Tech Talent Acquisition

This is the most underrated way to use Claude: (and it has nothing to do with writing or coding) It's competitive intelligence. Using data that's free, public, and updated every single week. Here's my extract step by step guide: Step 1. Go to claude .ai. Step 2. Select the new Claude "Opus 4.6." Step 3. Turn on "Extended Thinking." Step 4. Pick a competitor. Go to their careers page. Step 5. Copy every open job listing into one doc. (Title. Team name. Location. Full description) Step 6. Save it as one .txt or .docx file. Step 7. Search the company at EDGAR (sec .gov) Step 8. Download its recent 10-K or 10-Q filing. (Official strategy, risks, and financials - all public.) Step 9. Upload both files to Claude Opus 4.6. Step 10. Paste this exact prompt: "You are a competitive intelligence analyst at a rival company. I've uploaded [Company]'s complete current job listings and their most recent SEC filing. Perform a strategic intelligence analysis: → Cluster these roles by what they suggest is being built. Don't use the team names they've listed. Infer the actual product initiatives from the skills, tools, and responsibilities described. → Identify capabilities or teams that appear entirely new — not mentioned anywhere in the SEC filing. These are unreleased bets. → Find roles where seniority is disproportionately high for a new team. This signals executive-level priority. → Cross-reference the SEC filing's Risk Factors and Strategy sections with hiring patterns. Where are they investing against a stated risk? Where did they flag a risk but have zero hiring to address it? → Predict 3 product launches or strategic moves this company will make in the next 6-12 months. State your confidence level and cite specific job titles and filing sections as evidence. Format this as a 1-page competitive intelligence briefing for a CMO." What you'll find: → Products that don't exist yet but will in 6 months. → Priorities that contradict what the CEO said. → Risks they told the SEC but aren't addressing. This is what consulting firms charge $200K for. It took me 10 minutes. I used the new Claude 'Opus 4.6' for a reason: ✦ It read 60 job listing & a 200-page filing together.  ✦ And connects dots across both. ✦ It is superior in thinking and context retrieval. That's why I didn't use ChatGPT for this.

When I was recruiting at a startup, I didn’t have LinkedIn Recruiter or fancy sourcing tools. So I got creative and turned to Google. There’s a trick called X-ray search that recruiters use to find talent. But job seekers can flip it to find roles that aren’t showing up on LinkedIn or job boards. It works because you’re searching company job boards directly specifically sites hosted by Greenhouse, Lever and Ashby which are the three most common platforms used by startups, tech companies and design forward teams to post jobs. Here’s how it works: Say you’re a Product Designer looking for remote roles. Pop this into Google: site:jobs.lever.co OR site:jobs.greenhouse.io OR site:ashbyhq.com "product designer" AND "remote" You’ll get real-time openings, straight from company career pages. Looking for something location-based and you’re a Social Media Manager in LA, use this: site:jobs.greenhouse.io OR site:jobs.lever.co "social media manager" AND "Los Angeles" You can plug in any title, industry or location that matters to you like “brand designer,” “UX internship,” or “marketing. coordinator” This is how I found amazing candidates when I had zero tools. Now I’m sharing it with you because the best jobs aren’t always on the front page. Try it and let me know what you find!

CrowdStrike just laid off 500 people. While we're told there's a 4 million person cybersecurity talent shortage. Make it make sense. I'm a cybersecurity recruiter. And I'm watching something that doesn't add up. The headlines say → 4.8 million unfilled cybersecurity jobs globally → 700,000 open positions in the US alone → "Desperate need" for security talent → Companies "can't find" qualified candidates But the reality? → CrowdStrike cut 500 workers (5% of workforce) → Sophos laid off 6% after acquiring Secureworks → CISA lost ~1,000 staff to layoffs and departures → 25% of security teams experienced layoffs this year → 38% faced hiring freezes So which is it? A talent shortage? Or a talent contradiction? Here's what I'm actually seeing Companies aren't cutting security. They're cutting security PEOPLE. And replacing them with • AI-driven tools • Managed security providers • Automation platforms • Outsourced SOCs The uncomfortable truth The "talent shortage" was never about bodies. It was about BUDGET. Companies overhired between 2020-2022. Now CFOs want "efficiency." And "efficiency" means fewer people doing more work. What this means for job seekers: The junior analyst role you're applying for? 150 other people are too. Many of them just got laid off from CrowdStrike, Sophos, or federal agencies. They have experience. Certifications. Clearances. The competition just got brutal. What this means for the industry We don't have a talent shortage. We have a HIRING shortage. Companies want senior engineers at junior prices. They want 10 years experience for entry-level roles. They want unicorns they don't have to train. And when they can't find them? They call it a "skills gap." My hot take Stop telling people to "get into cybersecurity" if you're not willing to hire them when they do. Stop claiming there's a shortage while laying off thousands. Stop blaming candidates for not having experience you won't give them. The cybersecurity talent shortage is real. But it's a shortage of OPPORTUNITY, not people. To everyone who just got laid off You're not the problem. The market is broken. Keep building. Keep networking. Keep going. Your skills are needed. Even if the budget spreadsheets say otherwise. What are you seeing in the market right now? #CyberSecurity #Layoffs #TalentShortage #Recruiting #InfoSec #JobMarket #CareerAdvice

