Talking Rebound Hiring with David Brammer

It's not an interview because you already know that they've got the basic attributes and skills to do the job because they've already done it. You were sad that they left. It's more about having a kind of adult to adult conversation that says, right, what was it that made you want to leave in the first place? And if you did want to leave, what can we do to overcome that? You know, that is going to enhance the positives of what you enjoyed about working here previously and removes the negatives.

Hello and welcome to Work Smart, a podcast from Social Talent that's all about becoming more work smart. I'm Johnny Campbell, CEO and co founder of Social Talent and this week we're talking to David Bremmer. David Bremmer has been in the retail space for all of his career. He's a VP of Talent Acquisition that's worked with companies like TK Maxx, Boots, Kingfisher, who own B and Q and Ocado, who you may not have heard of, but have been a big explosion in the retail scene over the last couple of years. Dave is going to be joining us today to talk about rebound hiring. Let's do this. David, you're very welcome to the podcast. Wondering if you could just share a little bit about your career background and what brought you here.

Yeah. David Bremer, I've worked in TA now for over 20 years. I started in consulting like lots of people do, back with a company called Computer People for about four or five years where I run accounts for Ministry of Defense and then subsequently worked in energy, banking, finance and more predominantly, as you said, like retail sectors and E comm sectors over the last kind of 10 years of my career really as a head of TA. And yeah, now I'm doing some consulting work currently with Kantar Public. And here we are.

That's me, Rebound hiring. Tell me a little bit about the topic, why you're passionate about it, why it's been something you've been talking about recently.

So I'm super, I'm super passionate about it. It's a topic that I don't think in the kind of companies are heavily indexing enough on. Right. So, so you start so many kind of conversations in my experience and in my past experience where you talk to a hiring manager and they say, oh, do you remember like Miguel, you know, we need someone like Miguel. And you kind of go, well, what's wrong with Miguel? Like, why wouldn't you want to talk to Miguel, right. And kind of bring him back? Or, you know, Sandeep or, you know, whoever it might be. And that kind of just got me thinking. And even this has been years for me in the making, right? But I started working on something along these lines back at Boots back in about 2011, 2012. And I actually created a team at the time, a small team of only just four people who would work basically on calling back through people who had left us. And this is pre gdpr, right? So let me just kind of lay my stall out. We were using data within the confines of the system back then. We would just routinely call people at a point where they'd left us. They'd been gone for a month, they'd been gone two months, three months. And what I actually found was that once you calibrated good levers versus bad leaders, so the people that you wanted back versus the people you didn't, if you were to reach out to people, we were typically able to re engage between 10 and 20% of the talent that we'd lost that we didn't want to lose, right? So with Boots, that manifested itself in a really positive way. And we rehired a series of optometrists that we were largely on the hook with agencies for because it was a really agency dominated market and whatever we tried to do internally was very difficult to try and kind of get the direct source type numbers that you would expect. I then used it furthermore, more recently with Ocado and the tech team. Again, we rehired approximately 10% of the people that we reach back out to from the tech space. And, and I think it comes down to one fundamental thing really, is that people leave companies for a multitude of different reasons, right? So they might lose leave because of money or because of their boss, or because they're not getting the furtherment or that kind of talent trajectory that they were looking for. And actually it doesn't really matter what the reason is. In a number of instances, people pride kind of gets in the way, right? So there's a proactivity that's required when it comes to rebound hiring that is absolutely necessary. And it's predicated on having really good recruiters who are really humble and able to have good conversations. But 70% of people, when I did a poll on this, 70% of people would not routinely reach back out to their old company if their new company was not what it was promised to be, which I think called a magnitude of stories, right? So if you're in that, 70% of people that wouldn't have, you know, the ability to overcome their pride, right? Or the Humility to kind of pick up a phone and say listen to my old boss made a mistake. I didn't realize how much I valued my previous job. I've got to the new company. It's not what I expected. Yes, the money's better, but I'm working with people that I don't really respect or value or whatever it might be. And the challenge isn't quite what they suggested it would be if you take that out of their hands and you kind of routinely make phone calls at a three month period and then six month period period and you track your bad levers so the people you didn't want to leave stuff just connect and talk to people and have meaningful conversations with them. You can re engage and you can rehire and typically it could account for up to like 10% of your total hiring. If your attrition as it was in Boots and as it was in Ocado and technology, you know, if your attrition is suggesting that you have an opportunity, if you're at a company that's 200 people and you've got a 5% attrition rate, this is not necessarily for you. Right. But if you're in a large enterprise business like an Ocado, like an Amazon, like a Meta or whatever, if you're really not tapping into your Boomerang community or your rehires, then you're really missing a trip.

