Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the
Changing State of Talent
Acquisition, where your hosts,graham Thornton and Martin Credd
, share their unfiltered takeson what's happening in the world
of talent acquisition today.
Each week brings new guests whoshare their stories on the
tools, trends and technologiescurrently impacting the changing
state of talent acquisition.
Have feedback or want to jointhe show?
(00:21):
Head on over to changestateio.
And now on to this week'sepisode.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
All right and we're
back with another episode of the
Changing State of TalentAcquisition Podcast, really
excited for our next guest, whoI've known for a long time
William Sims, svp ofProfessional Services at
Lightcast.
Mr Sims, we'd love for you totell us, maybe first how did you
get to Lightcast and tell us alittle bit more about how you
(00:49):
spend your days and who isLightcast today.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Yeah, no, I'd be
happy to, and I appreciate you
guys letting me gab with you fora little while this afternoon,
so Lightcast.
In essence, we give companies acompetitive advantage around
people.
We're a labor marketanalytics-based organization
that provides software solutions, professional services
(01:13):
solutions, consulting services,as well as data and APIs to
organizations that want to getan external view of what's
happening in the labor marketaround them.
So that's us in a nutshell.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
And tell me a little
bit more about you.
What brought you to Lightcast?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Me.
What brought me to Lightcast?
Oh, that's a windy road, but Ihad an old colleague that went
over there as a new generalmanager for their
enterprise-based business globalenterprise business and he
reached out and told me some ofthe work that they were doing
and I said, look, if there's anopportunity that might open up,
(01:51):
I'd be interested in joining theleadership team over there.
And he said, yeah, let's comeon board.
We've got some work to do andso as we're trying to, you know
the enterprise side of it isrelatively newish to the
Lightcast family as a whole, sothey started off in kind of the
educational and government space, been in kind of the enterprise
side for a while, but it'sstill a younger part of their
(02:13):
business.
And so to be able to explainorganizations, the good work
that's being done forspecifically our professional
services team and the greatconsulting work that we do on a
regular basis that's where myrole comes into play is how do
we amplify that and put amegaphone around that strong
work?
So it's been a fun journey sofar.
My background historically hasbeen in talent acquisition, so I
(02:35):
started off my career as aheadhunter ran TA for a $3
billion business in Denver,worked at Career Builder for
years and worked with largeorganizations, enterprise-based
organizations, on how do youhire 100,000 people a year, how
do you solve some of thesepeople challenges within
companies?
And then was an executive for aprofessional services company
(02:59):
here that focused actually afranchise-based cleaning company
headquartered here in where I'mfrom Punch Tool, Louisiana and
did that for quite a few yearsand then joined over here.
So a little stint at Qualtricsin between there.
So yeah, it's been a windy roadto get there.
But at the end of the day, thecommon thread I see throughout
(03:19):
my background is how do you tiepeople back to business
challenges within theorganization?
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yeah, yeah, no, I
absolutely love that and you
know it's no secret for anyonethat you know listens to the
show.
We are, you know, huge fans ofLightcast, using data good,
clean data to make decisions.
You know I think we've had Ronon for.
You know some of our virtual,you know events also.
You know.
I think you know thatbackground is a good setup point
(03:45):
for the labor market.
Even just recently it's been apretty interesting time in the
labor market.
You see reports coming outevery month.
I suppose is when we're lookingat unemployment numbers.
I saw a post recently from Ron,one of your colleagues.
He said the labor market hasreally just been giving the Fed
(04:07):
fits.
You know they want to drop theinterest rate.
They can't feel great aboutdropping interest rate until the
labor market loosens a bit.
So you know we're trying tocreate, you know, enough slack
to absorb pay inflation, right.
So I'm just curious, translatesome of Ron's comments or
thoughts here for our audiencethat might be a little less
informed or deeply tied intowhat the labor market data we're
(04:32):
looking for.
What are some of the dynamicsthat contribute to the Fed
making the decisions, at leastas you interpret it?
So you know what does Ron meanby that?
Why, you know why are theyhesitating to cut rates and so
on?
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I think I don't know
if you all listen to the news or
read the news.
I assume that you guys do Iassume you're listening to it
too, right?
It seems like to me.
For the last two years you'veheard this like pounding drum of
a recession is coming, arecession is coming, the
recession is.
