Emily Zahuta

In a competitive market, you're only, you are limited to being as good as the talent you brought in. Whereas if a company that you are directly competing with finds a way to get even increment, 5% better talent than you're getting and everything else is on this, you're gonna lose in a consolidating market. We have to watch this like talent, you're right, it's the unlocking thing, hiring a players. But what does that mean? And that's different for every single company you work for. And the need of what, the outcome of what those people are going to do is different. Which is why we go back to there isn't a one size fits all metric plan that you can, I can give you packaged up and a nice thing and say, take this to every company you work for. You'll knock the socks off of the hiring managers. It's so dependent on what the business is trying to achieve.  

Nasser Oudjidane

Hello and welcome to our series of Scaling Stories, a discussion with talent leaders about their list building teams at some of the world's most fastest growing companies. I'm thrilled to introduce our guest today, Emily Zahuta, the Senior Director of Talent Acquisition at Lattis. Emily, a huge welcome and thank you for joining. To get started, can you give us an introduction about you and your back? 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, absolutely. So, um, I'm, first of all, I'm thrilled to be here. Thank you for inviting me on this. This is great. And, uh, I have a little bit of an untraditional background as it relates to talent acquisition. So I originally started in nonprofit thinking I would take that into sales and I was recruited. Over to, uh, a recruiting agency as I was looking for my first sales job. So I wound up in the agency sphere and fell in love with it, and I loved the speed and the work that we were doing and the conversations with the business. And over time I decided I wanted to be a part of one of these major success stories that I was seen and reading about all the time. And I made the move over to Segment and, uh, lived my own dream in that way where it was there for about five years, took them through an acquisition. Uh, became a part of a really big company in, you know, in startup world, Twillio. And then, uh, shortly after that, moved over to Lattice, where I run all things talent acquisition, branding, hiring strategy, locations, all of it. So it's, it's been quite the ride. 

Nasser Oudjidane

And can you share a little bit more about Lattice for those that are living under a rock, uh, mission and vision. 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, absolutely. So Lattice is really simple, um, which is, and it's, it's all about the humans behind the work that's being done at these companies. So in short, lattice helps companies drive performance and engage their employees to do their very best work. Um, that's kind of the tagline that we live by. But we do this through a combination of performance management, software engagement. Goals, tracking, um, and analytics that help you keep teams engaged and keep teams focused on the right things over time. And I would say Lattice has always had a great spot in the market. We've, we've had a product that's been, you know, useful and exciting for quite a while. But when the world went remote with the beginning of Covid, Latis really found its its sweet spot where all of a sudden managers had to figure out how to engage and manage teams that were sitting on different parts of the country or even different countries. And so, um, we help you stay close to your people and we help them keep, we help keep them focused on the right things and motivated to do their, their very best work. 

Nasser Oudjidane

And speaking about driving performance, our discussion today will be centered around talent acquisition and driving performance of the overall function. And it's obviously hard not to notice how talent acquisition has been disproportionately affected with. The layoffs that have been happening. Yeah. How, in your opinion, can TA go from transactional to more strategic? 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, I, I think this is the hot button question of the moment, and I think so many of my peers and friends and past colleagues have been impacted and, and myself, I've felt the effects of, of a shaky economy, of volatile macroeconomic environment. Right now we've got a couple of things at our fingertips that I think some folks are overlooking that can help us keep a seat at the table. Even in, and I said this, uh, just the other day in a bear market or a bull market. And so you have to be able to flex with the times and we're seen and need to do that right now. More than ever. Um, and so for me it's a big combination of data strategy and understanding the foundational elements of what your business is trying to accomplish. Not your TA business, but the company as a whole. So for me, where is Lattice going? How is it pivoting in this economy? What is most important to my executive leadership team, and how do I tie every single decision I make and thing that talent acquisition does to that strategy?

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. And then you've mentioned something to me in the past, which has, uh, actually quite controversial, or at least contrarian, which is that 

Emily Zahuta

Oh, good. I love these, Yep. 

Nasser Oudjidane

TA's responsibilities should go well beyond onboarding. What do you mean by that? 

