Strategic Hiring with Ariana Moon: Talent Planning at Greenhouse

If I brought in a tool that allowed me to contact 200 people in the with a click of a button, is that efficient? Because, you know, as a sorcerer, that that would be my day job responsibility, perhaps, yes. But is it effective? And what I mean by that is, you know, if you weren't, if you blasted, you know, 200 people and the messaging was not personalized, and, you know, folks kind of dismiss your message because they know it's just an automated thing, then it's not effective in terms of generating the return of people, responding to you, or like converting into candidates. And so I like efficiency. I'm a big fan of efficiency because I'm a big fan of anything that saves time or saves money. But I'm also a big fan of thinking about is it connected to, is it connected to an outcome that is actually relevant to what we're trying to accomplish?

Hello and welcome to the show. I'm Johnny Campbell, CEO and co founder of Social Talent. And this week on the podcast, we're speaking with Arianna Moon, the VP of Town Planning and Acquisition on TPNA and Operational Excellence in Recruiting. Ariana, you're very welcome to the show. It's great to have you here. I wonder, could you give our audience a little introduction to yourself?

Of course. Very happy to be here. Thanks for having me on the show. As you mentioned, I lead the talent planning and acquisition team at Greenhouse and I also sit on our senior leadership team. I've led talent initiatives in multiple industries at this point, but I think I'm most proud of the work that I've done at Greenhouse. I'm actually coming up on my 10th anniversary in just about a month. And I've, over those 10 years have seen the company and have helped helped the company 10x globally, which has been so, so fun. I've also been involved in other ways. I've been the chair of our, you know, our internal ERG or employee resource group around Asia, Asian Pacific Islanders. And I also serve on the customer advisory boards of some of our, of some of our leading customers, which is also a really good time. A little bit about me outside of work. I am born, born and raised in New York. I, I've been told that New Yorkers will always make a point to tell you that. But right now I am based very happily in Las Vegas, which is an extremely entertaining place to live, for lack of a better word. And you know, on my free time, I really do love things like yoga and dancing and the things that kind of like, get me moving, moving around because we spend so much of our time sitting in front of screens.

I 100% agree with that. I'm a runner, Ariana. People ask me, how far do you run? Do you race? Like, I run to get out of the house. I run to get away from. Yes. I want to be outdoors. And, yeah, actually funny, when I. My favorite thing to do in Vegas, when I visit, I'm typically on a different time zone in my body. I get up at 4 in the morning and I run the Strip. And I love the peace and quiet of the Strip. And you take in all the lights and everything there, except there's nobody else around. And you can go up and down. Although the staircases do kill me. Up and down those different escalators. But, yeah, one of my favorite things to do is run the Strip in Las Vegas when there's absolutely nobody else around. It's fun.

That's fantastic. Yeah. You should also check out Red Rock, which is only about 25 minutes away from the Strip. It's a beautiful place to take a run as well. There's a lot of good trails there.

Right. That's my promise the next time I'm over there. So, Ariana, I want to start with your job title. You have an unusual job title. You know, in case anyone missed it, you are the VP of Talent Planning and Acquisition, not the VP of Talent Acquisition. Talk to me about that slightly unusual tweak to the job title and maybe its relationship to a similar role in finance.

