EP 32: The merger of talent acquisition and people operations w/ Ian Ambrosio

Ian Ambrosio, Global Talent & People Ops Manager at Sendle, joins host James Mackey to discuss the benefits of bringing talent acquisition and people operations closer together, employee tenure is no longer an issue, breaking down the new era of interviewing and more!

Episode Chapters

00:19 Who is Ian Ambrosio?

1:50 Starting a talent acquisition career on the agency side and then moving into corporate

05:09 Key take-aways from transitioning into a people ops role

7:11 The power of combining talent acquisition and people operations

10:04 Short tenure is no longer an issue

15:15 The nuances of employee tenure at startups vs large enterprise companies

21:45 We are in a new era of interviewing

26:13 Culture add vs culture fit

31:35 The 5 H’s

32:05 Wrap up

Thank you to our sponsor, SecureVision, for making this show possible! 

 
Follow us:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82436841/

SecureVision: #1 Rated Embedded Recruitment Firm on G2!
https://www.g2.com/products/securevision/reviews

Thanks for listening!

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:46

Hello and welcome to Talent Acquisition Trends and Strategy. I'm your host, James Mackey, and today we are joined by Ian Ambrosio. Ian, welcome to the show.

SPEAKER_01 0:55

Hey, James. Uh, thanks for having me. I'm really excited to be here.

SPEAKER_00 1:00

For sure, for sure. And um, could you tell everybody a little bit about yourself and what you're up to and kind

Who is Ian Ambrosio?

SPEAKER_00 1:05

of your point of impact and perspective so we know where you're coming from?

SPEAKER_01 1:09

Yeah, of course. Um, I'm the global talent and people ops manager for organization called Sendle. We're a uh shipping organization that's tailored towards small business that's 100% carbon neutral. So I over here I oversee all of our talent acquisition from a global perspective between the US and Australia, in addition to some of our people operations impact and our HR systems.

SPEAKER_00 1:35

Nice, very cool. How many employees is uh Sindal? Like what's the growth size?

SPEAKER_01 1:40

Yeah, we're we're right around that 200 number globally between Australia, the US, and also the Philippines.

SPEAKER_00 1:47

Nice, nice. It looks you're like a Series C company. Yes. Okay, cool. Yeah, I saw the $35 million raise. That's awesome.

SPEAKER_01 1:55

Yeah, really exciting times over here at Sendle. We've got some exciting growth, and we just announced last week we're actually expanding into Canada starting next week. So some exciting stuff happening over here.

SPEAKER_00 2:06

Oh, that's really cool. So is is so the expansion to Canada, is that more of um just in terms of servicing clients, or are you actually going to start hiring in that market?

SPEAKER_01 2:15

Um hiring soon, not just yet. I probably see that start next year, but mostly kind of our first 100 customers so far.

SPEAKER_00 2:25

Nice, nice, very cool, very cool. Um, well, look, you know, I'm I'm pumped to speak with you today about all things uh talent acquisition. Um to start us off, though, I would I would love to talk a little bit more about your background.

Starting a talent acquisition career on the agency side and then moving into corporate

SPEAKER_00 2:36

I know you started your career at Tech Systems um on the agency side, and um I would love to hear from you some of the nuanced differences between you know your agency experience moving into corporate. Um, what were some of the you know kind of key takeaways and light bulb moments of making that transition? And I just would love to hear a little bit just about your your experience doing that.

SPEAKER_01 2:58

Yeah, of course. So I started with tech systems, um, I believe it was around the 2018 time frame. I'm a little not too sure about the years, but uh, but I I will say the agency start is kind of where I needed to be to get my bearings. I hadn't been in recruitment before. I wasn't too familiar with it. So uh I will say I'm thankful for starting on an agency because it it gave me the the landscape and understanding of what recruitment is, how to have conversations, uh, and how to really sell a job, essentially within that kind of sales aspect of recruiting. So I started there, and I mean, throughout my time there, I really started to realize, you know, it felt too transactional. I mean, while I I was thankful for the opportunity to learn how to sell a job, it started to become only selling a job and not about the person. And my initial drive to get into recruitment was I want to help people and I want to help them find a career and find something they love. So it started to become really transactional. And I just decided, you know, I want to try to make that move over to the corporate side and really bringing people into my organization and being passionate about the company that I'm selling for instead of representing five, ten companies and then saying, Oh, they don't this candidate doesn't fit here. Let's submit them here. That was the mentality I was getting during my time with Tech Systems. It just wasn't for me. And I was really about the people element. So I made that transition to corporate and look back. I've been mostly in the startup mentality for corporate. I my background hasn't really been with large corporations from a corporate recruiting perspective, more of that startup screenness. Uh maybe I'm not just recruiting, which is where that people ops portion of my background comes in and why I'm now in a people ops function too, because it gives me a chance to learn a bit about that HR side and that investment in your employees and really um creating a culture essentially. So moved into corporate, love it, never looking back at this point. And I've got a chance now to really broaden my skill set just outside recruiting. I think it's beneficial for any sort of recruiting professional to maybe jump over the bridge a little bit into the HR side, learn a little bit about HR policies process. It's made me a better recruiter for sure.