Emily Zahuta

So I think that we've all existed in a world for a long time and, and let me just say, I believe there are people who do this right now, but I just don't think it's the norm and I think it should be the norm. So that's my little plug there. Um, I think we've gotten away with being on the front lines of hiring. We build the relationships with the candidates. We get them excited about joining a certain role in these companies. We hire them for a price that we all feel is fair, and then we pass them to onboarding for the most part, and we say, good luck. Hope you love it. Here we're off focused on the next role, and I think there's a really big miss in that. I think we are missing the most valuable piece of the work that we can do, which is taking some of that knowledge. One about what we learned about what's important to this individual, what their fears are, what they're excited about, what their growth tracks should look like based on what we've discussed. And we're leaving that right in our, you know, ATS system, and it's not being translated to the rest of the business. We're also missing this opportunity to be better than outside resources. So what I mean by that is when you think about an agency, whether they're a retained search or uh, a contingent search, They'll often offer a guarantee. So they'll say, we believe that this person is such a good fit for your company, that we'll guarantee them for 90 days, six months even. And if we get it wrong, we'll give your money back or we'll find a new person for you. So why do our teams, our internal teams that are being paid handsome salaries, why are we not guaranteeing the work of the folks that we bring onto? Into the company, and so we should at least be beating our outside resources. This is the competitive nature in me. So if you take those two ideas, one, our reach should go well beyond because we have this valuable knowledge that we've kind of, uh, encompassed or kind of, uh, amassed as we've talked to these candidates. And then we also have this challenge of saying, We should be able to take our ownership further. We should be able to guarantee the work of the folks that we're bringing in. Um, you're left with a story of saying, how do you do that? How do you, what's meaningful to the business six months after someone joins to one year after someone joins? And this is kind of where you land on the idea of quality of hire, which I think is the ticket to help us maintain that ownership for at least 12 months. That's, that's where I'm pushing to have it, the measurement to, to land. 

Nasser Oudjidane

And are you suggesting that. Talent acquisition, be responsible for talent delivery. So whatever the business needs regarding re and regardless of the source of employment, um, it's expanding the nature of talent acquisition, or at least the perception within businesses. 

Emily Zahuta

It's expanding the value of what we're doing. Yes, I am saying that, and I do think it's tricky because for so many, I've worked under leaders who say, attrition is not your issue. It's not your fault, but it is your job to fix attrition. So if we've lost 10% of the workforce, so at the span of the year, we have to then figure out our capacity models to support the addition of that 10% back into the company roster. So my point is, yeah, it is our job. If we're saying we'll build the interview process. We'll build the panel of folks. In fact, we'll even tell you what questions to ask then. Why shouldn't we be measuring if those things are actually successful in hiring someone that does their job correctly? So this comes with, you know, easy surveys of your hiring manager. Would you hire this person again for the same role, and to the candidate themselves or to the the employee? Would you take this job again, knowing what you know about it? Now, did we do a good enough job? One getting signal on if you can do it, and two, telling you what this role is all about. Again, in, in a shaky economy, in a really funky global environment, what we have is a team that really needs to get to the nitty gritty of what the business is trying to solve for. And then we have to be exceptionally good at translating that both to the hire and measuring for it with rubrics in question. So it takes our value and it, it kind of puts a target on us to some extent, but it's the right thing to do, and if we can get it right, then we solidify our spot in the business with no question. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Absolutely. But one thing, and perhaps there, there are two threads to separate here. One of the quality of higher aspect, and I know that you've got a brilliant framework that we can, we can get into. And the, the other is actually the, the, the data literacy aspect because the problem doesn't seem to be the lack of data. Um, I mean, one in your opinion needs to change with regards to ensuring. The, the, the overall function can be held accountable and that they can actually be eventually sought after regarding judgments influencing senior leaders because they use data and analytics to influence decisions. 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah. This is, this is a spicy one. Um, in that, I think what makes a really, really good recruiter or TA individual, or someone who can function well within a recruiting environment is someone who has really strong eq. Like, I can look at you Nasser and I can have a conversation and I can start to see what makes you tick. I can start to see what turns you off. And then we have something to work with, right? So I have to be able to pick up on these subtleties of who you are generally. And I think that gets praised with recruiting quite a bit. And the piece that doesn't get as doubled down on is what's the data telling us? What is, what are we capturing in our ATS systems with our sourcing tools? What are we capturing with our funnel conversions that also have a meaningful story to tell? That where you layer it on top of. The, um, emotional intelligence, you create a full picture. I, I believe that it is getting better. I think our access to data, you're right, is improving someone's taking, people are taking the time to build tools that are meaningful for us, but I think we have a big generation of folks that, or multiple generations of folks that haven't really had to leverage the data in a way that's meaningful to the business, not just to hiring. And so this is where we. A gap. I think it's, I think it's a tricky spot to be in if you can be, um, data driven and you can miss the mark completely with hiring, and you can be emotionally intelligent and you can miss the mark completely. With hiring, it has to be some component of the two or some combination of the two.