Yeah, so Talent Planning and Acquisition is something that we. Is something that we created as kind of like a philosophical shift, because, you know, when you think about. When you think about a finance team or an FPA team, which is a little bit more like commonly known, which stands for Financial Planning and Analysis. This is really the team that's conducting a lot of that financial planning and analysis for the business to make sure that we're on track to hit business goals. And we, you know, the org has clarity on what that looks like. And, you know, the talent Planning and Acquisition piece kind of came out of inspiration of that partially because one of our closest partners are the FP and A teams when it comes to headcount alignment. But it was also like this philosophical play that on the people side, we should be doing the same thing. Because if people are truly the most important thing at our company, which is what every CEO will ever say, you know, regardless of whether they actually mean it or not, I. We should be very deliberate about how are we planning for having the right talent, enabling the right talent Growing the right talent and you know, that whole ecosystem. And so we shifted the title of our team to talent planning and Acquisition to kind of match the financial side TP&A, FP&A. So that we had this kind of counterbalance of putting stress, putting as much emphasis and importance on how we think strategically about people planning. There's also, I think an aspirational element to that too. Of course, like the core part of our job is going to be hiring is going to be, you know, often we're going to be in situations where we have more hiring than we have capacity to do. And so how do we kind of prioritize, how do we, you know, expectations set properly? And I say it's aspirational because it helps my team kind of anchor towards our, our job. Yes, it is to fill roles, but how do we do that in ways that are like strategically tied to the greater goals of the company, like the company goals. So I like to think that it's aspirational and inspirational in that way to think more about what is that overall plan that I'm working towards instead of just knocking out, filling recs kind of within silos. So when it comes to asking not.

Ariana, just in terms of, you know, for folks who are kind of maybe new to this concept or maybe they're kind of wondering what the difference is. I imagine it wasn't always this way. Right. So when you were just call it just talent acquisition. Right. Maybe it's the days like 21, 22 and you mentioned briefly the kind of reactive type of hiring for a lot of folks. What they do is they have a business, a team that delivers on the wrecks that come from the business and as they come, they try and get them as fast as possible and you fill and you like whack a mole, you're knocking down these wrecks and trying to fill them and everything else. Was it ever like that at Greenhouse? And you know, if it was or even if it wasn't, for folks who work in that model where they're just downstream of wrecks coming at them and then their whole delivery model is about just trying to get them out as fast as possible. Talk me through what the difference is. What are some of the fundamental differences and how do you set up those differences?

Yeah, that's a great question. I'm like, wow, where do I start with this one? I think where I'll start with is the high level context that my experience as a TEA leader over the past like let's say five years has been that almost every year the job has looked different and the ask for the job has looked a little bit different. And so a lot of us went through this period in 2021, early 2022, where the theme was really higher at all costs, as fast as possible. It was extremely competitive. There was a lot of money kind of being thrown around, super competitive talent market, A lot of power with the employee, with the candidate, and a lot of competition because everyone was trying to hire all at the same time. And so the focus there and the business priority there was to hire quickly, as fast as possible, so that we can hit really ambitious business goals. That is a very different experience of what a lot of us experience very soon after, like in later 2022, 2023, maybe even throughout the last year, 2024, where it wasn't so much about speed anymore. And what I mean by that is, I think that historically a lot of t leaders are trained on moving fast because that's what we were historically rewarded for, right? Because we received a big list of roles and. And our goal was to, like, go get these people and find them as quickly as possible, Usually as cheaply as possible, too. But in. In more uncertain, like, economic environments where you want to be a little bit more conservative, for example, with your business goals, then you gotta think a little bit different about hiring, because hiring is one of the most expensive things or costs that you can add to your business. And so what that looked like for us was that I worked super closely with our cfo, who I absolutely adore, and we actually implemented a little bit of intentional friction into business processes when it came to getting headcount approved. So, for example, hiring managers in the past used to be very used to, oh, like someone leaves the business. I have a backfill, I have a gap. I got to fill it as fast as possible with the same exact role. What our process kind of evolved into was, hold on a second. Before we fill that role with exactly the same profile, do we want to think strategically about that budget and repurpose the role or even return it to the business so that we have a little bit more optionality on the cash front in the future? Like, should we hold off just to be smart if we're a little bit in an uncertain economic environment? So that conversation was happening across the entire org. My job started to look very different too. So every throughout the course of 2024, every two weeks, I would sit down with our entire executive team, and we would go through open headcount, we would go through attrition. And we would agree on where do we want to prioritize backfilling in this moment in time versus just defaulting to backfilling everything with the same thing. And that was in service of pacing, hiring in the way that we felt really good about, in pace with business goals and pace with kind of like uncertainty with this market. There was a lot of change in the U.S. there's a big election that kind of, you know, can, can have downstream impacts on how people are thinking and feeling and behaving. And so we wanted to play it a little bit safer. And so that conversation was very much about pacing, hiring, pacing versus like hire as fast as possible. And so I offer this example because going back to your question, I do think this is. This goes back to the core of what great planning is, right? Planning always has to be connected to what is your business trying to accomplish. And are you working in tandem? Is the TA Org working in tandem with understanding what those business goals are? You and I were chatting a little bit earlier about this, but I like to think of it very simply as the thing that we're juggling at all times are three things. The balance between fast, cheap and good. How fast does hiring need to be? How cheap do we want it to be, and what's the quality that we want it to be quality. And that quality is subjective. It can look different in different times. And so again, like I mentioned, I do think that TA professionals were really trained on the fast part, and we do that super well. But if you just take a step back and look at your business context, then it's more about like the balance of those things and then aligning that to the vision of your executive team. So I said a lot of things there. I'm going to pause for a sec to see if that answered your question. But that's a little insight into how we thought about it at Greenhouse.