The World Economic Forum’s #FutureofJobsReport 2025 has just been published, on January 9th, and as always, it offers fascinating insights into the shifting dynamics of the global job market. It is a long report, with lots of valuable data. From my perspective, this chart may be the most interesting view included in it. A goldmine for reflection and strategy. The #fastest_growing_roles are - almost all of them - dominated by #AI: Data Specialists, Machine Learning Experts, FinTech Engineers, etc. Notably, green tech (e.g., Renewable Energy Engineers, Environmental Engineers) is also surging. This underscores how deeply intertwined AI and sustainability have become in shaping our economies. Organizations investing in these areas are not just future-proofing their business—they’re building the future. On the other end, #declining_roles reflect a shift toward #automation. Jobs like Bank Tellers, Cashiers, and Data Entry Clerks are rapidly shrinking, displaced by technology that offers efficiency and cost savings. While this presents significant challenges for those in these professions, it also highlights the urgent need for upskilling and reskilling. Some Implications for Leaders: 1. Talent Strategy Must Evolve: Leaders need to focus on cultivating talent pipelines for roles that didn’t exist a decade ago. From DevOps Engineers to UI/UX Designers, the demand for skills at the intersection of technology and creativity is exploding. 2. Reskilling is Non-Negotiable: Companies must view reskilling as an investment rather than a cost. Employees in declining roles need pathways into emerging professions—this is as much about social responsibility as it is about long-term competitiveness. 3. AI Adoption is Key—but Ethical AI Even More So: The integration of AI isn’t just a trend—it’s a foundational shift. But as we adopt AI in business processes, ensuring ethical and inclusive implementation will differentiate the winners from the rest. In addition, this chart doesn’t just speak to business; it speaks to the broader socio-economic fabric. The gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” in terms of skills is growing. If we fail to address this through public and private partnerships, we risk creating a polarized workforce—one half thriving in high-growth industries and the other struggling in declining sectors. For me, the biggest takeaway is that growth and decline are two sides of the same coin. Where some see loss, others see opportunity. The challenge is ensuring we don’t leave anyone behind in this transition. I really hope that our government leaders, educators, institutional representatives, top managers, and as many people as possible will see, understand, and act based on this data...

Good strategic workforce planning is different from operational planning... ...because it looks much further ahead to determine what kind of workforce is needed to deliver the company’s long-term strategy. It can be a valuable and natural extension of the business strategy that yields a major competitive advantage, positioning a firm for sustained growth and innovation, no matter the changes to come. Key takeaways on the four principles to achieve that: 💡 It is future-back, not today-forward - the best leaders take a future-back approach—they envision the distant future and then build a plan to achieve it. They understand that good strategic workforce planning often enters an uncomfortable space where some aspects of the “how” are unknown. 💡It is uneven - Successful strategic workforce planning often involves focusing differentially on a few job families—groupings of roles with reasonable skill overlaps. The best plans focus exclusively on large or scarce workforce populations that expect to see change. 💡It is learning-based - leaders can guard against incorrect assumptions by making the plan easily adaptable and updating it each year based on what they’ve learned. They will watch carefully for the right signposts and distinguish between offsetting forces (e.g. leaders might make assumptions around increasing headcount due to business growth and decreasing headcount from automation productivity gains) 💡 It is simple enough to be repeatable - When leaders make the workforce plan too granular, it becomes a bureaucratic, wasted effort that the business resents. The best processes are tied to annual strategic planning. They feel like a light addition to thinking through the strategy’s people implications. Overall: A good strategic planning thoughtfully assesses both human and financial capital. HR teams can help the business define the future at the job family level in the same way that finance supports forecasting major P&L and capital lines. #workforceplanning #strategy