Nasser Oudjidane

What in your opinion are the gaps and to perhaps follow up on. I've noticed that there are certain issues with industry consensus on how to measure certain metrics. Yeah. Have you come across that in, uh, in talent throughout your career? 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, well I, I mentioned this to you when we spoke last, which is I don't think I've ever been in a conversation, whether it's an interview for a job or I'm sitting across the table from c e o and I'm telling them why they need to leverage our candidates. Cuz I'm, I'm an agency recruiter. I've never had someone question me on the metrics that we use to determine our own success. And to me that's problematic. I don't, to me that says people either. There isn't a standard that really is trusted and makes sense. People just don't know. We're not, we're not digging deep enough. So I'm not trying to make the industry sound like we're data illiterate. Like I think we all understand time to hire and offer acceptance rate and time to fill and these, these metrics that are meaningful to a certain degree. But what you said, consensus, I don't think we have a really strong consensus on what are the, the data points and the data measurements to use. Across a, an array of needs for the business. So an example I'll use is I'm, I'm hiring someone on my team. This person's indiv going to be an individual contributor, a recruiter, and they're preaching their time to hire. They say, I can get someone from first reach out to assigned offer. In 15 days, which is ex it's, that's exceptionally fast. And that's an interesting data point. But what if the business is saying, we don't care how long it takes. All I'm focused on is someone who meets the metrics and exceeds our, our goals, the performance goals for this, for this role or position. Now we're speaking two different languages. Yes. They're two different data points for sure. And they're meaningful. But what data are you, um, what data sources are you doubling down on because you understand the true direction of the business. And I think that's where the illiteracy comes. I think we kind of keep coming to the table with the same cluster of metrics. And there sometimes it's a slam dunk. A lot of times it's not. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. Absolutely. And then there's also the consensus about how to measure, for instance, cost per higher. Yeah. As in some organizations will kind of, it's almost like some creative CFOs, uh, in the public markets that have community adjusted dbia or Oh yeah. You know, however they want to kind of present their business, good or bad. They will then remove certain, uh, areas of the components of calculating it. Mm-hmm. So, for instance, cost per higher sometimes, uh, may not include engineering. And if you are giving the CTO or senior engineers responsible on a panel, Uh, a load of candidates that are perhaps not relevant and all of the time that they've invested during that process Yeah. Isn't calculated to the hire. That's what's, that's really expensive. So I'm, I'm, I'm sure there are a variety of different examples here, which can be, um, which could be mentioned. What, in your opinion, are the most I important impacts to track if we were to just say, uh, your dashboard. What, what are they?

Emily Zahuta

So I have, as a TA leader, I have a few different dashboards. One is, okay, basic performance of my team. What are the goals we've set? Are we meeting those goals? As in I have each recruiter I. Depending on level slated to make 10 hires per quarter, let's say, as an example. And I should be able to see that we're on track or not on track to do that per team. Um, tech, non-tech per recruiter, per manager, whatever. And, and that data is time to hire, it's funnel conversions, it's outbound sourcing. You know, these are the, the basics of the components that go into can we make, make a successful hire or not. And then there's the other side of the data, which. What does the senior leadership care about and why should they care about it? Which is, uh, tech, non-tech, um, offer acceptance rate. Are we doing a good job of getting the right people to the finish line and are we able to get them to sign? And the, and, and that's, the business asks me that a lot. I think there are other metrics that we can bring to the business that they don't necessarily know to ask for. So you touched on this. Engineering time, let's say in the interview process. Um, at Segment we built a, a method for measuring this and we just called it, uh, interview efficiency. And so we'd take every single role that we were recruiting for as long as it wasn't just a one-off senior leadership role. And we'd say, how many hours is going? How many hours are going into making one successful hire? And then we set a benchmark. We said it should probably, I can't even remember what the number was cuz I haven't done it in a bit, but I, it, it should be under 45 hours or it should be under 40 hours. Um, and then we, we used that to measure every single role against it. And we started to say, okay, we're taking time from the business. Hey leaders, we need to be better equipped to figure out what we're hiring for. We need to have clear rubrics, we need to have more efficient interview processes. So, It feels like a lot, and I'm going in a bunch of different directions because the, the data that's meaningful to you and your team and then to senior leadership should be very different, and it should change consistently and drastically over the course of the year. It's my job to consistently measure every metric and have answers when I'm asked, but it's also my job to say, if this is what you care about, lattice, these are the metrics I want you paying attention to. And then from there we tell the story of what's working and not working. 

‍Nasser Oudjidane

Absolutely. And what are some of the most important inputs to track for quality of hire 

Emily Zahuta

So we are building this live as we speak. Um, and we, we went through a big exercise trying to figure out, okay, what, what do we measure? What do we have access to measure? And why are these the things that are gonna tell the story we wanna tell? We landed on. Uh, four or five key metrics. So we said performance, and that's the performance of the individual over time. Are they meeting goals? Are they, you know, exceeding quotas? If they're on the sales team? We are measuring employee sentiment. We're measuring hiring manager satisfaction. And then we've got the retention metrics. So your attrition rates. And we for a while, we'll look at this monthly, but this should be evaluated over a 12 month period is what we're saying. Um, and these are not the only usable metrics. These are what we've decided. One we have access to and two are important to lattice at this moment in time. But other metrics to consider, I would say. Your candidate pool size, what do you actually have access to? Um, interview structure, reference quality is another great one. Uh, time to fill, time to productivity is one I I'm hearing about more and more. And then there's, um, your cultural fit, which is another funky one to measure, but these are all things that, depending on what your business is asking of you. You should kind of, it's a grab, it's a grab bag of options 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. It, it, it's interesting. You've, you've mentioned performance over time and that, uh, being a 12 month period, I know that you're doing this on the fly. When do you think is appropriate for the first touchpoint or first feedback? First month, first 60 days, 