So I love that I have several questions for you, but let me start with your KPIs, because in a world where you're scaling like crazy, you mentioned 10Xing over 10 years and obviously the boom of 21, 22, and a lot of organizations, SaaS, organizations like yourselves, we're just hiring, hiring, hiring. Right. The metrics there probably look more traditional in terms of time to hire, time to fill, maybe some quality metrics, et cetera. Do the metrics change when you're moving more towards a planning approach? When you're looking at considered hiring, not necessarily refilling all the backfills, have you found you've had to Adapt your metrics. Have you changed the way you measure them? You know, are the metrics that the business wants to hear about different the ones that you would have perhaps used three, four years ago? What thoughts do you have around that?

Yeah, that's funny you bring that up because I was literally having a thread, a related thread, about one particular metric with our CFO this morning, and that one was around our backfill rate. So, you know, again, like, a lot of us are used to a world where someone leaves the business, you have a really stressed out hiring manager who wants the. Wants a new hire yesterday, and like, you're in a scramble to fill that gap. What the backfill rate represents to us is when people leave a business and we have an opportunity to rethink the design of an org, how often are we filling it with the same role and how often are we being strategic about looking at taking a hard look at that budget and saying, actually, if I take these dollars and I put it in this part of the team and I repurpose it for this purpose, it actually helps us accelerate our goals better than just defaulting to this role that existed. Because the role that existed might have been a decision that was made like one year ago, two years ago, if the person was there for a long time, five years ago. And so just because there's a gap doesn't always mean you plug it in with the same exact thing if you're being smart about using your resources. We call this dynamic resource planning at Greenhouse, and I really like that term because I think when people hear resource planning or people think about, you know, finance coming into the room, they think, they think it can be scary or it can feel like a blocker, like, oh, am I going to be prevented from accessing dollars that I need to do the thing I think I need to do. But dynamic resource planning is really about looking at dollars in a little bit more of an objective way and saying, like, okay, well, if we no longer have this, if we no longer have, whether it's a technology or a person that had this cost and the cost is now available, like, how do we think about it in a way that is for the good of the business, not just like defaulting to what it was and plug it in the best way possible. Now it might be that we. The best thing possible is to plug it. Plug in exactly what you had. So, for example, like, if you have an account executive or a sales role, a tied to a quota, like, their quotas all roll up into the revenue that a Company generates. And so on our end, like sales backfills are very easy. Like we approve them very easy if they're tied to a quota. Because we have already forecasted that we need a certain amount of salespeople to hit our revenue targets. But if there's other roles that aren't as connected to revenue, that maybe are legacy roles, then we'll take a really hard look at it and say, how do we want to use this budget? And that's where the conversation is really important to elevate to the executive level. Because again, if you stay at the hiring manager level, very often, if they're kind of like several clicks below the executive level, the feeling will always be, oh no, I no longer have a person I used to have. That's not good. And you know, 99.9% of the time a hiring manager will come to you and say they want to backfill the role. But it's important to bring that kind of like strategic, kind of higher level thinking into the conversation around like, hey, department head, is this the way that you want to repurpose or think about your budget?