I've never had more preamble toa recession that didn't happen
(05:04):
than the last few years, andpart of that is because there is
this gap of talent in the labormarket that has really provided
this compression that didn'tallow, I think, a lot of that to
take place, and I think Ron'stalking about that.
And so, as the Fed has done itsjob to try to reduce inflation,
that creeped up quite a bit inCOVID and the time after that,
(05:29):
they are waiting for the labormarket to make some shifts and
changes.
But because of the expansion oforganizations and the growth
that's happening holisticallyand the reduction in the labor
force, there is a tightness thathas previously never really
existed, and we've talked aboutthe war on talent for the 20
(05:50):
plus years that I've been intalent acquisition space in some
capacity, but now more thanever, the data is showing that
in certain areas, in certainindustries and many industries
have felt this for a long timeright, you think of truck
drivers, you think of nursingshortages, but you are starting
to see it in core parts ofbusinesses holistically.
So these kind of hourly jobs,$25 and under.
(06:12):
There is a struggle within anyorganization that I talk to that
they don't know what to do.
Our business challenges are nowbeing hindered because of our
inability to hire and retainpeople at scale, and so that's.
That part's not going to change.
That's not going to change forquite a while.
(06:33):
So we're kind of stuck now inthis new talent acquisition
world that previously didn'texist.
So we have to come up with newways of thinking.
The Fed is now, I think, seeingsome of that too, where they
expected some changes within thelabor market to happen, and
although there has beenreductions in technology
companies specifically over time, there hasn't been any other
(06:56):
major shoes that dropped in thelast few years.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
Interesting.
Let me try to restate this instupid terms, for lack of a
better word, just to make sureI'm following.
I'm from South.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Louisiana.
Right, I'm a simpleton.
I'm a labor economist.
I don't play like Ron's on myteam.
These guys are.
I'm working with brilliantpeople all day long.
I bet they look at me like I'vegot two heads right.
They're like what are you doinghere?
So I'm a simpleton.
I got to break it down tosimple facts.
You're good, mark All right.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
So the Fed
notoriously has raised the
interest rate to curb inflation,been doing that for a while now
.
As Graham mentioned, they'rekind of on the sidelines wanting
to lower this.
Everyone wants them to lowerthe interest rates because it
makes everything more expensiveCar loans, mortgages, et cetera
and the labor market interactswith this.
This is the piece.
I just want to make sure I'munderstanding correctly.
(07:46):
So the labor market interactswith this, because in a tight
labor market, which is to say ina market where there's a
limited supply an undersupply,you might say, of labor,
employers to compete for thattalent have to pay more per hour
or salary, whatever it is, andpaying people more like that is
a force that would actuallyincrease inflation.
And so when you say we'rewaiting for the labor market to
(08:08):
loosen, we're waiting for abigger supply of talent so we
don't have to raise wages, whichwould then give the Fed more
comfort in saying, yes, we canlower the interest rates now,
that may have some uptick ininflation attached, but at least
the labor market isn't alsogoing to be contributing.
Am I getting that right or am Itotally off base there?
Speaker 3 (08:29):
That's how I
understand it right.
So I think, in looking at whatthey are hoping to see from the
labor market, with the increase,they've increased interest
rates, right, and the labormarket hasn't really changed,
and so that's reallyhistorically hasn't happened
that way.
And so I think these levers thatthey've used historically to
kind of drive or change buyerperception or buyer appeal or
(08:54):
buying power within people thatare working is shifting and
changing quite a bit, becausefor the first time in a long
time, employees have a lot ofpower right, a lot of sway in
where they can go, where theycan work.
I've got more options than Iever have before and for those
of us that were living andworking through the recession
(09:16):
what 09, you know and stuff itdoesn't feel like that at all
and so it feels a lot, lotdifferent.
So I've got more options now asan employee almost one and a
half jobs available for everyunemployed person.
There is a lot of slack stillin the market that I think the
Fed's going to have to figureout.
All right, are there differenttricks up my sleeve that I need
(09:37):
to use?
Or is it time to startdecreasing the inflation numbers
, which I think will happen?
Probably Q3, q4.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
Yeah, increasing the
inflation numbers, which I think
will happen.
Probably q3, you know, q4, yeah.
So, um, continually my theme ofmaybe obvious questions.
But is there any reason tothink that it would change?