Emily Zahuta

I usually hear so. Business plans, what we do. The 90 day, what? 30, 60 nineties, right? I think you are drinking from a fire hose for the first 30 days, at least 60 days is in. You're starting to understand where you fit into the organization, what the organization means, and 90 days in, you're starting to really do the work and generate it. So you'll know, am I in the right position or am I not? And then as a manager, I'll know I have indicators that are, that will tell me. Yes, I think this person will be successful in the long run, or I have some concerns about whether this person is gonna be successful, so I would say, Initially, 90 days would be my recommendation and, and I reserve the right to take that back after we do this for a couple of years. But that's where I'm going for now. And then we wanna watch it monthly. We're gonna watch it by hiring class. So every month we'll check in on these data points, leveraging the lattice tool, which you know, has access to support many of these asks for the data. And then we'll put together a scorecard that we then present back to the rest of the business.

Nasser Oudjidane

How do you see this evolving? Because you've mentioned that this is TA's ticket to remain at the seat of the table. Mm-hmm. And I intersecting with what you mentioned earlier, which is being responsible for talent delivery. So incorporating the assessment, uh, and incorporating the qualification that you did all the way from screening throughout the interview process. Are you, are you pulling this into lattice and then helping with performance improvement plans, overall development plans of that new employee as they develop their, uh, themselves through the company? 

‍Emily Zahuta

I see it. Well, one, I think the possibilities are endless and heck yeah. We'll use Latice for this down the line. Um, but most immediately, what what comes to mind, and we can unpack this just as much as you want to. I think about internal mobility as a great tool for retention and a great tool for, um, Growing diverse populations within your company, so hits on the D E I B, diversity, inclusion, all of that world. Then we also have the retention elements so people understand their growth tracks. This is already a part of Lattice, but this is what this information can help us unlock for these folks. And then two, I wanna see at the headcount planning table. I don't wanna be told the hiring number. Once finance and exec leadership have, have had these, you know, very meaty conversations about what the business is trying to achieve over the next 12 to 24 months, I wanna be at that table saying, if you wanna achieve this, we know this is what we have to do on the front end, and we know this is how much time it's gonna take us. And we know these are the roles we should be focused on first and second and third, and these are the GOs we should be doubling down on. I don't want to be delivered a number that then I'm expected to go fill. Which is the way it is in a lot of spots. But I think with the quality of hire metric and us being able to see how quickly we can get people performing, how much we can actually control our attrition number, you start to bring your voice into the conversation at an earlier stage, and you start to have input on who you're gonna hire, when and why. And this gets you, this is a ticket to that table, not the one where the paper slid across to say, okay. We're doing 500 heads. How do you do it, Emily? 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. Love it. Here's another controversial topic, reference checking. Is it a waste of time? 

Emily Zahuta

Okay. Well, Jack Altman, I apologize in advance for this. If you ever listen, hopefully you won't. But when I first joined Lattice, I was p I met with a number of hiring managers and all of them were just very gung-ho on reference checks, and I was kind of like, what is happening here? I don't understand. I don't like reference checks. Generally, you're standard run of the mill. And let me caveat this by saying, typically it's like, Hey, recruiting team, can you go ask these three questions to their previous manager or two previous managers, maybe peer and come back to me? Technically, my decision's already made, but if you hear something wild, let me know. To me, that's not a valuable resource. And when I first joined Gladys, I had a number of people saying, no, we, we must do a reference check. But it really wasn't impacting whether they'd hire the person or not. So, Hot take is no, I don't love reference checks. I don't think they're that valuable. Even though Jack, the reason why I'm apologized to him is cuz he has a whole blog post on why they are valuable. So he does have some good points, but I still disagree. Um, and then you have this, it's really biased. And so at this point I just don't think they're meaningful. This, that's my hot take. 