So what stunned me about what you're saying there, David, is the time period because have heard about boomerang hiring, a rebound hiring in the past, I've made an assumption, obviously incorrectly, that this is about people who left you three, four, five years ago. But I'm getting the sense that you're saying it's actually not that it's in the first three to six months or less even. And that's the opportune time. What kind of data or insights do you have on the sweet spot? Time to reach out to somebody.

So I guess that that's where the differentiation comes in between what's a rebound and what's an alumni. Right. And the reason that I kind of, I emphasize quite heavily on the three to six months is because I think that's the best time for you to capitalize on someone who's having an auto reject approach with a company. Right. So if you've gone to a company and it's really absolutely not sitting well with you, then that's your window of opportunity at three months. That's also where your probationary period is, Right. Typically. And then if that Gets debt extended out, it goes to six months. When I'm talking about this kind of stuff, I don't want you to think that rebounds only constitute people who bounce back into the company after three or six months. That's absolutely not the case. But the differentiation in the terminology that you might use is what's a rebound versus what's an alumni hire? Because if you commit very well to your alumni networks and you start communicating with people on a really meaningful level about we're still doing that, we're still doing that, we'd love to hear any referrals that you've got for this or for that. You're embracing that community and communicating well with it. That's when it becomes your alumni community maybe six 12 months down the line. And that will be different for every company. But the rebound period, I just think you have an extra gift. There's like that extra nugget of opportunity I think at that three month window where if you're really tracking incredibly brilliant successful people who leave, you can bring them back in.

I think you and I have been doing recruiting since probably the same time, right. When we were nappies in the 90s.

But.

I've always found this pattern and I say it to people when they're in a job a long time, like let's say five, six years plus, almost certainly the next job they have won't work out and then they'll have to move to another job that will work out. It's kind of when you're a long time in a company, you typically are let down, your expectations aren't what you expect in the very next job you take almost certainly, and then the job after that is a bit better and you stay gears perhaps. Have you seen any patterns in, you know, this is more successful people who've been with the company a long time leave or short term and leave or is there no pattern?