Because, you know I, there's alot of forces, of course, that
affect the labor market.
I'm sure you're more familiarwith all of them than I am, but
there's some big forces that arejust kind of baked in like
boomers, are retiring, you know,and that's definitely assume a
huge part of why we're seeing ashortage.
(10:05):
Do you?
Is there any reason to thinkthat we will get some slack in
the labor market in the nearterm from your point of view?
Speaker 3 (10:13):
No, unless there's
something catastrophic that
happens Right and there.
There could be seen that before, but I don't feel, as we sit
right now, all the signs thatwe're looking at are pointing to
this.
Tightness in the labor marketwill continue for the next five
to seven years and in fact,we'll get much worse.
(10:34):
And so people and organizationsthat we're looking at and we
call it workforce readiness,right, like, how ready are you
for the changes in the workforceof the next three to five to
seven years, and what are thefactors that you can control and
can't control?
And Ron is a great example ofthis.
He and I have been talkingabout it quite a bit in his
global workforce readinessreport that we have coming out
(10:57):
in the next few months.
But it really ties down to thinkof I'm from South Louisiana,
right.
So we've got hurricanes thatcome here.
The hurricane is coming towardus.
It's really, how prepared areyou?
And so we know that this ishappening in the labor market.
We know that this force iscoming toward us that we can't
stop.
We can't go back 20 years andadd more people to the market,
(11:20):
right?
So what are we going to do toprepare ourselves and our
organization for this upcominglabor force and what it looks
like and it looks very differenttoo, by the way.
So Gen Z isn't responding theway and they look at work
differently than previousgenerations.
So not only do you have thesegenerational components, you
have an overall just lack ofpeople, and those factors are
(11:42):
going to really change and drive, I think, what talent
acquisition is moving into overthe next few years.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Yeah, so I want to
kind of double tap into this.
You know, workforce readinesspiece, and you know, I think you
maybe you don't you know sharethis article with me.
You know, william, but likeMoody's Studies, you know, send
surveys out to executive CEOsevery year and I think you said
this year is the first time thatof the top 10 concerns of CEOs
(12:10):
and executives globally, maybejust in the US, seven of their
10 biggest concerns are allpeople-related.
Am I missing that piece?
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Yeah, it might have
been last year, graham, but no,
absolutely.
I think you're starting to seethis in 10K's annual reports et
cetera, where their strategy ortop initiatives they are having
an impact.
People are being a part ofthose discussions.
So it's not just oh, we want togrow internationally, we want
to improve supply chain, we wantto do typical business
(12:42):
initiatives, which has driventhese prioritizations for
executives for years and yearsand years.
You're starting to see peoplebecoming a part of that
conversation more so than everbefore, and it makes sense,
right when you think about theimpacts of what COVID had within
the business work from homestrategies, lack of talent to
even do certain projects.
(13:03):
If you need to move product, ifyou need to hire a large hourly
labor force, you're havingsevere issues on even serving or
fulfilling your businessimperatives and business
initiatives Because you don'thave the people that you have
had.
Historically, turnover stillcontinues to be a big issue and
that's generationally You'reseeing higher turnover for newer
(13:24):
generations big issue, andthat's generationally you're
seeing higher turnover for newergenerations.
So all of these differentfactors are starting to become
not small challenges but bigchallenges.
I was talking with somebody thatran data analytics for a large
retailer and I said what are youconcerned with right now?
Is it turnover?
He's like turnover.
He laughed.
He said I don't care aboutturnover, I care about quick
quits.
He's like turnover.
(13:44):
He laughed.
He said I don't care aboutturnover, I care about quick
quits.
He's like the amount of peopleleaving our organization.
The first 90 days is what wedetermined when we did the math
was an $800 million problem forour business.
Yes, and all of a sudden the CEOgot very involved and very
interested in how do we solvethese problems, and so the
(14:05):
people part of our business.
The thing that, graham, you andI have talked about for years
now, saying that I believestrongly that people are what
drives the business initiatives,not the other way around is
becoming, I think, more so tothe forefront within
organizations.
The exciting thing is it'sestablishing and building out
this brand new division thatreally hasn't existed before, in
(14:27):
a lot of different ways maybein small buckets, maybe in
pockets, but this data analyticsand people analytics, tied in
with technology and withsoftware and with operations, is
starting to become this jobthat is morphing and building
out.