Nasser Oudjidane

What about back channels? 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah. So, uh, I've been a part of companies and teams where back channels are very much not allowed. Uh, we highly discourage if we find out that they've happened, we're questioning, you know, how did that happen? But I do believe that with a back channel reference, you are going to get more meaningful data again, could be very biased. You have to do it the right way, but you, you will get more meaningful. Information on a higher than I believe you would if it were a, you know, surface level planned background check. And I say this because if, if you're smart and if you know the re the way recruiting works, you're gonna prep your references, you're gonna say, this is the role I'm going for, this is, these are the areas, the interview that I felt really confident about. And these are the areas where I think I didn't speak as well as I could to my abilities to do this. Can you touch on that? Um, and then I want them to come back to me and say, okay, these are the questions they asked, so I can start making sure that I'm prepared at the next conversation with this company to touch on those things. So I'm in control still, which doesn't lead to an objective measurable data point. It's just, it's kind of BS the back channel. You're gonna get more. Uh, real on what the answers are, but you also risk tapping the shoulder of the person that didn't get the promotion when they were sitting next to you and you got the promotion. So maybe they're scorned and mad. So I think they're problematic both directions. I think there are risks that you have to be, um, mitigating at every turn, but I believe you will get more objective information from a backdoor reference or a back channel reference than you would from a above table. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. F for our audience, um, they're interested in creating more of a strategic TA function. Do you have any advice on how they can create a shared vision of what TA should look like with their business? 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, I think yes and no. I think, um, this is something that when I'm interviewing for a job, I am trying to. Sniff out, like, are you open? Do you want TA to be at the forefront? Do you understand the value of hiring and how it is an unlocking mechanism for the entirety of your business? And I'm biased, but I believe this wholeheartedly, that really hiring is the backbone of all of the work that is done in a business, regardless of what you're selling. SaaS or non SaaS. B2b. B2c, I don't care. Um, so you need to figure out. Is there an appetite for it? Is there even, uh, I, I even wanna, well, tell me more about how you can impact this. Like that to me is a good sign when I'm interviewing for something. So first of all, I think there are some businesses that are very open to it and some that are not. And I think some can be swayed when you get into a business. I think you have to be able to, you have to have the, the savvy to sit down with an executive leader and understand. Read between the lines of what they're trying to build. So if I'm speaking to, uh, our C R L, for example, and I know what the a r r goal is for the next 24 months, and I understand the concerns, I need to be able to read between the lines and say, okay, this person needs to hire really quickly. They're absolutely concerned about quality of hire. They're absolutely concerned about what, how much money they're spending in various geos. It's my job to go say, let me think about this for a minute. Hey, I've thought of a plan that gets you boom, boom, these three things that are important to you. Are we aligned? Great. This is how we do it. So I think you have to take one step further instead of hearing the business plan and trying to react and build a hiring model that works, you have to read between the lines and figure out what is, what's the biggest fear of the exec that you're talking to? What's the biggest concern that they're saying or not saying? And then bring the metrics to the table that help either alleviate some of that or remove the risk completely. That's essentially what I think my job is. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah, it's interesting. Um, as you were talking, I was, I was thinking about a, a book that I've recently rest, which is Read, which is called The Qualified Sales Leader. And it, it's very much aligned to a lot of management books, frankly, on how do you get the best out of your team. And step one is higher A players on, on every single one. It's, but how do you do that? Right, right. Because everything else they say is you could be moderate. But if you get higher ed players correct, then there's a chance that you'll actually succeed. Whereas if you don't do the. But execute extremely well in the remaining, you still won't succeed. 

Emily Zahuta

So, or It's, you might succeed, but in a competitive market, you're only, you are limited to being as good as the talent you brought in. Whereas if a company that you are directly competing with finds a way to get even increment, 5% better talent than you're getting and everything else is on this, you're gonna lose in a consolidating market. We have to watch this like talent, you're right, it's the unlocking thing, hiring a players. But what does that mean? And that's different for every single company you work for. And the need of what, the outcome of what those people are going to do is different. Which is why we go back to there isn't a one size fits all metric plan that you can, I can give you packaged up and a nice thing and say, take this to every company you work for. You'll knock the socks off of the hiring managers. It's so dependent on what the business is trying to achieve. I, I, when I was interviewing at my previous company at Segment, I had, I talk about like, what's the signal that tells you if they're prioritizing talent and realizing that this is such a big, important piece of the pie. And, um, I just remember having a conversation with one individual and they said, Help me. I know that this is the thing. I know, Emily, that we can get really good talent. I just don't know how, I don't know how to find them. I don't know how to entice them and I don't know how to get them to stay. What do we do? And it was like, you know, birds were chirping and the breeze was, it was like everything I've wanted to hear because this individual understood this is the thing that will make or break me. How do I do it? And they were leaning on me for to be that resource for them. So I think, yeah, talent will unlock everything.

Nasser Oudjidane

Do you find it's more of a discovery problem or engagement problem? 