The thing is with, with the whole rebound hiring piece, there isn't a lot of data out there on this, right. So unless you've routinely done this as a company and as an institution, you won't have that type of data. Statistically, if someone leaves after like 10 years worth of service, they're probably leaving for much bigger reasons, right? They might be relocating, they might be doing whatever, you know. But I think the opportunity really is, is within probably your more transient communities and probably within certain generations too, right? So if you're just trying to engage people of a certain demographic at a certain level to rehire, that makes absolute sense. The chances are you're probably not going to be trying to go out and rehire your ex CPO or your ex chief marketing officer. There was probably a very good reason why they moved on in the first place. And companies tend not to circle back at that type of executive level. But what I'm talking about here is typically the rebound hiring piece works where you've got a specific skill set or a niche skill or a volume skill set. So if I take us back to the Boots example, at Boots there were, when we're talking about optometrists, there were 12,000 registered optometrists in the UK at that time, right. Boots had had pretty much every optometrist either go through their pre grad or grad students, right, for a number of years and they employed a couple of thousand optometrists, I believe it was at the time, can't remember. We had a very specific market, a very specific skill set and we were able to tap into that very, very simply because we had the gift of data. But also it was a very transparent and transactional space. So you could consistently approach every optometrist with the view that actually the only differentiating factor would probably be the location that they were going to work in. I think it's very different these days. If you're talking about very specific people in very specific, you know, kind of areas of tech, if you're talking back end Python, front end Java guys, whatever it might be, right? You probably wouldn't necessarily apply exactly the same logic. But the premise of trying to kind of re re engage and re reach out to these people is that there's more to be done. You feel like there's kind of unfinished business. And whether they left because it was money, because they weren't getting the progression, they weren't doing this, they weren't doing that, you know, and they felt unsatisfied, you have to. The biggest challenge with it is about re engaging them on the level of which they left. Because if not what you're going to see is much like with counter offers, someone might take a counter off that they may stay in their company, right? But then statistically x amount then still leave within six to nine months. You have to overcome the objection what it was that made randomly place. If you're just going to routinely offer them more money, they may well come back initially, but they'll probably still be dissatisfied for the same reasons they left in the first place.

David, I'm concerned that maybe some leaders listening to this might be slightly dismissive because they're thinking oh, in retail that works. You know this guy worked in Boots, he worked in TK Maxx. But Ocado, just to be clear, Oddo is an E commerce business that's a lot more similar to a corporate organization with developers and engineers. But. And this worked there too, is that correct?

Yeah, it not only did it work there, but it worked in tech. Right. So I was, I was very lucky though in the sense that we had some, some fantastic leaders within that tech space who were really, you know, they were part of it. You know, they wanted to be part of this kind of co op of ideas and things that we tried and different solutions and stuff. And the whole rehiring thing or the boom boomerang hiring piece, we, we trialed it across two or three different areas and we got an over 10% kind of rehire rate at the time, which was great. And that's tech within a really high end AI, automation and robotics kind of space. We're not talking about Ms. Office engineers, we're talking about really top end engineers. And I think it can be applied to any given market. And yes, I guess you can kind of write me off as the retail guy or the E Com guy, right? And say well yeah, I get why it works there, but the truth of it is for a lot of the skills that a lot of companies have, hiring is really expensive. And it's not just really expensive because if you look at, you know, the comparative between agency versus in house, it's super expensive because of the opportunity costs. Right? There was statistic that said that it can cost up to 75% of the basic salary of the individual based on opportunity costs, roll off times, roll up times to your new hire, etc. Etc. Right? And you can have an inefficiency up to 75% of the salary. So if there's a company who can take someone who not only has the knowledge of the business, the knowledge of the systems, the knowledge of the people and the objectives and how the organization works, who is also by the way going to get back up to speed at least 10 times faster than a complete new starter to an organization, why wouldn't that be a total no brainer? Right? But also why wouldn't you want to stay connected to these people?

You mentioned at the start you make a split, if you like, between those who want to rehire, those who don't want to rehire. How do you get that information? Like is it that, is it captured when the person resigns, you ask the hiring manager, would you rehire this person or is it just on a case by case basis, you're going back to each previous manager to ask them.

So I think how you differentiate between a good lever and a bad leaver is all dictated by your exit process and your exit interview process. Right? So as a business, the HR BP will know if someone has been managed out of the business through performance or, you know, misconduct, whatever it might be. And of course those people, you know, the business would probably or very, very likely choose not to re engage. Right. But it's all dictated largely by the consistency of that exit interview process and how you identify those levers. And realistically, that can in some companies look like the HR BP does the exit interview. In some instances a hiring manager might do the exit interview, which is a bit silly because of course, if the hiring manager is the problem and that's why someone's leaving, of course you're never really going to probably hear that, or maybe, maybe you will, and that might be a bit explosive. In some instances. I've even heard of recruiters kind of doing the exit interviews, which is bizarre. You need to have the data to be able to support that in the first instance. And that is a really important calibration. If you don't calibrate who is a good leader versus a bad lever, what you could actually end up doing is causing some kind of very difficult legal difficulties if you've ended up managing someone out of the business and they're on a comp agreement or something along those kind of lines. So, yeah, something really to pay attention to if you can. Exit interviewing online is very useful because then you get the insight, you get to share that, you get to put that and segment it by different departments, by different teams, by different leaders, different levels, different locations, and then you can feed that back in and use that also for your evp, which I think is super important.