And so organizations that we'reworking with, some of them,
have 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 personteams solely focused on looking
(14:48):
at the data around thisholistically, and so I think
there is a major push andmovement in that area with HR
organizations to have not only aseat at the table but to have
the data and support that youwould traditionally see with
supply chain or with marketingor with sales.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Yeah, you know I
think that's super interesting
and you know I want to kind ofstand this quick quits, I'm not
going to try to say that oneagain.
You know concept right, and soyou know the way I, you know
kind of see this playing out.
You know I'm going to predictthe future.
This is a good exercise.
You kind of saw this in thepast too.
Some of the smartestorganizations that start to
(15:26):
think about these pieces.
They're getting very creativein how they're attempting to
retain employees.
And so in the past, lookingback 10 years, 30 years,
whatever it was, hey, how can weretain people so they're here
forever and how can we developour internal employees so they
(15:51):
stay?
And I think now executives arestarting to recognize that, hey,
you know what, if I could getsomeone to stay with us instead
of six months, if I could get acall center employee to stay
with us for 18 months instead,that is a huge revenue impact, a
revenue driver for us to knowthat we have someone for an
extra 12 months of profitabilitythat we don't have to retrain,
(16:11):
go hire, find new people.
And so I think back to a coupleof years ago.
What Amazon was doing is attheir warehouses.
They said, hey, we know if wecan similar thought, right, if
we have someone that stays at awarehouse for 18 months instead
of six, you know, we know thatlike we're not going to.
You know, open a warehouse andyou know Ponchatoula, louisiana,
(16:33):
and wake up and you know, sixmonths and everyone's going to
move to Ponchatoula.
There's a set number of peoplethat are there.
So how can you take advantageof extending the life cycle of
an employee in a location whereyou know you're going to have an
anchor right?
And so I think what Amazon didis they do creative things like,
hey, come work for us as awarehouse associate.
(16:53):
We're going to partner with aleading vet tech company in the
US and we're going to offer freetraining for the next 12 months
as long as you're working here,so you can become a vet tech
right.
And you know it's kind of ashared you know shared cost
model where, hey, if I'm tryingto hire vet techs and, like you,
can't find vet techs either,can I partner with.
(17:15):
Amazon and know that I have apipeline of people that you know
are getting retrained and, youknow, re-skilled in certain
areas where there's demand.
So I think I'm just waxingpoetic, but I see this.
I think we're seeing this playout and it's leading to a lot of
organizations needing to becreative because we just don't
have new people entering thelabor force.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
I don't know if
that's a question.
I think you're right, grant.
I haven't heard that example,but I think the creativity of
not only partnering withorganizations outside of your
comfort zone or outside of yourbusiness to create opportunities
that might not exist within notonly career paths internally,
but externally is a way to lookat it, to figure out unique and
(17:54):
different, differentiating waysto be attractive to this
generation, who's going to caremore about flexibility.
It's going to care more aboutyou know what's happening to me,
how I feel, my mental stategoing into the workforce, et
cetera, and what is my long-termadvantages of being here.
(18:16):
Long-term for them is not 20years, right?
And so we have to change ourperspective of everything that
we knew historically has got tostart shifting a little bit, and
if you're not looking out atthat, it'll be a problem sooner
rather than later.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
Yeah, well, it
definitely just seems like
employers in general got used toa world where there was almost
always a glut of labor and noworganizations are being forced,
sometimes against their will, tosay wait, we have to do things
differently.
We do need a people analyticsfunction that we take seriously.
We can't just assume there'sgoing to be a constant supply
(18:52):
that we can kind of put througha revolving door here in terms
of filling open seats.
Which I think brings us to thistopic of people analytics.
Obviously, we've been on theperiphery of that since the
beginning here, but I want tojust zoom in on this idea of
people analytics as a businessfunction.
Not surprisingly, given what Ijust said, I think people
analytics has become more commonto have senior leaders,
(19:14):
director levels and higher, say,even VPs, that are labeled
people analytics in a way thatwe didn't necessarily see 15 or
20 years ago, and it makesperfect sense given the
challenges we're seeing in thelabor market.
And yet I think there are someinteresting wrinkles here.
There was this study by onemodel recently.