Emily Zahuta

What do you mean? Explain that 

‍Nasser Oudjidane

Some of the challenges, particularly within technical hiring, uh, can be trying to find the candidates mm-hmm. Where they exist, where they. So that's the discovery aspect. Mm-hmm. I e there's, and we know a, uh, a talent crunch with regards to certain skills not being available in the market and therefore, There, um, there's issues with finding them. Yeah. And then the, the separate, uh, aspect and the part of the question is engagement, which is, you know, where they live, they're on LinkedIn or elsewhere. It's getting them to respond. It's building the employer brand, it's writing better copy. It's uh, you know, so on and so on. 

Emily Zahuta

Mm. Well, I think that yes and yes. I think it's a both a problem of both, I think. Okay, so in this moment right now, you know, we. I open a job on our website and I have 400 applicants, and I would say 40, 50% of them are extremely qualified for the role that's unprecedented. So in this moment, right now, discovery, not so hard. You, you, it, this, it's not really our issue. When people have a lot of choices, how do you encourage them? How do you get them over the line? I think that's kind of what we're sensing now. We have to be really good about what we're selling to these folks and what we're promising them and to delivering it. Because if we don't give it to them, they have lots of other choices to go, um, relatively, they have other places they can go look at, uh, generally speaking. So I, when I joined, uh, the recruiting agency I worked for in 2011, the idea of customer success was relatively new. This wasn't like a role you'd seen over and over again. You weren't finding buckets of customer success folks all over LinkedIn. And we were trying to create profiles that might lend to a customer, a really successful customer success individual. So, You know, someone who had nurtured accounts and someone who knew how to have a technical conversation, but also relay that to, uh, different teams within your org. So sometimes, depending on the role, it's finding it because does it exist or does it not exist? And if it exists, think about like a mid-market ae, everyone wants a mid-market ae, so where are you looking? How do you find them? What's good, what's not good? Yeah, I think it can be discovery. I also. You cannot have one without the other. It's like a chicken and an egg. So it doesn't matter if they exist in droves. You can't get them excited about what you're, you're talking about what your business is doing. You're gonna lose in a competitive market. Anyway, I don't know if that's really answering your question. Yeah, but I think it really, it fluctuates. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. It, it, it is, it is both. Some people lean more into the, um, the discovery aspect, which is focusing more on sourcing. And it is interesting. Josh first in recently released a, an article about how the, uh, sourcing function is that threat due to the developments in artificial intelligence and how recruiters will need to be in closing roles, building human relationships. Yeah, I agree. And this, uh, it's interesting because you, uh, you, you agree on this because there are some, uh, recruiting leaders that are proponents of specialization. So breaking down the recruiting function into what is essentially a go-to-market function, demand gen, all the way to customer success. And broadly speaking, you've, uh, proposed more of a holistic, broader view to talent acquisition and talent delivery embedded into an organization, which is quite interesting because they're in the way that I see it, at least polar opposites.

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, they are. They absolutely are. And I think, um, everything I do in ta and this is my brand, right? So this, I'm not going to be everyone's cup of tea. I'm not gonna fit for every company, and that's fine. My goal is efficiency and scale. So I like to come into young organizations that are relatively messy. And say, how do we get you to a place where you can hire like a machine and you know that the quality is good? You know, you can fill these roles in a reliable fashion quarter over quarter, and we build it for scale. The, that to me requires. So that's not a, an a blank check. You know, we have to think really, really strategically about what money we're spending, how we're structuring our teams, and how we get the most bang for our buck in that sense. So yeah, in a perfect world, if I had a blank check, maybe I would have specialized sourcers and recruiters that kind of stay in their lanes and do this one specialty. To me, that feels more like an exec search firm in-house at a company, and you're gonna pay. A shit ton of money for that. And, and it, it may work, it may work, but I think if we're gonna be smart and we're gonna scale and we are gonna be, uh, efficient, we need to find a way of harnessing the very best talent with more utility players than specialized players. Um, my teams typically look like a, uh, Uh, a structure of, I'm trying to put a percentage to it, maybe 20% specialized, and the rest I would say can kind of ebb and flow into a variety of different roles, leveraging tools that help them find and discover this talent or sourcing and writing their own messages. I don't care. It's, it's what's the best model to get that person in the door, that profile in the door. But I do think there are, there will always be a need for some str some. Highly specialized individual or individuals on your team that are going to, you know, hone in on that exact profile or need a network of revenue, impactful revenue players that are, you know, C level capable. You don't do that by sourcing on LinkedIn. You do that by creating a really specialized network. Yeah. I mean, it's kind of like, would I wanna live in a mansion with every need that I could ever dream of at my fingertips? Sure, I'd love that, but the reality is I'm probably gonna afford more of the bungalow style, and I've gotta make it work, and I wanna be really happy and I wanna be really successful. So what's the thing that's gonna get those? What's, what's gonna solve that problem for me? 