SPEAKER_00 5:39

For sure. So I noticed that you actually just got promoted into not only, you know, doing continuing with uh talent, um, but also kind of overseeing or you know, um contributing to people operations as well. Um so what kind of work are you doing on the

Key take-aways from transitioning into a people ops role

SPEAKER_00 5:55

HR people op side at this point?

SPEAKER_01 5:58

Yeah, a lot of the HR people op side, I mean, a portion of it is a lot of our system management. So I've learned a lot of our HRIS system. I'm not just in an ATS anymore. I'm also on the HRIS side of working with individuals. I mean, either like pay, benefits, so learning a lot about the benefits side of the business. But another piece of it is our our employer branding and a lot of our um uh what's the word I'm looking for. It's um it's it's our EVP, so our employee value proposition, and not having not looking at it just from a external talent perspective, but from an internal perspective as well, and looking into why do our employees stay here at Sendle and what is keeping them at Sendle and creating that positive environment. Uh, so people are happy to work for Sendle. So looking a lot into a lot of our ENPS and kind of uh seeing just the overall health and well-being of employees at the company. So instead of me just being a talent expert now, now a little bit of a people person too, where it's just having regular check-ins with the team, just say, hey, how's it going? And really creating more relationships that aren't just so how can I help you find an employee for your team? More just about how are you liking Sendle?

SPEAKER_00 7:30

For sure, for sure. Is one of I'm just curious, curious to get your thoughts on this. Is one of your initial projects going to be optimizing onboarding? Because now you're seeing like the full kind of journey from candidate to employee. So, what's what's that transition looked like as you're kind of expanding your perspective and looking at more of the onboarding side now? Are there any kind of light bulb moments or priorities that you're setting when it comes to onboarding?

SPEAKER_01 7:54

100% onboarding and recruiting.

The power of combining talent acquisition and people operations

SPEAKER_01 7:58

I before I jumped into this role, it was very much all right, I've done my part. Now I hand it off to our director of people and they take it from there. Now I get to walk across that bridge with the candidate. It's more of a seamless uh handover, essentially, because learning the benefits side, which is why I think this is important for any recruiter, it allows me to start that conversation. So when they get to, let's say, the people person or whoever really handles the bulk of the onboarding, they're only coming to them with questions. That individual doesn't now need to walk them through our benefits, walk them through all of the perks of the organization. Instead, I can do that now. So it's it instead of having another person enter the conversation, a new challenger is approached instead. Now I get to take on a lot of that and kind of be that one job even through onboarding. So they're working with me up until first day. Now they get to start working with their team. So it really creates this seamless transition where I'm not just the person that sent them an offer and got them hired. I'm also the person now they can go to for questions around benefits or how to log into a system. So it it helps build that relationship even further.

SPEAKER_00 9:25

For sure, for sure. I think one thing that a lot of companies could do better, quite honestly, is just writing process documents that are accessible to both HR and talent. So a talent acquisition rather, so that both sides can see the processes of the other. So for instance, talent acquisition could just log in to you know, some kind of Google Doc, even that just completely like explains all the stuff that HR would explain to candidates once the offer comes across. It just, you know, because you know, who knows if you're on a conversation with a candidate, it's better to just say, like, yeah, I have that information versus oh, well, we'll reach out to you later. It just um maybe not a huge deal, but I think there could probably be a better knowledge share between people ops onboarding and talent acquisition generally, from particularly for kind of you know growth stage, early growth stage. I think that's an area for you know improvement for a lot of organizations, quite honestly. That's a good point you made.

unknown 10:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 10:14

Yeah. And that's something we're doing over here. We we have a Google Doc. So exactly what you said. That's that's how we're doing it, just to, and it's a living document. I mean, things update, things change, but really taking that time to have HR drift a little into the talent acquisition team. So there's kind of a blend there. I I think it really just improves the overall candidate experience.