7 Talent & Career Shifts That Will Redefine India’s Job Market in 2026 Trend 1: Skill-Based Hiring Over Degrees Employers are prioritising portfolios, projects and practical assessments over college names, opening doors for non-traditional talent and making continuous upskilling more important than your original degree. Trend 2: AI-Powered Recruitment Will Become the Default AI-driven screening, matching and scheduling is cutting time-to-hire by double digits, forcing HR teams to redesign their processes and focus their energy on human judgment, not manual filtering. Trend 3: Mid-Career Professionals Will be in the Sweet Spot Demand is shifting strongly towards talent with 4–10 years of experience, giving mid-career professionals more bargaining power while making it tougher for freshers who don’t actively build future-ready skills. Trend 4: GCCs Will Turn Tier-2 Cities into Career Hubs Global Capability Centers are expanding beyond metros into cities like Coimbatore, Jaipur, Indore and Kochi, creating high-quality jobs in AI, product engineering and analytics closer to where talent actually lives. Trend 5: Gen Z Continues to Redefine Success at Work Young professionals are prioritising work–life balance, purpose and mental health over titles, pushing organisations to rethink career paths, flexibility, and how they communicate growth and leadership opportunities. Trend 6: Niche Skills Will Command Premium Salaries While average increments hover around 9%, professionals in areas like AI, data, cybersecurity and automation are seeing significantly higher hikes, widening the gap between specialised talent and generalists. Trend 7: Participation of Women in the Workforce Will Further Rise Growing female labour force participation and policy focus on care, safety and flexibility are nudging organisations to take inclusion seriously as a core talent and growth strategy.

Most HR leaders would hate me for saying this, but 90% of hiring metrics are useless. You don't need a dashboard with 47 KPIs. Here’s 7 numbers that actually predict whether your hiring is working: 1. Quality Applications Track how many candidates meet minimum qualifications versus total applicants. If you're getting 200 applications but only 10 are qualified, your job postings or employer brand need work. Quality beats quantity every time. 2. Time to Fill Days from requisition to accepted offer. Every day a role stays open costs productivity and team morale. Track by role type to identify bottlenecks…is sourcing slow? Interview scheduling? Decision-making? 3. Interview-to-Offer Ratio What percentage of interviewed candidates receive offers? If you're interviewing 20 people to make one offer, your screening process is broken. This reveals whether your pre-interview assessments actually work. 4. Offer Acceptance Rate What percentage of your offers get accepted? Low acceptance rates signal problems with compensation, candidate experience, or employer brand. Track by seniority level to see where you're losing top talent. 5. 90-Day Retention What percentage of new hires are still engaged and performing after 90 days? Early turnover is expensive and usually preventable. This metric reveals misalignment between expectations and reality. 6. Hiring Manager Satisfaction How do managers rate the candidates you deliver and the hiring process? Your internal customers' satisfaction predicts whether hiring best practices will stick. Low scores mean misaligned expectations. 7. Cost Per Hire All-in recruiting costs divided by hires made. Include recruiter time, tools, assessments, and external fees. Understanding true cost-per-hire enables better resource allocation and ROI discussions. TAKEAWAY: Most hiring teams measure activity instead of outcomes. These 7 metrics focus on quality, efficiency, and long-term success. Track what matters, improve what you measure.

"S&P 500 companies that excel at maximizing their return on talent generate an astonishing 300 percent more revenue per employee compared with the median firm" In many cases, these top performing firms are using strategic workforce planning to stay ahead of their competitors in the talent race, treating talent with the same rigour as managing their financial capital. In their article, Neel Gandhi, Sandra Durth, Vincent Bérubé, Charlotte Seiler, Kritvi Kedia and Randy Lim, highlight how the emergence of generative AI is making strategic workforce planning even more important (see page 3). The article highlights five best practices for building a holistic talent plan through SWP: 1️⃣ Prioritise talent investments as much as financial investments. 🔎 "Successful organizations recognize that their workforce is a strategic asset and investing in talent development and retention is essential for long-term health. Employees represent both an organization’s largest investment and its deepest source of value." 2️⃣ Consider both capacity and capabilities. 🔎 "To measure performance in critical roles, organizations can conduct an outside-in search to understand the skills in the highest demand." 3️⃣ Plan for multiple business scenarios. 🔎 "By implementing a scenario-based approach, organizations create flexibility for rapidly changing industry conditions." 4️⃣ Take an innovative approach to filling talent gaps – by refocusing from hiring to reskilling and upskilling. 🔎 "Hiring is cost intensive, since it takes time to onboard and ramp up an employee into a new role. While reskilling and upskilling also take time and resources, leaders can use these levers strategically, track their relative success, and shift gears as needed." 5️⃣ Embed SWP into business as usual: 🔎 "Strategic workforce planning should become a business-as-usual process, not just a one-off exercise in the face of a single threat to an organization’s talent pipeline or business goals." 👉 If you enjoy curated resources like these, please check out the Data Driven HR Monthly. Every month I select and curate some of the best HR, future of work and people analytics resources of the month. You can read the May edition here: https://lnkd.in/eQNX46qN 👈 #humanresources #workforceplanning #peopleanalytics #futureofwork #chiefpeopleofficer #orgdesign #hrtech #employeeexperience