Nasser Oudjidane

Right. Yeah. It, it brings to mind resilience because when the. When the needs change and you've got somebody who is a Goland recruiter but can't find a legal council, then you're gonna have a problem with somebody who's just focused on one specific area .

Emily Zahuta

You're gonna have a big problem. And this, I believe, and I've made this mistake, na, I've, I've built teams that are highly specialized, um, and they feel very bloated very quickly when the market shifts even a little bit. And you're kind of like, oh, here we go. Uh, and I won't, I, I, I won't make that mistake again because. I, if we're going to ride the times, we have to have a team that can fare in again, the bear and the bull situation. So efficiency and resilience. I think resilience is a really good word for it. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Going back to what you mentioned regarding a blank slate, if you had the opportunity for a blank slate, would you be open to changing how recruiters are compensated ?

Emily Zahuta

Ah, this is a curve ball master. We didn't prep for this one. Um, Okay, so I've partnered, well, let, let's say this. So there's obviously the recruit, the agency style recruiting. I, I think I might have told you when I . First joined, I was a hundred percent commission and the hustle was like, 10 outta 10. Here's my girl. Um, you just, you work with a different, Vigor than you would if you're not working that way. I also think that, uh, I've seen companies like MuleSoft, for example, have kind of point systems based on the, uh, are you familiar with this? Based on the level of the role or the complexity of the hire, you earn more points as a recruiter, I believe this is how it works, and then they're compensated differently on that. Um, I think it depends on your goals. If you are less, first of all, my team is compensated with base salary. We don't do a bonus structure. Um, they're salaried, they're a part of our long-term strategy. Their job isn't just slinging resumes over to the hiring team and hoping that they get an offer except their job as sane. What do we want long term and how do we get that? And to me, I need to incentivize them in a way. Makes them feel that they're a part of that bigger structure. So that's why I don't believe in the bonus and points value for an internal recruiting team, at least at this stage. Um, but I think if you are trying to grow something really quickly and you're confident that you can maintain quality of hire and you wanna incentivize your folks, hire just as many people as they can, what I, what I have found is that a lot of TA people are, Very sales like and motivated and smart, and can figure out how to do it faster and more efficiently. And yeah, I mean, I guess it's kind of what you're looking for in terms of outcome. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. Yes. Apologies for going off track. What I, what I wanted to, to kind of intersect was the blank slate of talent delivery in the holistic view, and you mentioned being tied to quality of hire. So I, I was wondering whether there was some type of retention aspect, if, and this is, 

Emily Zahuta

Ah, see what you're saying, 

Nasser Oudjidane

Kind of spit, kind of spitball include with regards to like long term 

Emily Zahuta‍

No, no, no, I hear what you're saying now. Okay, got it. So what I'm thinking is, I'm surmising, or I'm hypothesizing that after a year or so of watching this data for quality of hire, I will tie it back to each individual recruiter, and I think some people are like, Ugh, what does that mean? You know, what if I'm a bad quality of hire recruiter, what if I, it's a, it's a risky point for some, right? But I will, I, I do believe that if we are gonna coach ICS to be better recruiters, this is an important data point. So, yeah. I will take this back. I'm not gonna say you're fired because. The people you hire aren't sticking, you know, they're not lasting beyond a year, or they're, they're falling off at six months. But I am gonna start to ask why, what's going on with that? Let's look at your interview loops. Let's look at your panels, let's look at your scorecards. Um, and I wanna double down on that person's skillset to make sure that they are seeing the bigger picture. So right now, I don't, my team is not measured on that, but I believe that the quality of higher metric will both serve. You know, TA's reputation in the business as a whole and will also make better recruiters over time. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. I, I tend to agree. We, we'd love to track how, how this exercise pans out. Speaking of advice and, and practices, what piece of advice have you heard often or experienced directly when hiring and building teams that you think is total bs? 

Emily Zahuta

Okay. I believe that. Looking at someone's background. Okay? You've, you, we've all worked with the leader that says, I want someone from a rhetoric university. I want someone who has X, Y, and Z in their experience. Um, I call not bs, I call hard bullshit on that. I think that's, that's so dated and just the wrong way of evaluating talent and. You're gonna fall into a trap of trying to hire the same, you know, cluster of folks that came out of Stanford, Harvard, whatever. The schools are great schools, wonderful schools, you know, smart people. But if you're limiting yourself to that, You one, you're not working with the right folks. They don't understand how to open up the top of the funnel and really start to see how experiences can lend well to a variety of roles that don't fit a traditional mold. And two, you're just, again, I go back to this idea of being a resume slinger, you're just tossing folks over the fence that meet the need of one individuals ask, and I call bullshit on that.

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. Agreed Last one before the closing. What tech do you use to use your job? Feel free to shout out products that are delivering value. 