SPEAKER_00 10:39

Yeah, I love that. I love that. Um, so so curiously at US, obviously in the in the market um in recent years, we're continuing to see a trend of

Short tenure is no longer an issue

SPEAKER_00 10:50

tenures declining, right? People are transitioning to new opportunities more and more frequently. There's less of this sense of like loyalty and more of a sense of how can I get the most out of life personally and professionally. And there's also just it's becoming a little bit more commonly accepted. They're less fearful that it's going to be held against them. Uh, I'm curious to get your take on you know what some kind of old school philosophy would consider like job hopping, tenures declining. Um, what what are your thoughts on that trend that we're seeing right now?

SPEAKER_01 11:30

Yeah, I I think it's important to of course recognize the past two years and what the past two years have brought. And even right now, with all of the um reductions in fours happening, I mean, left and right, it's all over LinkedIn. I hashtag layoff and people that have been unfortunately, they've lost their jobs. And I think when it comes to that piece of when you look at someone's resume and you see maybe six months here, a year here, six months there. I personally, for me, I don't even pay attention to dates anymore. I, from my recruiting perspective, I'm very much interested in the person. Everyone has a story, and I kind of reflect it back to myself. I mean, if you take a look at my LinkedIn, it looks like I've job hopped just based on how many organizations I've been with in the last couple of years. But I'm extremely appreciative of, of course, the organization I'm with now that essentially took a chance and they they're kind of coming from the same tell the IM where I don't think it matters. I think everyone has a story, everyone has a reasoning. Things like dates for how long someone has been with a certain organization, I don't think should ever rule someone out during an initial resume screening. I think it's worth a 15-minute conversation. I mean, what's 15 minutes just to say, walk me through your background and just allow them to tell their story and get their side of it? Because a lot of people have reasoning. I mean, not everyone is going to post or list on their resume, oh, I was a part of a reduction in force. So it just looks like, oh, they left when after I have a conversation with them, instead they tell me, yeah, the team the company went bankrupt. And then I get the full story. So I don't think job hopping, I mean, even before these past two years, when I first got into recruiting, I when I would review resumes, especially during my agency time, my leaders would always say, Oh, they're a job hopper, skip over them. But uh, even before all of this, I I still always thought, can I just talk to them for 15 minutes? Maybe they have some solid reasoning. I mean, what if they had, I mean, an illness in the family? I mean, the the people element really should be involved with a lot of this stigma around job hopping and short tenures and such because life happens. I I don't think it should be a screening element, a part of the screening element at all.

SPEAKER_00 14:13

Yeah, I I honestly there's like VPs that won't talk to somebody simply due to dates. That's like the most annoying hiring hiring manager profile that I've I've worked with, and it's it's happening less and less uh overall, but it's still just like so frustrating because you're like, what do you you know, what do you what are you doing? It's it's the same ones that are like you have to have a degree from you know a fancy school or whatever else. I mean, you know, you want people that are coming to your organization from different perspectives and different life experiences. That's a that's a that's a culture ad, right? To have people from different backgrounds and experiences. So um, yeah, and it's it's I think too, some of it, I guess, could depend on like their point of impact and role with the company. So most positions you can make a significant impact, move the company in the right direction and with a tenure of like six to six months to 12 months. There might be some, like, okay, if you're coming on as an enterprise account executive and deal lengths are 18 months, then it's harder to gauge success if they've kind of jumped around six months to a year at several jobs. So I get that there are exceptions, but you know, as a rule of thumb, the only question that really matters when it comes to their past performances was the company better off as a result of them being there? Were they able to achieve the outcomes that they were accountable for? Were they adaptable? Could they ramp quickly? Um, those are the things that that matter to me. So I I do agree with you. I think it's um let's not fight the trend, let's not try to swim up current, let's just accept that this is you know becoming more and more the preference of top talent, and we can try to fight it and lose, or we could lean into it and figure out how do we accelerate onboarding in RAM to enable people to start adding value faster. And

The nuances of employee tenure at startups vs large enterprise companies

SPEAKER_00 16:01

pretty much nobody's asking that question.