Everyone says LinkedIn is where you source AI engineers. They're not there. Or rather — they're there, but they're not listening. Most ML engineers don't need to be "found" by a recruiter. They're already building credibility in public, on platforms most recruiters don't touch. I've been sourcing AI engineers for 18 months and LinkedIn is maybe 20% of the signal. The other 80% is spread across three platforms most TA teams have never systematically mined. Platform 1: GitHub. Specific query: topic:pytorch OR topic:tensorflow That surfaces 1,200 actively-maintained ML repos. I don't care about the repos themselves — I care about who's merging PRs into them. If someone's had code accepted into PyTorch or Hugging Face Transformers, they've been peer-reviewed by the most technical engineers in the field. That's a stronger signal than any resume keyword. Platform 2: Hugging Face. Over 2 million open-source models hosted. The ones with meaningful download counts (>10k) were built by engineers who can ship. Model cards also tell you how they communicate — which matters if they'll need to explain decisions to non-technical stakeholders. Platform 3: Kaggle. Grandmaster and Master tiers are verifiable by performance on real problems, not by credentials or job titles. Zero noise. The leaderboard doesn't lie. Here's the kicker: 1.6 million open AI roles globally. 518,000 qualified candidates. That's a 3:1 shortfall. You cannot hire into that gap using LinkedIn alone. The maths doesn't work. I'm building a sourcing playbook around these three signals — GitHub topic searches, Hugging Face download rankings, Kaggle tier filters. Drop a comment if you want it — aiming to send it Friday.

Happy Monday LinkedInville! We made it through another weekend and we are hitting the ground running with some new #unpopularopinion: “The ‘#cybertalent shortage’ isn’t real. It’s a hiring bias problem. Everyone in cybersecurity has heard it: “We have a talent shortage. Millions of unfilled jobs!” Be it from the media or right here on social media. But when you peel back the layers, it’s not about missing people...it’s really about broken hiring systems. Let's break it down "barney-style" 1. Job Descriptions Written by Unicorn Hunters - We advertise jobs for “junior analysts” that ask for 5 years of Splunk, 10 years of a programming language that has only existed for 5, and...of course a CISSP. - What we’re really saying: “We want a fully trained, battle-tested operator for entry-level pay.” - These roles go unfilled not because the talent doesn’t exist, but because the expectation is delusional. 2. Credential Gatekeeping and Fetishism - Degrees, certs, and alphabet soup are used as proxies for skill. - Demanding advanced level certifications before someone ever gets their first SOC job. Translation: “We won’t train you. We only hire finished products.” Instead of testing skill, we test résumés. That’s not shortage; it’s self-sabotage. 3. Systemic Bias - “Culture fit” =is often code for looks like us, thinks like us. - Veterans get ignored because their experience doesn’t map neatly to HR buzzwords, even though they defended networks under fire because they don’t have the “right letters.” - Bootcamp grads and self-taught hackers who live and breathe the work because they don’t have a bachelor’s in cybersecurity and didn't follow the traditional path. - Neurodiverse talent? Often written off because they don’t interview like salespeople. - Women, people of color, and career changers are regularly told they’re “not ready” while less capable insiders get promoted. - That isn’t a pipeline problem...it’s bias, disguised as standards. 4. Pay & Retention Problems - We underpay people and then act shocked when they bounce to vendors or FAANG for 2x the money. - Burning people out with 24/7 on-call, low pay, and no career path isn’t a shortage...it’s churn plain and simple. - Many “open roles” exist only because companies can’t keep the people they already had. 5. Leadership Denial - Boards love to parrot “millions of unfilled jobs” because it absolves them of accountability. - It’s easier to say “there aren’t enough people” than to admit “we refuse to train, mentor, or pay them.” - We keep chasing frameworks and buzzwords instead of fixing the obvious: our hiring and retention processes aren't just broken, they are completely shattered. BL: The cyber talent shortage is a myth. What we really have is a courage shortage in leadership. Leadership willing to break bias, invest in training, and build real career paths. #unpopularopinionguy