Would that operational excellence across the business translate into decisions, for example, to bring in technology in particular, maybe AI technology to manage a process rather than headcount, which perhaps was looking after that process in the past and maybe has that even happened in your own team?

Yes. So technology is a huge piece of how we've been thinking about operational excellence. We had a strategic focus in 2024, we, as in the TPNA team, to mature our systems and our processes for further efficiency. I'm just gonna. The caveat that I'll say there is. Sometimes I struggle with. Sometimes I struggle with only thinking about efficiency. And the reason I say that is because, you know, efficiency is really about getting more done with less resources or like less time. But that doesn't always mean that they're connected to the most important thing. Right. So if I brought in a tool that allowed me to contact 200 people in the with a click of a button, is that efficient? Because, you know, as a sorcerer, that that would be my day job responsibility. Perhaps, yes, but is it effective? And what I mean by that is, you know, if you weren't, if you blasted, you know, 200 people and the messaging was not personalized and know folks kind of dismiss your message because they know it's just an automated thing, then it's not effective in terms of generating the return of people responding to you, or like converting into candidates. And so I like efficiency. I'm a big fan of efficiency because I'm a big fan of anything that saves time or saves money. But I'm also a big fan of thinking about is it connected to. Is it connected to an outcome that is actually relevant to what we're trying to accomplish? So I would say one of the biggest things that we've done is we've taken a hard look at who are our trusted vendors that we already use when it comes to the TA Tech stack. Obviously we use Greenhouse, and obviously we are fans of Greenhouse. And it's always like a personal goal of my team to we call it practice what we teach. So what that means is we want to be best users of our own product in the way that works for us, our company stage. And so we'll look at things like our TA Tech stack, how we're using Greenhouse recruiting, which we call ghr. And then we also looked at tools that will help introduce more efficiency into our interviewing process. So, for example, one tool that I'm a huge fan of is brighthire is an interviewing intelligence tool that basically comes into I see you nodding, you must be familiar with it. It comes into your interviews, it records the interviews, transcribes them, and provides AI summaries. And I'll just give you a tidbit of an example of how that's introduced efficiencies. So when you go into an interview, you're kind of like typing away your feedback because you want to follow a structured hiring process. And then usually after the interview, you clean up the notes and you submit the feedback. Bright Hire allows us to not have to. It makes two things easier in that whole process. So one, because the the interview is being recorded, you're not just like furiously typing, you're like actually engaged with the candidate and providing a better experience. And we've had so many interviewers come back to us and say like, oh my God, it's amazing to not have to take notes, because I know I can rely on this technology to summarize everything for me. Then in the act of actually reviewing the notes and making a decision as an interviewer, whether to move forward with this person or not. And I do want to be very clear, like the AI in Brighthire, it helps summarize, but it is not a decision maker. The decision making is still with the human and the interviewer saying, this person passed or this person did not. But as you're reviewing the notes and cleaning them up, that used to take upwards of 30 minutes per scorecard. But with BrightHire, because of the AI, summaries, it's reduced that to 10 minutes or less. Because you can do it with a click of a button. You mostly verify it. You still have to provide those, the overall key takeaways as like a human on like what you thought, the overall, how the overall interview went. But Bright Heritage does a lot of that heavy lifting for you. So if we're talking about operational excellence, like we've used Brighthire for more than 5,000 interviews last year. And if you think about 5,000 scorecards being submitted where, you know, historically they would have taken 30 minutes, but now they're taking 10 minutes or less, those are hours and days saved for the organization and time saved is money saved. And so that's a good example of like looking really strategically at like, what are the technologies that I'm using that will help with operational excellence in a way that, you know, is aligned with the goals that we have.