SPEAKER_01 16:04

Yeah, I think you make a great point just about certain organizations or certain roles that maybe there's a longer lead time on measuring success. I I didn't even really think about this, but when you look at a startup company, I mean, I in my existing role, I'm only five months in, but I've accomplished so much and already had a large impact to the organization, but it's only five months. So I think it really depends on the organization. I mean, if it's this larger corporation, this large Microsoft, Google, there's typically red tape on a lot of areas of those organizations. So it's it is more difficult to measure success if it's only been six months or three months at that company. So I would want to dive into that a little further, but I would never just say, oh, they only work at Google for six months. I don't want to talk to them. I don't want to talk to the person. I want to give this person a chance, but it definitely depends on the company as well. I mean, all startup companies, especially coming from mostly a startup background, three months might as well feel like a year, just in what you can do due to the scrappiness of working with collaborative teams, small teams, and what you can accomplish is pretty remarkable. So that also is a point to consider as well.

SPEAKER_00 17:28

For sure. That's actually a really good point. And I I had heard that before, but I it's not part of my typical kind of like approach to explaining this. And you're right, though, it's it's a huge determining factor. There's there's some point where you kind of hit this late growth stage, five thousand uh 500 to 1000 employees, where you start to have more traditional executives in place that put in processes that are preparing for a very late stage exit or potentially an IPO that slows down your ability to make big changes quickly. And you're right, I think it takes longer to prove out your value to organizations as you start to hit maybe that you know six, seven hundred employee number um and above. So you're right, that's a huge driver. I mean, I you know, I have friends that are working for those late growth stage companies, and you know, they talk about you know that when they when they worked in uh you know smaller orgs, sometimes it's like you know, they were able to get a turnaround much faster, but they're like you know, six months in and they're like, Oh, I would have loved to have this done, but I'm trying to coordinate with you know my peers on that I'm working cross-functionally with that are on different teams, and we had to get buy-in and alignment, and they're doing it this way, and I want to do it this way. And you know, there's a lot of that type of stuff going on at large organizations. So you're right, it it does vary too. And I don't I don't think uh some of these hiring managers, some of these VPs that are being hypercritical on tenure, I don't think they're considering that either. I think that they would look at you know, nine months tenure of somebody who was at Google the same as they would look at nine months tenure as a startup without thinking about that nuance or context. Yep, which is silly.

SPEAKER_01 19:06

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 19:07

Like this is such a bias and blind spot.

SPEAKER_01 19:11

100%. I 100% agree. It's this is why I mean hire managers, what I've noticed over the years, it's very much about what are the bullet points on the resume, and it's less it it's always less looking into where's the person coming from and that people element, which goes back to once again why I think it's really important for recruiting professionals to dive into that people side a little bit because you you start to just, I mean, really understand people and where they're coming from, uh, because these are people's lives when it comes to recruiting. That's what we're working with here. So it's it's not always just what's on the resume.

SPEAKER_00 19:53

No, for sure, for sure. And a lot of the best people I've worked with have, I don't know if you want to call it non-traditional, I don't even know if that's the right phrase, but you know, they have things on their profile that maybe don't they're not like a hundred percent aligned if you're gonna be like hyper-critical, but they're incredibly strong performers, right? Like it's just not, I haven't seen a correlation. I really haven't. I mean, and then also like sometimes people have been at organizations too long, and I guess more people have thought of this before, but you know, what if they were just kind of stagnant for several years? Like, what good is that? How is that a value? Like, you want people that are constantly growing and evolving and learning new skill sets and developing new perspectives and having new conversations with new people, and you know, that that is a healthy motion that and that brings a lot of insight to you know your company, right? Uh, you know, being able to work with somebody that's okay, I've been in five different environments, I know what works and what doesn't work, and now I can you know optimize our environment based on the things that I've learned, right? I mean, who's gonna have more knowledge, right? One person that worked for you know four, three to five companies over the past five years, or one person that worked for one company. Um, both, I guess, could be, you know, it could be either or, but I would I would say in general, probably the person that's worked in different environments is likely to have learned more uh in general. I mean, that's that's a generalization. I know there's the opposite can be true too, right? Like I've been at Secure Vision for seven years and I've learned a lot, right? Like my learning is like straight up. So there's obviously exceptions, but um I mean, I it just it makes sense to me, right? Like, let's stop obsessing on how long someone's gonna stay here and start obsessing on how can we increase their impact faster, right? And overall, like that should that should always be the metric we're looking at.

SPEAKER_01 21:41

100%. I 100% agree with that. It I mean makes total sense to me, and that's why for me, I want to provide both of those candidates to the hiring manager for them to talk to both, and then it's and then then we weigh the pros and cons. We like, see, this person knows a lot too, despite being a quote unquote job hopper, but it's they they're potentially at the same level or above the other individual, it's always subjective and it just requires that conversation.