Emily Zahuta

Ooh. Okay. So, um, we are doubling down right now on Gem and their analytics tool should get a commission for this. I, I feel like I probably should, bonus structure at least, but it looks really promising. And in terms of helping. Both ics, recruiting managers and the MES of the world, trying to explain this to the executive leadership team and and beyond, and set strategy. The analytics tool is interesting. Very, very interesting. So we are slowly transitioning to that. We are also in the process of implementing Bright Hire, which is going to, um, help us train our interviewers better and help us understand biases that exist in our processes. Uh, give us. Um, what's the word where you can, like, it's, it scribes out your interviews for you. So this, I think the unlocking potential of that tool in and of itself is going to be huge, and I tie a lot of hope to quality of hire with that. So as I talk about this, I hope to bring back more on how a bright hire can impact your quality of hire. Um, We are leveraging, I, I've told you this before, I wish to be less dependent on LinkedIn, and I think eventually we'll get to that place, but we leverage LinkedIn quite a bit. I, I am of the mindset right now of like what is gonna deliver the most bang for our buck. Again, we've got a, a limited budget and we wanna do the very most amount of exceptional work with that budget that we can. So I'd say bright hair and gem are our. The ones we're, we're putting our bet on right now, and I will report back. 

‍Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah, I love it. The candidate assessment video tooling, when this came out, or at least was discussed a few years ago in the market, a lot of people were kind of afraid that it was almost some sort of like surveillance with people getting there. Yeah, but it's, I think people have got it totally wrong because like the way that you've explained it in terms of what your pains are is I have an issue with my interviewers, and the structure isn't structured. It's not objective enough. People are going and asking irrelevant questions that aren't contributing to competency or quality of hire. Of course, there's going to. Perception about people being recorded, which is, uh, frankly, legitimate, rightly so. But it's, it's really interesting with the way that, uh, talent leaders explain their problem with regards to finding candidates and it's not really about the candidates.

Emily Zahuta 

Um, no, it's, and I,I, so little piece of recommendation here if you haven't already hacked this one. Um, gong is the sales version of this, right? It's the, the call recording. There are a million different tools for this, but I think Gong is kind of one of the leaders in the space right now. Go to your sales team first and pitch this idea, they will be all for it. And what you wanna do is leverage them who are more comfortable with calls being recorded and videoed. Um, and then showing the ROI of the tool to them, and then bringing it to the rest of the org. I think it's a low hanging fruit opportunity because your sales teams tend to be more comfortable with this sort of thing. But yeah, I've had a lot of people say, whoa, not comfortable. I don't wanna do it. And we're gonna slowly ease them into getting comfortable with it by showing the outcomes. And I think that's what, that's our plan at least. So I'll, I'll report back on that  as well. 

Nasser Oudjidane

‍Great, great tip Using gong as a, an entry point to, uh, help, uh, socialize the idea. 

Emily Zahuta‍

Yeah. And, and again, your sales folks are more comfortable with this, so start there. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. And it ultimately helps it, that's the, the bottom line. It really does. Um, yeah. Moving on to closing questions. Um, what's one piece of advice that you wish you had when you started your career in recruiting? 

Emily Zahuta

Um, I wish that I had been. So I've had many people in my experience say, Emily, we, I'll give you a blank check to figure out how to hire more people faster. If you can get, if we can double what we're supposed to hire this quarter, tell me what you need, what it's gonna cost, and, and we'll get it for you so you can do this thing. And I remember being in that moment saying like, What, what's gonna do? What, what am I money? Like what, what am I gonna put, what tool am I gonna use? What agency is gonna support us? And what I've realized is, yeah, you can solve some of your problems with money. You know, you can leverage outside tools. But I wish I had had the confidence to say, Pause. This isn't a money issue. This is a planning. This is a timing. This is a bring us to earlier in the conversation and you'll have the results faster. If you're bringing me late stage into the game and promising me lots of money to solve this problem, you've missed the point. We're not, we're not speaking the same language here. You wanna deliver, you wanna see big numbers, have me a seat at the table early on and I'll tell you how to get there, versus bringing me a number that feels impossible and throwing money at the problem.

Nasser Oudjidane

Is there anything that you are listening to, reading or watching that you find inspirational? 

Emily Zahuta

I, I have three kids under five, so I watch a lot of bluey. I listen to a lot of, um, uh, Blippy songs, but I'll, I'll report back once my life kind of opens up to more of those opportunities. I'm listening to your podcast.

Nasser Oudjidane

Awesome. Last one. What is one thought value or phrase that you live by it 

Emily Zahuta

Do less with more? Or do more with less. Sorry. Yeah, do more with less. 

Nasser Oudjidane

Yeah. Sign of the times. I know this has been such a pleasure. Thank you. 

Emily Zahuta

Yeah, you're welcome. It was wonderful chatting with you. Thanks for the time.