It was a segmentation analysisand in it they did a survey of
(19:37):
all the people that are directorlevels plus in people analytics
and discovered that some 80plus percent of them didn't just
have a title that was peopleanalytics.
It was people analytics andsomething else.
So you can think of exampleslike a VP of ops and people
analytics or VP of tech andpeople analytics comp strategy.
(19:59):
You can imagine otherperipheral fields.
I'm just curious what you makeof that.
I mean, is that a sign Like isthe fact that senior leaders in
people analytics are not simplyfocused exclusively on what we
might call people analytics asign that this business function
has not yet reached maturity?
Or do you see the fact thatthese roles are kind of hybrid
(20:24):
roles in some of these otherways that I was just talking
about as a just inevitable partof people analytics because it
serves some of those otherfunctions?
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Interesting question
and actually I was with one
model team this last week inAtlanta and Richard, who's kind
of driving some of that work andRichard, who's kind of driving
some of that work, really spoketo it.
Well, look, these roles aremorphing, and they're morphing
because of the impact to thebottom line of organizations of
what this function can do forthe business, and so part of
(20:55):
that is just a natural maturityof shifting and changing their
impact in the orgs.
Let's say technology, forexample.
It's great People analyticsteams historically and even now,
oftentimes are request driven.
So a business leader has arequest hey, what's happening in
this specific market for this?
And they will be very reactiveto what's needed in the business
(21:18):
.
The shift, I believe, is comingto be a more proactive stance
of what are the things thatwe're seeing in the marketplace,
what are trends, what do weneed to be careful of, and then
what are the different toolsthat we have or levers that we
can change within our businessto do that.
Technology is a great exampleof how that role would morph.
So if I'm in charge ofanalytics but I'm not in charge
(21:39):
of our technology strategyaround people, it really can
limit what I'm looking at, andso that might be something like
Lightcast, for example, of whoowns that Lightcast account.
A lot of times it falls in atalent acquisition.
Should it fall under peopleanalytics?
Sometimes it's vice versa.
So being involved in kind ofcompensation strategy or
technology or even operationswithin a business makes sense, I
(22:02):
think.
As this role continues to change, I think the direct line of it
can change too of who thisperson can report to.
You're seeing that vary nowwithin organizations quite a bit
, whether it reports to like aCOO or into operations CFO in
some circumstances, instead ofjust traditionally HR.
So the role I think, willcontinue to change and morph as
(22:25):
its impact within organizations.
You know, and the practitionersof it continue to build their
credibility within companieswhich are doing it at great
scale, of how they can changeand move things that have
happened.
I mean, historically, and y'allknow this, people in HR
sometimes just kind of slippedand fell into HR right, but what
(22:47):
we're seeing is morestatisticians in the people
analytics side, people that havebeen trained and gone to school
for this type of work arereally playing a key role and a
key driver into how the peopleside of the business is going to
perform.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Yeah, I want to talk
about this kind of reactive
versus proactive sort of mindset.
You know, you know, one exampleI think about, you know, on our
, on our recruitment marketingside, is, you know, we see a lot
of organizations that are veryreactive when they need to hire,
right, and what that means isit is just arguably more
expensive, right.
And so, you know, we talk aboutbeing more proactive there.
(23:21):
It's like, hey, if you're, youknow, a restaurant, right, or a
retail store, like, maybe youdon't want to wait for your you
know your line cook to leavebefore you start advertising.
Or if you're a retail store,maybe you don't want to wait
until you have three retailsales openings before you start
advertising.
And it sounds obvious when yousay it out loud, but it isn't
(23:44):
always For companies that arelike, hey, we're trying to save
on advertising, that's why we'rewaiting until we have an
opening.
And what we found is theopposite is true, all right.
Or you know you're moreproactive You're, you know,
keeping the lights on.
You know you're always, youknow, have a presence in the
market.
Your time to hire, your costper hire, you know, drops pretty
significantly.
And so, you know, I'm kind ofwondering.
(24:12):
And?
C.
We know these things willimprove.
Can you kind of crystallize onthe people analytics side, what
does a proactive peopleanalytics strategy maybe look
like?
Or give us one example that,hey, if we're looking to become
a more proactive peopleanalytics function, what does
that look like?
What are some of the metrics orthings that we should be
(24:34):
thinking about as we're buildingthis?
Speaker 3 (24:36):
out.
I think.