SPEAKER_00 22:07

For sure. Yeah, absolutely. Uh, but you said it best like it shouldn't be like a pre-screening criteria that determines whether or not somebody gets an interview. That's that is just clearly not the way to do it. Um, you know, and talking about other trends that we've seen over the past few years, um, you know, you made an interesting point in the prep call with Nick prior to the podcast. You know, gone of the day, gone are the days of here's a list of questions or

We are in a new era of interviewing

SPEAKER_00 22:31

grilling candidates on screening calls. And we're kind of in this new era of having more balanced conversations with candidates. Talk to us about your thoughts on that and and how you implement that on a day to day.

SPEAKER_01 22:47

Yeah, I I think when it comes to doing an interview, uh especially me from where I come from in recruiting, I'm that first initial call on that preliminary call. I'm not the expert on the skill sets or if I'm hiring for a data analyst, I I don't work in SQL daily, I don't work in Tableau daily. So I'm not the technical skill set. So I don't want to be having a preliminary call just asking questions that are that mean nothing to me because I have no idea. I would rather have that hiring manager have that call. So when it comes to me doing interviews, how I approach it and how I approach every single interview I do, after I we have an introduction, I give my spiel, my company, I ask them, tell me your story. I I word for word, I always say, tell me your story. And I want to have them walk me through, I mean, where they're coming from, how they got to where they got to today, because it that tells me a lot. I mean, it tells me how they present themselves, how they communicate. And at the same time, I'm also getting an overview of their background, maybe some of the tools or skills they've worked with over the years. Um, there's a lot that can come from that. I think it's this really nice open-ended question that allows you to really then get this full picture of the candidate. And then I can dive in maybe some more just like targeted questions, but I am able to refer back to the things they told me. So it creates a conversation type of mentality where instead of me just asking a list of questions, I can then revert back to the story they just told me because that's out on the table now. Now I can use that whole story they said to then ask those questions. So it flows like a conversation, yet it's still an interview at the same time.

SPEAKER_00 24:50

For sure, for sure. Yeah, I think that's that's definitely super important. And I think too, when you have a more natural conversation, right? And you're transparent and you're sharing insights and answering their questions, letting them tell their story, and it it just creates a more honest open dialogue as well.

SPEAKER_01 25:05

Like, you know, you can what I would add to that is another part of interviews I do is I for me at least, gone are the days of me cold calling a candidate and just saying, Hey, do you have time to chat? And the reason, like, yes, I can approach that the same conversation perspective as well, but I'm not gonna get, I feel as if I'm not gonna get the best out of that candidate. I mean, they weren't prepared. They they, I mean, I'm just calling them out of the blue. So I think that conversation piece works into also scheduling interviews, like get some time on my calendar. There's so many important tools these days, like calendarly is what I use for all of my scheduling. It allows this experience for the candidate to pick time that works for them and allows them to give their best interview. And this plays along with that conversation piece because if it's just a list of questions and I'm just questioning them, then they don't really get a chance to give their background, it feels like an interrogation. So I I want to open up open up the floor a little bit, allow them to just like tell me about them, where they're coming from. We can just talk around that instead of just saying, Hey, what's your experience with Excel? What's your experience in C? And instead, I can say, Oh, you said you were with so-and-so. Can you tell me about how you worked with this here? And it allows us to really just have an open dialogue.

SPEAKER_00 26:46

For sure, for sure. And you know, talking about just um the evaluation process, determining if somebody is the right addition to the team. Um, what's your perspective on culture ad versus culture

Culture add vs culture fit

SPEAKER_00 26:59

fit? I mean, you know, people are talking about that a lot today. Um, you know, particularly like high-level CPOs that are thinking about strategy, diversity, equity, inclusion. Um, they are really slowing down to think about, you know, ensuring that they're they're building a hiring culture that uh considers people coming from different perspectives and backgrounds, like culture ad versus thinking through the term or the concept of a culture fit. What is that like what's the difference to you when you when you think about that?