So when you think about, I guess the, you know, we talk about the KPIs and how they've evolved over the last. While you talk about, you know, getting time back and being more productive in what you do, you know, how have the team themselves, your recruiters, felt about these changes? Is it something that is driving them to perhaps take on a different role? You mentioned, obviously if they're saving minutes, for example, in their note taking, they're more present in their interviews. Have you seen their role shift as you've become more aligned with the planning of the business? You, as a leader, you're doing that and you're saving time. But have you seen the shift in your team? Are you trying to signpost a shift towards a different type of recruiter over the last couple of years as well?

That's a really fascinating question. I would say that there are two very distinct parts of my team. There is the core recruiting team, so recruiters supporting different departments across different geographies. And then there is a specific talent planning team. And this is where recruiter enablement comes from. This is where tech stack management comes from. This is where forecasting and reporting comes from. When it comes to like attrition and backfill rates and KPIs. The talent planning team is a small but mighty team. It's just about four individuals, but they do work that impacts the entire team and how the entire team thinks and works. So I would say the, the core job of a recruiter is it's, it hasn't been transformed as significantly as maybe that talent planning side has. With the exception that we are pushing our recruiters to Adopt AI features within our tech, within the tech stack that we use as much as possible. And I want to underscore that that's not easy, right, Because I think a lot of, I think for a lot of folks in TA, because it's such a funnel driven, metrics driven repetition heavy role or it can be when you have technology taking off a lot of that heavy lifting and the more manual stuff, the more repetitive stuff off your plate, then if you don't have a mindset, like a growth mindset or a mindset of embracing change, you. It can be very challenging for recruiters to adopt new ways of working. And so it isn't actually for everyone in this moment of time. But I think the really good recruiters have always been strategic thinkers, not just folks that are plugging in and doing, you know, running a process over and over again. And so, you know, what, what we're, what I've been trying to coach my leaders on doing is targeting a little bit more and activating a little bit more of that strategic mindset or around like, okay, well if I have, you know, bright hire taking off this much time off my plate, like what are ways that I can be a more strategic partner to the hiring manager that I'm working for? So for example, if recruiters have some time, Frida, we should do more talent mapping exercises. We should be coming back to hiring managers around like, hey, you know, you're looking for this kind of role. Here are some external benchmarks I found around, you know, average tenure of this role or certain profiles of this role or availability or competitiveness of finding the thing that you're looking for. And I think those, that's where like the true value comes from a recruiting partner when they're working together with a business leader.

You mentioned obviously the unique advantage you have as being the TA team within a piece of software, a company that makes a piece of software that most of our industry, a lot of our industry uses. Are there advantages there in terms of shaping the roadmap? Do you speak a lot with your product colleagues to give them insights on, hey, this is a problem we have that we don't maybe solve for as well as we should and can we fix this or you know, is it the opposite that because you're the in house TA team, it's the, it's the, the, the, the, the, the phrase the cobbler's children. You get that, you get the need, you get service last because you're not the paying external customer. What does that look like?