Just to expand on your example,graham, I'll give you one where
a critical role within abusiness that I worked with knew
they turned over.
Let's say there was 30 peoplein this specific segment and
they knew they had to hire abouteight a year and that had been
fairly consistent for the lastfew years, and so that would be
due to promotion or due topeople leaving the organization.
The challenge was they didn'thave a bench of talent to move
(24:59):
into those positions that theyfelt really confident in, so
they ended up hiring almost ofthat eight.
They would hire six of thosefolks externally, and to hire
externally they needed somebodyin a similar role to make a
lateral type move.
So all of a sudden compensationcreep, you're hiring in at the
higher part of that band andyou're also paying relocation
(25:19):
for a lot of these folks,especially during the time when
we did the study and so payingrelocation.
So we figured it was on averageper person it was about a
hundred to $200,000 differencefor those six people they had to
hire externally.
And so the goal was how do webuild a bench of talent for
these folks that we can prepareand maybe we spend some money or
(25:40):
add an extra headcount or two.
So we have this bench ready.
But how can we build arotational program internally so
that when this job opens up andwe know one will at some point
we have people ready that aretrained, that know our business,
know our nomenclature, know ourorganization, know our tools,
know our software?
So we don't really miss a stepIn this organization.
(26:01):
These people were running $100million businesses internally,
and so to have two months delayor to have a coworker add that
to their plate, you knew therewas going to be loss.
You were going to lose revenue,you were going to lose inventory
.
It's just the nature of thebeast.
Mistakes were going to happen.
And so to have this kind ofbench that you were building
(26:23):
ahead of the hiring need orahead of the hiring curve and
training those folks on arotational basis not only got
the teams excited for like, allright, this is going to set me
up for success when I was inthis role, it was going to save
the company money long-term, andso it's to have this longer
tail view of how do I prepare myorganization, especially my
people, leaders, with the bestqualified talent that I can,
(26:46):
might cost a little bit upfront,but doing that cost analysis of
what is the lost costs and someof those are hard, hard costs
and some of them are soft costs.
But looking at that data set, Ithink more often than not you
will find nuances withinorganizations of how they can be
better prepared for thosecritical roles in their business
.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
This reminds me, I
think, of the old adage I'm
probably going to butcher this,but something like dig the well
before you're thirsty, and Ithink it's just worth
emphasizing how this is really agreat thing for our industry.
Unfortunately, it's a difficultway of learning the lesson.
Organizations are being forcedto do something that they
(27:28):
arguably should have done longago, even when there was a labor
market glut.
But here we are we're in ashortage and you wouldn't have a
well and not pay attention tohow much water's in it and just
say, oh, so one day you wake upand no water comes out of it and
you say, oh, we better dosomething about that.
The smart approach is to payattention to how much water's in
(27:49):
it and realize, oh, we'reburning through this much water
a day and we can predict that intwo months we're going to have
no water in the well, so webetter do something about it,
and I think that's what you'retalking about.
I think it's a littleunfortunate that it's required a
kind of an economic crisis in away, at least in terms of the
labor market, to force this, butI hope and I'm optimistic about
it, I hope maybe you are toothat this will result in some
(28:10):
kind of enduring changes to HRfunctions and how we think in
terms of being more proactiveversus just reactive.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
No, I agree, I agree
with that.
I think you're absolutely right.
Look, the good news isorganizations now have more
information and more data aroundpeople than they ever had
before.
I mean, it used to just be aturnover statistic, time to fill
.
I mean these kind of basicmetrics that most talent
acquisition teams have used foryears and years.
You're starting to see depthsof data in and around these
(28:39):
statistics that I can show youby location, by market, by you
know each one of our functionalgroups what's happening and give
you a realistic view and even apurview of what's to come over
the next.
You know six to 12 months andusing predictive analytics and
preparing the teams accordingly,and so I think there is a shift
that's taking place, and I'mreally excited that it's
(29:01):
happening within this function,because there's a lot of great
people, really smart, talentedfolks, that have been pushing
this change for a long period oftime, and I think you're right,
the business has caught up withthe need.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Yeah, I think that's
great.
And you know we're also seeing,you know, forget about, you
know, just businesses that are,you know, recognizing that they
need to do something different.
You know, I think I saw it'sprobably in the Lightcast blog
you know you're doing something,you know, more recently, with
the state of Texas right around.