What's the process of. I hate to say the word because maybe this is the wrong word, re interviewing somebody. Do you re interview them? Or is the case of if you want the job back, it's yours, what does the process look like?

I think it depends on what the problem is that you're trying to overcome. Right. So if someone left the business and it was on the basis of salary, let's say. Right, So I used to work for a retailer and I won't say which one it was because I don't think it'd be particularly diplomatic, but I used to work for a retailer and we would routinely lose people to competitive retailers down the street. So someone may be on a 45k salary. The competitor down the street has offered them 50, but then we wouldn't give them the 50 to get them stay. We would let them leave, however, and then we'd rehire them in a year's time on 53, which was absolute madness. Right. And that happened routinely like all of the time. I guess what it comes down to is you've got to be comfortable that a, is that person or those persons coming back into the same team is what you have to offer what they had previously. The question then is what is the obstacle that you've got to overcome? Is it salary? Is it that they didn't like the leader that they were working for? Is it that they just didn't work very well within that specific team? Is it that they wanted furtherment and you couldn't give it to them, so you need to just have it? It tends to be a one stage conversation. It's not an interview because you already know that they've got the basic attributes and skills to do the job because they've already done it and you were sad that they left. It's more about having a kind of adult to adult conversation that says, right, what was it that made you want to leave in the first place? And if you did want to leave, what can we do to overcome that? You know, that is going to enhance the positives of what you enjoyed about working here previously and remove the negatives. Because if not it's just going to work like that kind of cancer offer culture, like I said before, where you, you just going to end up losing people like six, nine months down the line. You have to commit as a company to fix what it was that that person left for. And so, yeah, typically that's a one stage conversation rather than it is an interview. And it also tends to be in person most effectively.

I'd imagine that there are some instances where the person's going to rejoin in a different team or a slightly different role because maybe there wasn't the opportunity when they left and now it does exist three months later? Or you really like the person to your point, you have the conversation, it's maybe about the boss, they don't want to go back and work for that boss. They love the company, love the culture. You know, does that typically then instigate a new interview because it's a slightly different team or role or, you know, how flexible is this process?

Definitely. I mean there has to be some, I think you need some policies and principles. Right. So your policy probably says, do we rehire people who left us, you know, under a black cloud of performance and whatever that if we rehire someone and they're coming back A, into a different role or B, to a different hiring manager or department or location, do we have an interview? Yes, if they're coming back to exactly the same or previous substantive role that they held. Do you go through an interview process? Probably not. I think it's just about kind of setting it up in a way that's going to kind of be successful for you and for your business. Right. So if you normally have like a seven stage interview process and if someone's going to come back into a kind of a more or a less technical role, you might want to put them through some of the kind of the, you know, the process, obviously. But largely what we're talking about here is the types of skill sets where you're going to rehire people typically to do similar, if not slightly different roles to what they've been doing previously. You're not going to be reaching out to necessarily a marketing manager and saying, would you come back as our chief marketing officer? Right. So I guess the differentiation is are you coming back as an engineer or an engineering team leader or an engineering manager or blah, blah, blah, just to use the, you know, the types of terminology we've been using so far. But I think it's all about policy. You have to set this stuff up in the first place and have some basic guidelines and principles that set it up and they'll either set it up for success or, or they'll set it up for failure.

