Recruiting Toolbox

Got to or had to?
In his latest newsletter, John Vlastelica explores a subtle difference in how recruiters describe challenging experiences—and what it can reveal about their approach to Talent Advising.
“I got to work on a challenging role.”
vs.
“I had to work on a challenging role.”
The challenge may be the same. The mindset is different.
John argues that choosing hard things—difficult searches, challenging Hiring Managers, messy problems—is often how Talent Advisors build their skills, confidence, and value.

So, how do you describe the challenges in your career?
📩 Read John's latest newsletter and subscribe to Try Harder Is Not a Strategy:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H07MFv80

Got To vs. Had To: How do you describe your work? I’ve interviewed well over 100 recruiters and TA manager candidates for jobs on my corporate teams over the years. And when I evaluated Talent Advising skills, there were a few things I always listened for: Do they sound like a process manager who fills reqs — or more like a businessperson there...

What if Talent Advising has an adoption problem?

In his latest article, John Vlastelica explores an important challenge in the evolution of recruiters into Talent Advisors.
We spend time teaching recruiters to be more strategic—but how often do we teach hiring managers what great Talent Advising actually looks like?

As John puts it, you can’t order off a menu you’ve never seen. The ultimate test isn't the recruiter's title or training. It's whether business leaders seek out their judgment because they believe it will lead to better decisions.

📖 Read John's latest article:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H07yRm00

Hold Still While I Talent Advise You For years, the most savvy TA leaders I know have been telling recruiters they need to become Talent Advisors. Be more strategic.

Are recruiters operating like contractors—or consultants?

In his latest article, John Vlastelica explores how the recruiter role is changing as AI takes over more transactional work.
His key question is simple: What are we actually paying recruiters to do?
Is it to complete recruiting activities—or to help the business make better talent decisions?
John argues that the future belongs to recruiters who understand the business, challenge assumptions, improve hiring decisions, and help build stronger teams.
The goal isn't to find a more impressive title for recruiters. It's to make sure the value of their work goes far beyond a “contractor” mindset.

📖 Read John's full article:

Are you operating like a contractor or a consultant, or something else? I'm not one of those people who gets too caught up in the different meanings of similar words - goals vs mission, complicated vs complex. (Except for intake meetings vs strategy meetings - I will fight that fight).

Should your TA team focus on building a recruiting machine?
In his latest article, John Vlastelica argues that while AI can automate many recruiting tasks, technology alone won't create a competitive advantage.

The real differentiator? Recruiters who operate as Talent Advisors—building trust, influencing hiring decisions, and helping leaders make better talent decisions.

John's message is clear: use AI to eliminate administrative work, but invest in the human skills that technology can't replace.

📖 Read the full article:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H070lvD0

Are You Building a Recruiting Machine? About 10 years ago, at my Talent42 tech recruiting conference in Seattle, I watched two talent acquisition leaders give presentations just hours apart. The first was from Amazon.

Are hiring teams relying too much on proxies for quality?
In his latest article, John Vlastelica challenges a common hiring practice: prioritizing candidates from well-known companies, schools, or referrals simply because they feel like a safer bet.
John argues that the real issue isn't where candidates come from—it's whether hiring teams have the skills to consistently evaluate talent.
Some key takeaways:
• Strong candidate assessment is more valuable than relying on proxies.
• Expanding beyond "known" talent opens larger and often more affordable talent pools.
• Talent Advisors should play a bigger role in coaching hiring managers on how to evaluate candidates effectively—not just sourcing them.

As AI continues to reshape recruiting, John suggests the recruiter's role will increasingly evolve from finding talent to helping organizations make better hiring decisions.
📖 Read the full article:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H06wm5b0

Help our hiring managers move from known to unknown Hiring managers have depended on proxies for quality since I began recruiting the late 20th century :) On some level, it makes complete sense. Known candidates feel less risky and more predictable to many hiring managers than unknown candidates.

What will separate great recruiters from the rest in an AI-driven world?
According to John Vlastelica, it may come down to two things:
➡️ Being genuinely interested.
➡️ Being genuinely interesting.
In his latest article, John explores why curiosity remains one of the most important recruiting skills—and how it helps recruiters better understand the business, build stronger candidate relationships, and earn trust.
His message is simple: the best recruiters aren't just interested in filling roles. They're interested in people, interested in the business, and continuously learning from the world around them.
📖 Read the article:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H0661x90
📩 Subscribe to John's newsletter, Try Harder Is Not a Strategy, for more insights on recruiting leadership and talent strategy:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H0661zT0

More Interested + More Interesting = Better Recruiting Curiosity has always been one of the most important traits of great recruiters. And in an age where AI is taking over the transactional parts of our jobs, connecting, relationship building, building trust, and influencing capabilities will be the biggest differentiators between high paid talent advi