Hey, how do we help people intoTexas recognize where there's
(29:33):
opportunities for them todevelop new skills based on
expected demand in the market?
Am I kind of paraphrasing inthe right manner?
William, tell us a little bitmore about this Texas piece,
right, closing the skills gap inTexas, and how you're working
with the state instead of justworking with companies who are
hiring.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Yeah, in partnership
with University of Texas school
system, some work with Courseragovernment in Texas.
You know we're looking at how dowe tie these things together.
I mean, these are large problemsright to try to solve and to
try to tackle, but there'sexcitement there, I think, from
every front of like how do wemake sure that our educational
(30:13):
system is guiding toward thoseskills of tomorrow and that
organizations are aligned andsee that alignment?
That's very clear, and so Ithink in Texas they're really
looking at how can we ensurethat we're providing the best
curriculum that we possibly canand aligning that to the
employers of choice that aregetting on board of this
skills-based curriculum toreally align that the
(30:37):
educational side of it is tiedand pulled through with.
How are we training and gettingthese folks ready for the labor
force?
And so, as we're helping themlook at what does future state
look like, as we're looking atwhat's coming in the next three,
five, seven years and what arethe skills that are going to be
necessary for tomorrow, knowingthat there's going to be gaps in
(30:58):
the market, how can we helpprepare these folks and prepare
this curriculum in a way that'sgoing to get people excited
about what's to come, and so youmight think you're going in a
career in X, but when you startseeing some of the data sets and
even in professional services,of all places where you could go
with your career, you're seeingfolks that are younger in their
(31:19):
career or leaving college startto find opportunities that they
might not even exist beforethey started school.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
Yeah, well, I think
it's just a good reminder that
people analytics I mean, wethink of it in terms of serving
a business's needs, but it canalso be used to serve the
talent's needs or prospectiveemployees' needs.
You know, and you bring up agood example with this education
piece.
I guess you know this is anatural segue into a topic that
we've talked about before on thepodcast, but I'd love to get
your perspective.
You know, skills-based hiring,of course, has become very
(31:49):
popular.
It's kind of in vogue lately,for good reasons.
Along with that is aconversation about the value of
college degrees.
You know the time has passedwhen you could go get a
bachelor's degree and that wouldserve you well for 30 years or
40 years in a career.
What's much more typical thesedays is that, yes, you get a
certain foundation of skills,but people are re-skilling to
(32:12):
use industry drug multiple timesin their careers, sometimes
three or four times, makingpivots, adding to their skill
set so they can be attractive toemployers.
All of that is sort of thestage, and the question I
suppose is do you think thatthis trend towards skills-based
hiring is going to continue toerode the perceived value or ROI
of a four-year college degree,because the reality is they're
(32:35):
getting more and more expensive.
Everyone knows that Studentsare saddled with debt.
Obviously that's not good.
And then what's even the returnon it if you just spent
$150,000 on a college educationand you can't deliver any value
to a business?
So do you think that collegedegrees are going to continue to
wane in that way, or are youexpecting they'll have some
durability?
Speaker 3 (32:58):
That's a great
question.
It's a big question.
My opinion is, I think collegesare starting to recognize the
risk and, as organizations, havetried to figure out what
parameters they can change andmove the needle on to hire the
talent that they need withintheir business.
They've dropped some of thoseparameters that historically
have been in place, such ascollege degree, such as years of
experience, such as I can trainyou on the skills in the next
(33:20):
three to six months and have youready to work within my
organization versus hiringsomebody who's done the exact
same job to make a lateral move.
So organizations are doing itout of necessity.
I think you'll find collegesare going to start changing and
I think the Texas example is agreat one are really leaning
into how do we not just rest onour laurels, but how do we
(33:40):
change our curriculum to bettersuit the needs of our students,
to prepare them and find thembetter at jobs than maybe we
have historically, or equal jobsthan what we've done
historically.
And so I think colleges anduniversities and I'm actually
partnering with my localuniversity here and the Dean of
the College of Business for aneconomic forum that's coming up
(34:04):
and I asked her specifically andthere's this perception in the
market and I think it's onethat's not valid of this new
generation is kind of lazy,right?
I think many of you have heardthat or they don't want to work,
they don't want to do this.