Do you ever get, you mentioned obviously the pride piece from the cat from the employee who left. Right. But what about the other way around? Do you ever get any pushback from the manager? You know, she said, you know, this employee was great, we'd rehire them. But then when, when the opportunity arises to rehire them, they're just not as happy because maybe they, I don't know, maybe they said things about that person when they left the rest of the team or did that ever come up where you get the opposite problem?

It's not massively come up in my experience. But I mean, obviously take into account this. It's not typically me that's calling these guys. Right. It's the teams that I have. So I might hear occasional kind of anecdotal feedback of, well, yeah, we would definitely rehire them. We're really, they were really good. But sometimes it's kind of like, yeah, they were, they were amazing at their job and they did a fantastic job and we could really do with that set of hands right now. But you know what, they were a little bit disruptive with the team or, you know, they were quite distracting to other people or that kind of thing. And I guess you just kind of got to add it up, right. And top things up and kind of say, well, was that person, you know, were that person's downsides more of a problem than their upsides? And if so, they would be on the. No, no highlights. Right. So you may occasionally get a bit of bad feeling if someone has left a team and they've come back at a slightly higher level as a result of leaving. Right. So let's say that they re engineer, you know, re entered the business and they did so at a slightly higher level than the level that they were at previously. You do run the risk, of course, of alienating or kind of isolating other people who were also at that level and chose not to leave and chose to stick around. Right. So you've just got to be kind of clear on your guiding principles as to why you want to do this stuff. That's the key for me.

So you mentioned the example from your past of the regular occurrence of folks leaving, let's say for 40 on 45 grand, for 50, coming back at 53 the year later, right?

Yeah.

2023 being a seminal year for pay transparency legislation. We've seen the EU introduce a new directive in July 2023 that has three years reinforced by law across the EU that's going to require the publication of job salary ranges and it's going to ban asking candidates to meet their current previous salaries. The US has done the same in states like Washington, New York, New Jersey, et cetera. There's California and stuff. And this seems to be gaining momentum. The UK has started a two year pilot for companies to volunteer for this as well. So it's likely going to come into the UK as well in the next couple of years with that in mind. Right. Where you'll have a situation that if I'm in a team and I got to see roles advertise, we know that people externally typically earn more money. Right. Than the existing team there. Do you think that could lead to more people exiting because they're, you know, not happy with this disparity and therefore, you know, driving perhaps more of a need to have an approach to boomerang or rebound hiring because, you know, it's really addressing this pay imbalance we all know exists, but it's going to really become more public over the next few months and years.

Yeah, definitely. I think, you know, in one of my previous companies, again, I won't say which one it was, I brought together a couple of different recruiting teams as part of that work, right. And there was massive disparity in the recruiter salaries, just in the fact that some of them were super tenured, some of them weren't. Some of them had been in the business for a short time because they'd been in four or five other companies and they'd work their way up the kind of the salary levels, right. And then came in and arguably had less experience than people they were working alongside, but they were earning so much more. You directive is going to mean over the next three years is that companies have really got to get their act together when it comes to the, you know, internal disparities of pay and salary, and woe betide them if they don't, because, yeah, it is going to lead to a huge, you know, tsunami of levers when it comes to people who just feel undervalued and underpaid oftentimes. I'm sure you've seen this and, you know, I've seen recruiter salaries. You know, I've paid recruiters as high as £100,000 in the past. In my teams, I've paid recruiters as little as, you know, 27, 28,000 pounds, and arguably they're doing a comparable job. What you're paying for is the extensions, right? But I think what this new EU regulation is going to do is it's going to force companies to be a little bit clearer and it's going to force just that greater level of granular kind of transparency that is going to enable people to make decisions about whether they do or do not want to move between companies, between industries, whatever, right? You know, if you're in hospitality, traditionally, not as a rule, but traditionally, salaries can be a lot lower than if you are working in one of the big tech firms or in one of the big banking firms, or even the big four, right? And if you are able to mindfully make that decision about your career and about your future based on facts, that's a positive thing. The biggest opportunity to fail here is by the companies and, you know, the comp and Benz directors who just don't face into it quickly enough and regulate stuff and get things leveled out. And it won't be down to ta, it'll be down to reward.