Well, one of the Top advantages is I don't have to pay for our own software. So I really love this topic. And with every person I've recruited to work on my team, if they're not jazzed about the opportunity to be in a company that is truly obsessed with great recruiting and to be basically a customer of our own product, if that doesn't get you excited, then this is probably not the job for you because that is a big part of kind of our ethos as a team. And I go back to the thing that I said earlier, which is we have the saying, we practice what we teach. Now. This is actually a core principle of our EVPR employee value proposition, but it's like very personal to our team specifically because there is an expectation that we should be using our product really, really well. So that comes with a big responsibility as well. So for example, our team rolled out a ton of upgrades, especially around AI in 2024. And there's like a really robust roadmap for 2025. And I did have this moment of like, wow, like the work of my team to adopt all those changes in real time and enable the recruiters to do that on top of all the hiring we have to do. Because it is that expectation at Greenhouse that we keep up with our product. That was a lot. And you know, everything that we build is not going to work for us. Right. Because if you think about Greenhouse as a company, like we're not a 10,000 person company and so we might, we service a lot of customers that are of that size, but we as a team are not of that size. And so we're not going to operate in that way. And so part of my job is to be very strategic about, like there are aspects of our product that won't necessarily work the best for us. So how do I pick and choose what out of the Greenhouse suite that I really hone in on? A lot of what we focused on last year were a bunch of our AI functionalities to help us with top of funnel to help us with screening and automation to help us with. There's this concept called Greenhouse verified that it would be another story to tell about, but basically positioning yourself in a differentiated way to the candidate market. And each of those things was a hefty project to learn to unfold the change management around and enable our recruiters around. And so I think again, going back to perhaps like the topic of talent planning, like one of the things that we always do on our team is we carve out a certain piece of our capacity to be able to do things like evolve our processes. Because I think a lot of the times TA leaders will capacity plan only thinking about hires per recruiter. But for us, because there is this big expectation around like we should be hiring and delivering on those goals, but also evolving the way that we work. And that takes work that takes time. So you have to carve out a specific chunk of your team's capacity to be able to do that too. I was just, I was recently presenting to our executive team at the start of this year all like of course, hiring KPIs because that's the core of my function, but also a lot of the strategic projects that we led. You know, we were rolling out Bret Hare across the company. We were adopting a lot of the new tools that Greenhouse is rolling out. We also came up with a candidate facing AI policy that we embedded into all of our candidate communications. We up leveled a lot of the ways that we worked with our HRIs. We up level the way that we think about global compliance on the recruiting side. And so these are a lot of other things that do not equal filling jobs, but they're just as important and they will probably help you fill the jobs faster. And so it's really important to like present that whole picture on all the things that you're doing as a team, not just, you know, the heads that you're hiring for because they're very, they're very interconnected. Like if you do both well, then it kind of like feeds into each other. Um, and I think that was a good moment for the executive team to be like, wow, like, you know, in addition to hitting hiring goals, like we were doing all these other things that were really, really great. And I think sometimes, you know, TA leaders might miss out on the opportunity to do that.

I, I have a final question for you, but it's a big question as you know, called a customer zero. In an organization that as you say, cares so much about hiring, so passionate about hiring because it's your business, it's, you know, it's all your customers and you deliver a product from that. You know, you've gotten to use processes that perhaps others aren't using yet. Use functionality in a piece of software that perhaps others aren't getting to use yet, you're thinking ahead of these things. When you look to the future and you're seeing all the innovation in AI, you're seeing the process improvement. To your point, you're seeing a shift maybe from reactive to more business aligned planning. What are some of the things you think about Personally, I'm not saying they're the greenhouse perspective, but your personal perspective as the customer 0ta leader within the organization that are likely to happen in recruiting and hiring over the coming years, whether it's connected to how we deliver our services, how candidates approach jobs, how we look at skills measurement, how we look at identity and trust, you know, what are some of the big things that you're thinking about and exploring the themes around what's next for hiring?