And I talked to her and I saidlook, I would be willing to bet
that the students that you havegraduating now are some of the
smartest, brightest, moredetermined, hardworking students
(34:26):
than you've ever had.
She's like you're absolutelyright, it's like, but this
perception is that they're lazy.
It's like they're not lazy.
They view the labor market,they view the workforce and they
view jobs differently than anygeneration has before them.
And so, as this generationalshift happens that this new
generation is looking at theworkforce or the work
(34:47):
differently than any generationbefore it, you're starting to
find the skills-basedorganizations and skills
taxonomies being built intoeducational curriculum.
That'll change the design butalso career pathing for
individuals.
So will it ever go away or willit change?
I hope not.
I think there's a lot of valueand importance in a four-year
(35:08):
education as well as a tradeschool as well as a two-year
education.
There's value in the rigorthat's necessary to go through
that process and program.
I think it can expand your mindin learning different areas
that you wouldn't necessarilystudy.
I mean, there's a lot of prosto doing that, networking being
one of them that can help youlong-term in your career.
But I do think employers aregoing to lead the way in what's
(35:32):
needed or necessary in themarket, and there's no doubt
about it.
You don't need a college degreeto make money anymore, and
there's tons of studies abouttrade professionals and the need
for trade professionals, andwhen you have to stop talking
about that, those areprofessions and they are not
(35:53):
only good professions.
There's a lot of opportunity inthose specific ranks, and so I
think for years that had beenalmost downgraded a little bit
about what you could do in yourlife and in your career, and
you're starting to see aresurgence in some of those
areas of opportunity for folksthat don't decide to go a four
year route.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Yeah, I think that's
great and, like you know, we
talk all the time about, youknow, trade schools and you know
, and other areas of we'll callit career pathing or just
learning.
You know, I think we're alsogoing to see a big shift, you
know, remove colleges from theequation.
Just our opportunity to educate, to self-educate, right, or
educate ourselves through evenstuff like podcasts, right, we
(36:31):
have so much more access tolearn and to learning materials
that I just think you know, justdid not exist 50 years ago.
I mean, I think, like you know,I talked to my dad, right.
Like he gives me books stilland I'm like I can have this
book read to me, right, while Igo for a run.
Like what am I going to carryaround a book for?
(36:52):
Like I to listen to a podcastand in an hour someone tells me
like, hey, you want to hear alittle bit more about Ted Turner
and how he started his company.
I don't have to read a book, Ican have someone read it to me
while I'm on a run.
Our opportunity to learn isabsolutely unparalleled.
I think there's just peoplethat aren't.
We're just not used to it.
It's new, it's just people thataren't.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
We're just not used
to it.
It's new, it's new, it's stillnew, and I think it's it's,
you'll see it, more so with thisupcoming generation, because
they've been born with a phonein their pocket, and so to have
that much access to that muchinformation I mean, youtube's
number one search is DIY, right?
So, like to your point, like Ican do anything that I want, I
can learn how to do whatever Iwant on a video of an expert
(37:36):
telling me how to do itInstantaneously.
Not tomorrow, I don't have towait a week, it doesn't have to
come in the mail.
It's not a VHS tape to age me alittle bit, right, so it is
instantaneous from my phone ofsomebody showing me how to do it
.
And that access to informationand education is kind of
changing the game, I think, andreally level setting what
(38:00):
anybody has access to across theboard.
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Yeah, yeah, I think
that's great.
Well, I think that's a verylogical place for us to put a
pin in this episode.
I'll ask one last easy question.
So where can people find youonline?
Speaker 3 (38:14):
Last easy question so
where can people find you
online On the internet?
Speaker 2 (38:17):
Yeah, go to my AOL
chat room.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
We'll link it.
Yeah, all you have to do is goto altavistacom.
No, linkedin's the easiest way.
Yeah, william Sims on LinkedIn,you can find me there.
This is the easiest way to findme.
Sims on LinkedIn, you can findme there.
This is the easiest way to findme.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Yeah, and we'll also
link to the Lightcast blog some
incredible content coming out ofthere as well.
You know all the time too Well,this has been great.
William, Really appreciate youspending time with us today and,
yeah, thanks for a fantasticconversation.
Appreciate it, guys.
All right, Thanks for tuning in.
As always, head on over tochangestateio or shoot us a note
(38:57):
on all the social media.
We'd love to hear from you andwe'll check you guys next week.