So if you're a TA leader, listening to this podcast, watching this broadcast, and you're excited about this, you think, okay, I need to be looking at this. What's your kind of final recommended first step? Like, where do you start as a TA leader? If you want to start investigating this, put some effort behind it, think there's an opportunity here? We do scaled hiring. What do you recommend is the first thing a leader can do to start this process in their organization?

You've got to look at the data, right? You got to look at the data, you've got to look at the trends, you've got to understand what it means for you and for your organization, right? So if you are within an organization that hires a specific number of people for a very specific role. So let's say you're a huge call center business and you have absolutely loads of people that work for you in different shared service centers and that kind of stuff, you've got a huge gift of opportunity to be able to kind of look at the data that you have of your levers. You know, if you've got any talent data, which a lot of companies don't necessarily have, just around, you know, talent grids and nine boxes or, or whatever it might be, you can then correlate it against that and see, you know, which particular levers are going who are high potential, try and do some research into why they're leaving. But ultimately, you should be able to tell where you've got really high attrition, and that's where you start your work, really. We had huge high attrition in the optometrist space in Boots, and that was why I started it there. We piloted it, obviously, then within. Within Ocado, and I'd done different bits with. With TK Max on trying to rehire people, and I certainly did within Kingfisher, little bits of that as well. But it was never as targeted because when you're looking at kind of group head office or something like that, for an example, you might lose one marketing analyst, right? And then you might not need to recruit another marketing analyst for another 18 or 24 months, at which point it's not. It's not necessarily relevant. But if you're talking about being a company like Boots, you've got, you know, a couple of thousand pharmacists, a couple of thousand optometrists. That's a sweet spot. If you're, you know, an Accenture or, you know, one of these kind of really big kind of firms that has huge HR shared service centers or shared service centers, customer service centers in Poland, in. In the uk, in Scotland, wherever. That's absolutely a Sweet spot for you. I would start where the volume is, I would start where the attrition is, I would look at the data and I would go from there. And obviously, you know, I tend to be quite generous with my time. So pick up the phone, talk to me, and I'll happily kind of talk you through how I've done it in the past. There are one or two different platforms that are being developed right now out there that I won't kind of pitch today, but there are one or two different platforms that are out there right now that a product and a solution for this. And I think that will be the future of it for right now. If you're in a company that doesn't have a great ATS or doesn't have a great backlog of data or insight when it comes to your attrition, your turnover, your hiring volumes, etc. Then it's probably going to be a difficult thing for you to do without those systems. But if you do, it's got a lot of potential for you.

So this show is called Work Smart for a Reason. Right now, David, we want to focus on how you make yourself Work Smart if you do it all. Mate, are you ready?

Hey, go for it. I'm in.

Let's do it. Okay, David, we've got some Work Smart questions from the team at Social Talent behind these categories, right. Will let you pick the category you want to answer from the following six. So let me read them out for you. The categories are Teacher's Pet, Workspace Jam. The heck is Workspace Jam? Seesaw, Tool Time, the Chill Zone, or Robot Rock. What do you want to go for, David?

I'm immediately drawn to Teacher's Pet. Let's go with Teacher's Pet.

Ah. Okay, let's do it. Okay, so Teacher's Pet, let's do this. Question is, David, what place does learning hold in your career? What has been the role of learning in your career? Where do you position it? What does it mean to you?