SPEAKER_01 27:29

Yeah, that this is an important area because I feel like when I first got into recruiting, everywhere it was about culture fit, culture fit. And I never even heard the term culture ad. It wasn't even really until recently that it came into my repertoire of thinking about a culture ad versus a culture fit and what that difference is. And I think the way things potentially should shift and need to shift is to that culture ad mentality. I mean, the last thing I feel an organization should do is hire a team full of people that are basically carbon copies of themselves. And I feel like what that promotes is yes, you may have accomplished that goal of culture fit, but then uh you run into this problem where people kind of learn things the same way. If people are all quote unquote the same, or they just fit together because, oh yeah, they would get along with our team because they have common interests and they come from the same organization or same cut cloth, essentially, then that means you when new problems arise, it's highly likely that team is going to approach the problem in the same way. They are going to tackle that problem together in a way without some diverse look into it. So that's why this culture ad piece, I think, is extremely important because you get these new perspectives. You get this uh mentality where yes, this person might be a little different. This person comes from startups, and this person comes from large corporations. So you're what you get now is two ideas to solve a problem. You get someone from a certain approach from the big corp side, and someone from more media scrappy approach. So it's really this opportunity to bring new ideas into the workspace, which I think is extremely valuable. And it creates this, more importantly, an ever-learning environment. I think something that a lot of people stay at corporations for and companies for is the opportunity to learn. People all there's so many people I talk to that they consider themselves lifelong learners. Well, how are you gonna lifelong learn if your team is all a carbon copy of each other? So if you add new backgrounds, I mean, whether that's on a I mean, people HR side in terms of ethnicity and such, there's that piece. But there's also just background piece where people are coming from and you get to create this learning environment. So it's I think it's a win-win that culture ad mentality. Yes, hire managers might not be fully on board at first because they're so stuck in this, oh, they wouldn't fit the team, they wouldn't fit the team. But I think having someone that doesn't fit the team can be so much more beneficial because you bring a new perspective.

SPEAKER_00 30:27

Right. I mean, and also a lot of times when people say it doesn't fit the team, like they may not realize it, but it's usually completely uncorrelated to the person's ability to perform the function of the role. Yeah. Like I I'm not saying that rapport isn't important, but it always kind of when somebody leads with like, hey, would I grab a beer with this person? Like that that should not be your primary leading indicator of who you should hire. Like, you know, I hire for you know at Secure Vision, there's a ton of different personalities, like people from different backgrounds. That's great, you know. Um is it is it everybody the type of person with each other that like they would hang out outside of work? I don't probably not. Um, but we are here for a shared mission. We have a lot of the same underlying values, you know. We have a lot, you know, we we we do have good rapport because we're we're aligned on a mission. So you you know, you can still build rapport that people that are you know potentially different. Um and and you know, that that's that should be that should be something that companies consider. I mean, the other thing too is yeah, when you have people that are coming from the same, or I shouldn't say the same, similar life experiences and similar perspectives, it kind of creates you risk that group think mentality. Um, and and you're creating vulnerabilities because you're gonna have similar blind spots. So there's a lot you're a lot more likely to get blindsided um with particular challenges, hit a wall with particular challenges. And so it's really good to just have people that have different thought processes because um, you know, even even you know, people that might be coming from a completely different perspective, um, if they share some of the same underlying, you know, the same mission and the same some of the same underlying uh values and they they work hard, right? They're you know, they're consistent um and they have the right stuff, then they can be you know significant value ad.

SPEAKER_01 32:06

So um yeah, yeah. I think that's a great point you make regarding values and mission. I mean, if there are lines there, then what's the difference if they like the same sports team you do? I mean, here here at Sandville, we have what's

The 5 H’s

SPEAKER_01 32:21

called our five H's, which is our values, um, which are humble, honest, happy, hungry, and high performing, all in that order. And we're specifically looking for people that align with those values. And if if you align with those values, then it doesn't matter to me if you like the same hockey team I do. You're you're aligned with our organization and you can provide some great value there.

SPEAKER_00 32:48

For sure, for sure. Um, well, yeah, this is this

Wrap up

SPEAKER_00 32:51

has been a great conversation. We are coming up on time here. Um, so I just wanted to say, you know, thank you, Ian, for joining us today. This was uh a lot of fun. And and before we jump off, if if people want to engage with you, follow your content or whatever it might be, how can they find you?

SPEAKER_01 33:07

Yeah, I'm very active on LinkedIn. Um, I'm sure you guys will leave my LinkedIn profile there somewhere. Um, but LinkedIn's the best way to engage with me. Uh, I am extremely active there and responsive. So LinkedIn would be the best place. I haven't dove into the other social media realms for recruiting yet. I'm not quite that brave, but LinkedIn's the best place.

SPEAKER_00 33:32

I love it. Well, any anyway, uh Ian, thanks again for joining us. And for everybody else tuning in, thank you, and we'll see you next time.