Yeah, one of the first things that comes to mind is candidate verification. What I mean by that is, you know, we're in this very interesting new world where candidates are using AI to often help them. Right? Like try to help them. Whether it's creating your resume, you know, helping you apply to mass apply the jobs. But I don't actually think it's helping them because it's just adding more noise to an already noisy market. And then on the employer side, you have companies toying and playing around with and exploring different AI tools, often at the top of the funnel because that's where the volume is just so unmanageable. Right. Like we live in this reality right now where if I post a job within a day, I'll have thousands of applicants and how do I cut through that noise? Like, we don't. And so, like, you're incentivized then to look at technologies to help you. Maybe do app review for you or maybe do initial screens for you. There's a lot of emerging companies in that space. I just spoke to such an interesting company that has AI agents that basically interview, take that first stage interview or first screen over chat. And it's fascinating. There's a lot of companies that are thinking about this problem statement. But I think the greater dynamic that we're seeing is here we have candidates trying to find jobs using AI in ways that they think will help them, but it's actually somewhat backfiring. And then you have employers that are also inundated with so many different AI tools. Like what TA leader at this point has not heard from their CEO, like, hey, let's use AI. Great. How so you have both sides kind of using AI and pointing it towards each other. I think one of the things that's happening and that I'm seeing patterns of is there's more candidate misrepresentation on the market. And, you know, when it comes to verifying the identity of the candidate, is this really the. Is this really this person that's on like the resume and verifying that they have the experience that they say they Do I think that verification is going to be a really interesting topic? You know, we're in this world right now where like, I'm not joking, like people are showing up into show, showing up to interviews with kind of like deep fakes. People are using AI to kind of live, kind of feed them answers to interview questions that they're hearing. Because we're in a, we're still in very much a virtual world. Like even if a job is in a certain location, someone might be somewhere else and you know, there's really no way for you to find out where they actually are. And we've had instances where we've had folks get through later parts of the process where you know, they initially articulated that they had a certain experience which we were later able to verify that they did not. So it's this really interesting world where because AI is making things so noisy, how do we filter through to what the truth is? And so you know what, that, what I'm seeing a trend in the conversation. Like for example, what I'm seeing a conversation emerge around is things like in person interviewing. Even if you're like a remote company, a lot of companies are reconsidering like, especially for leadership roles, like let's meet these people in person. Because it's a very high stakes thing to hire a new leader into your org and you kind of want to verify that this person is like a real person. They can interact with other people at the end of the day. Because a lot of, a lot of leadership is about interaction and collaboration. And so we're seeing interesting behavioral shifts based on this problem statement of it's a super noisy market. How do we get the signal of what the truth is around a candidate's skill set. The other thing too, we had a really interesting conversation with my team recently around take home assignments because very often there's some form of a take home assignment in an interview process like usually in like the early to mid stages. And our, the, our problem statement in that discussion was what is even a good take home test at this point? Because you know, we used to ask a candidate to, you know, put together a deck or put together some sort of writing sample or et cetera. And now folks can do like that with AI. And so are we okay with that? What does that mean if they do that? And how do we even test properly? So our st. Our current stance on AI in the interviewing process is not that we forbid it. Like there are companies that explicitly say you cannot use AI in your interview process. We actually don't say that our stance is the same stance, AI or not, which is we do not support misrepresentation or we do not support plagiarization in the interview process, whether you use AI or not. And there are actually parts of certain interview processes where we welcome the use of AI because we want to get a sense of how well you use it, for example, with engineering and prompting. So it could look very different for each company. But anyway, to get back to your question, when I think about the future, I think a lot about kind of going back to the human. How do we verify who we are? How do I verify. I'm talking to Johnny right now? I don't know. You might be AI and where are you in the world? I don't know either. So there's going to be some. I think there's going to be a lot more scrutiny and a lot more technology that probably emerges around this space to help companies understand, like, when they're again trying to recruit the best people for their jobs. Like, are they really actually talking to that person?

I love those concepts. We have another podcast to record on that whole topic, I think, for our next session. Thank you so much for sharing your time today, your insights. Like, it's fascinating how you're taking your recruiting team, how you're thinking about recruiting leadership, how you're thinking about the future, and how you're leveraging some of the fantastic tech that Greenhouse is producing in its recruiting software. Really appreciate you joining us today, Arianna. Thanks for sharing those words of wisdom and we look forward to doing it again.

That was super fun. Thank you for having me.

And this is the real Johnny Campbell, not the deep fake Johnny Campbell signing off. And a huge thanks to the real Rasheen, Niall and Simon in our production team for making today's episode. If you like this episode, come back for more next week. You can follow us on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to give us a like and and give us a review. If you feel you've got something good to say. You've got nothing good to say, don't do it. But it's all real. No deep fakes, no AI. Just social talent. We'll see you next week.