, now the commodity again is a presentation. Everybody can do that. Everybody can present well at a CV level, but also at a first screen level. Like first screening is super easy.
Luca Marzorati [00:46:18]:
I always joke like with clients, I can, uh, win my way through the first interview screen if it's not technical. If I prepare well, I can rehearse an interview on AI. I can rehearse, like prepare a couple of questions on internet and everything using whatever agent, et cetera, and doing all the study about the company. First screening, I believe I'm gonna pass it. Then it becomes an RI, validation, trust, validation, trust again. It created so much noise for internal team and hiring manager that is actually unbearable. It's becoming like a capacity. That's where knowing the person behind the CV, knowing, having met the person, knowing what they're exceptional at, what the value proposition is, become even more essential.
Luca Marzorati [00:47:02]:
It changed, it changed, but it's a paradox because it created the talent pool of people that actually can do the job and they are good for that particular company even smaller because you need to know those people. You need to have met those people. Before it was about like, hey, you've done that, You have that title, you work in that specific company. Okay. Yeah. You're good at. Now it's not anymore about like title, credential, et cetera. It's about, do I trust you? How can I validate what you've done and you can replicate those successes in my company? That makes a difference.
KB [00:47:34]:
Okay. Really quick question before we wrap. I'm just really curious. Do you think there's going to be a resurgence in face-to-face people doing recruitment now? It's going to be because we've seen people that they've got one person doing the answers, the other person doing the technical assessment, the third person rocking up to do the interview. Is it going to almost do full circle to how it was in like the early 2000s? Like you would never do a job interview virtually ever. That was unheard of. It wasn't even capable back then. So do you think now because of AI and because of people feeling that being potentially deceived or fake candidates, we will start to see some of these traditional old school practices come back and, you know, be what we do today?
Josh Hill [00:48:12]:
I like that you say traditional and old school. To us, that's just thorough and really focused. Look, I think that it's gonna be hard to get rid, like that horse has bolted, right? There's remote workers and things like that that people still want for a plethora of reasons. Do I think that people are gonna put more value on face-to-face? Absolutely. And I think they should do. I think that's what makes us human to a degree. And AI is only gonna really enforce the need or make it far more obvious. To be able to occasionally sit there and turn to your colleague and say, hey, look, what do you think about this? That sort of stuff is actually gonna be a real differentiator.
Josh Hill [00:48:51]:
I think it's just, it's cyclical, right? People always have this idea that it's always gonna be one way or the other. I think the market is gonna respond as it always does, but there'll be a technology solution that means that you won't be able to use your anything else other than Zoom or whatever else you're using or something like that. I'm sure they're already building and developing things like that. So yes, I think people will want more face-to-face and they'll want to trust and verify, but also I think there will always be a technological solution to try to get around that as well.
Luca Marzorati [00:49:17]:
Yeah, I think that's exactly the situation we are living at the moment and still we are in the middle of the change. Like, I believe going back full circle is just the evolution of things. Like, Josh and I built a company on that. It's about AI and technology. It's never been the destination. Has been a tool to get there, to have like a supercharger, a superpower way of working that we are enabled to do things that we couldn't even think we could do with technology if you use it well. But if you use AI and technology as a destination, like that's a fail. That's a fail.
Luca Marzorati [00:49:53]:
And that's why you get all the problems, the risks that come with it. The human component is the main thing, but flexibility as well is part of the evolution. I think time and a place, right? Like you can work wherever, from wherever. You can have like remote worker if they are allowed to do that in that specific context and ecosystem, but also like nothing beats a coffee chat, nothing beats understanding and having a chat with your executive or your leader, your boss, et cetera. And that's where you learn from. And that's a dichotomy that goes through from a junior to senior or even like vice versa to senior down to the junior. That's where you learn. That's where you interact.
Luca Marzorati [00:50:34]:
Like, the human factor is becoming more critical. And one thing that I always remember speaking from a very good CEO that really put in high regard, she would say, we're in a big period of change. Like, to resist and survive this period of change, you need to anchor yourself to what's not gonna change. What's not gonna change? This, the human component. The conversation, the interaction, that's what makes a difference. That's what makes you valuable. That's what makes you exceptional in what you do.
KB [00:51:05]:
That was Josh Hill and Luca Marzorati, everybody. What I keep coming back to is Luca's point that hiring has shifted from credentials to trust. If you're a CISO or anyone in the C-suite listening to this, start building your network now while you've still got the title. 2 weeks after redundancy is just too late.
VO:
I read every reply. If you got some thoughts on this one, send me a message on LinkedIn.
KBKast - Cyber for the C-suite.