To me, it means quite a lot. I. I'm a big fan of learning. I'm a big fan of. Of kind of how I now apply that as a leader of other leaders, if you know what I mean, to make sure that that kind of rolls down to the teams that you have the fundamental education and curriculum and stuff that people expect. But moreover, from a personal point of view, one of the best companies I ever worked for was TJX Corporation or TJX Europe, as they were at the time, which is the brand that owns TK Maxx. And homesets, right. And they invested just constantly, you know, in my development as a coach, as a mentor, you know, we were very loyal, you know, customers at the time, obviously of social talent, you know, and you and I, of which there were, you know, 30 or 40 people at the time. I'm not sure what they have now, but I think that was the last kind of big period of my career where I was invested in really heavily by an employer and, and I really valued it. And I think I've had it since in the form of not necessarily learning from a curriculum kind of point of view and stuff like that, but from the point of view of, you know, companies who will pay for the right support from a mentor, right. Or from an external coach for you to be kind of feeling like you're, you're kind of being developed and, and what have you. And also, once you kind of get to those kind of head of roles or the TA director type roles, typically there's not actually a load of kind of great content out there or great kind of courses and stuff to go on. It's a lot of university type stuff or an MBA in this or whatever it might be. So I think it's then learning becomes something different. Learning becomes the way that you digest it becomes kind of different. So it's like webinars and it's about kind of going to lunch and learns, or it's about kind of going to networking dinners where it's all kind of Chatham House rules. Everybody's sharing really interesting kind of anecdotal stories about cool stuff that they're doing. I think the way that you learn becomes very different throughout your TA career. I think there's a lot of tactical, operational stuff that you need to learn in the fundamentals and the basics when you're a recruiter. And then you learn more about partnering and how that works. And then as you get up the ladder, you learn more about CapEx and OpEx and how you can work budgets and how you work with the board on an esg, you know, on your ESG commitments and that kind of stuff. Once you get to the kind of the top, and it's, I guess, the way that you learn and how much there is to digest changes. And I find that I learned so much more from having amazing conversations with amazing peers out in the business, out of the industry, sorry, is really my best learning these days and I value it hugely. I literally had three conversations with three different heads of TA yesterday and I tend to talk to seven, eight people a week. I See it as part of my learning. I love that.

I agree with you. I probably spent too much time at home, my home office, in the pandemic the first couple of years and then last year didn't get out enough. This year I've got out. I've met with maybe 40 or 50 customers so far this year and it's the best education you get just talking to leaders. What's your problem? What are you working on? How are you fixing it? What are you thinking of? And there's no, there's no master's degree that's going to teach you that stuff. It's just gold. David, thank you so much for joining us today. Listen, you've left us with tons of, of education and learning. You've taught a lot of our listeners and guests so much here today. If anyone wants to follow up with you, get any more information, how can they reach out to you?

LinkedIn or you can send me an email. I'm happy to give out my email address. It's davidondu IO B O N D U I O and I'll happily come back to any emails. Connect with me on LinkedIn, reach out. I'm happy to have a chat with anybody, much to my wife's frustration because I'm just constantly walking around the house 24 hours a day on my phone and she doesn't always realize that I'm talking and then she just interrupt me and ask me some, you know, questions about a sandwich or something. I'll be like, I'll just on the phone to the TA director of blah, blah, blah.

I think that's a different show. He wants to. Dave, never marry your recruiter. It's like you got to know what you're going to get into. This person's going to talk all day long. They're going to get to 6 o' clock and they're going to want to talk to nobody else. Because you're dull.

Yeah, exactly. My wife wants to talk about her day when she's finished at my, at the finish of my day I just want to sit myself on the sofa and my talking is done. I do this all day, every day and I love it, it's wonderful. But by the time it gets to Eden, there's none left.

David, it's been an absolute pleasure. Thanks so much for joining us. We wish you every success. Keen to give some follow up with you then next time with your new, your next opportunity. We'd love to hear what you're doing, how you're bringing in rebound hiring in your next gig as well. But for today, thanks for joining us. It's been pleasure having you on Work smart.

Always a pleasure, mate. Thank you. Cheers.