ADP – Meeting The New Generation Of Employees’ Work Location Preferences with Amy Leschke-Kahle

Music: This is Recruiting Daily’s Recruiting Live Podcast, where we look at the strategies behind the world’s best talent acquisition teams. We talk recruiting, sourcing, and talent acquisition. Each week we take one overcomplicated topic and break it down so that your three year old can understand it. Make sense? Are you ready to take your game to the next level? You’re at the right spot. You’re now entering the mind of a hustler. Here’s your host, William Tincup

William Tincup: Ladies and gentlemen, this is William Tincup and you’re listening to the Recruiting Daily Podcast. Today we have Amy on from ADP, and our topic today is “meeting the new generations of employees desires of where they want to work”. We’re going to hit that. We’re going to hit a bunch of other things. Can’t wait to jump into it with Amy. Amy, would you introduce yourself? I was about to say, introduce ADP. I’m like “really seriously, who doesn’t know who I ADP is”, but you know what. Let’s introduce ADP just in case if someone has maybe not been visiting the country in the last 40 years.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: All right. Well, I’ll do both. How’s that?

William Tincup: Sounds great.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: So my name is Amy Leschke-Kahle. I’m the vice president of performance acceleration at the Marcus Buckingham company, an ADP company. And you’re right, I think anybody who’s been in the world of work for any period of time knows who ADP is, because we pay so many people and we have so many clients around the world. Large, small, every vertical that you can imagine, to help people do people, more efficiently, more effectively. And I am so fortunate in that I get to also work on the… I don’t even know how we describe the Marcus Buckingham company, but we get to help people make work better. Help employees have better experiences at work. And, I spend most of my time working directly with our clients, and spend a little bit of time doing some applied research and leading that team that we have. And I’ve been at HR practitioner for a long time, and before that I was a chemical engineer. So, there you go.

William Tincup: Oh, Wow. You know what’s funny, is the Marcus Buckingham Company, before it was acquired for ADP, it was the fun company. All my friends joined the company. It was just the fun company. They were doing fun work, being with Marcus. It was just… You were just this traveling group of people that just went around and just did fun stuff. And it was a lot of envy. A lot of pent up envy, I would to tell you, from people in the industry. It was like, “It looks like hat looks like they do really fun stuff. I want to do fun stuff.” And, within ADP nothing’s changed. I was really worried about that, when the first the acquisition came out, I’m like, “Ah, oh boy, here this goes. And you know what? To ADP’s credit, they didn’t. They let Marcus be Marcus, you know what I mean?

Amy Leschke-Kahle: It’s been an amazing… Cause I thought the same thing having been through situations like that before. It’s like, “Oh, are they going to…”. “What’s going to happen to the soul of who we are, and the purpose of what we do”. And it’s been exactly the opposite of what you would expect. It’s been very much, not only we have had the opportunity to help ADP do some things around how we do people differently, but we’ve also been able to expand our reach, the access to data. The work that Marcus is doing with the ADP Research Institute is just absolutely amazing. So the opportunities that coming together has brought us, I think it was what we wished for. Having come over with the acquisition, it’s certainly what I wished for. And that has absolutely come to fruition. And I think it’s bettered, not only both organizations, but bettered the world of work

William Tincup: And that’s the whole goal. I mean is the goal of the acquisition. The goal of any acquisition is not to mess the company up. That’s not why you… You don’t buy something to mess it up. But that generally happens. And, they didn’t mess this up, and what I love about with your work in particular, is you get to help more people because of ADP’s reach worldwide. But with the reach you get to actually help more people. If you don’t even go outside the ADP ecosystem, you can help more people. But of course you can, and will, and do.

So our topic today: “Meeting a new generation of employees, desires of where they want to work”. Let’s start with that. How do we find out what they want? So, let’s just start with some basics. How actually find out what they want, and then change to then meet them where they are and what they want?

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Yeah. There’s so much data, and surveys. I think lots of large organizations, both vendors, as well as professional services firms, including ourselves, we ask all the time. We ask that general population, segregated by generation, “what do you want? What are the things that you’re looking for in the world of work?”, including new grads, the gen-Zers, who are just starting to come into the world of work. And some of them have been in the world of work for four or five years already, leaving high school, for example. But especially when we’re talking about knowledge workers, we ask them all the time. So, I don’t think getting access to the data, and finding out what they want is necessarily the challenge. I think the challenges, or the thing that maybe we haven’t quite done enough of, is actually listening to that and then doing something with it.

William Tincup: It’s interesting because the listing part… We’re both old enough to remember employee satisfaction surveys that people would put out once a year. So kids, as you listen to this, there once was this thing called an employee satisfaction survey that once a year, usually at the end of the year, we would send around and all the employees would fill out. And then we would summarily, in January, dismiss everything that we learned and the employee satisfaction survey. So, not only did we just do it once a year, pretty much, we didn’t do anything with the data. So, when Amy’s talking…

Amy Leschke-Kahle: And we learn the same thing every year, right? I mean, every year we got the same results. People want to get paid more money, they want more work-life balance.

William Tincup: Shocking.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: We don’t have great communication. We have bad managers, and people want more recognition. Every year.

William Tincup: Every year, same stuff. You can actually just take the date off, and scratch it out, and put a new year on it, and go, “okay, surveys done.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: You don’t even need to get the survey.

William Tincup: Here’s the findings. We’ll just dust them… We’ll dust them off, and here’s the findings. And a lot of that even comes down to just respect. Just respect people.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Absolutely.

William Tincup: If we just actually respect people, and honor them, and care about them more, turns out fixes 98% of the stuff. But, there’s two things that I want to key in on. One is the listing part, cause listening is but one part. We need to listen, but we need to turn some of that listening, if not all of it, into action. So let’s start there with that. How do we change our listening skills, to then turn them into action skills?

Amy Leschke-Kahle: It’s such a great question, and I think, again, it’s one of those… It’s not a conundrum. It’s a point that we haven’t quite gone far enough as HR and talent practitioners. So again, let’s go back to the survey, whether it be a general survey across a stratified random sample of working adults in the US, or the world, or whatever it might happen to be. Those are great, by the way. Those are really helpful, and where they are helpful is they help us open the door to places where we should be paying attention to, that we might not have known we should be paying attention to. At a global level. Then you go down to the organization level and we need to do that same thing, but we need to do it from a slightly… Maybe not a slightly, maybe it’s a much bigger, different lens. Because when we’re talking about an organization, one of the challenges… And whether you’re talking about a satisfaction survey, or you’re talking about an engagement survey, or talking about whatever survey you happen to be doing. Whatever listening tool you might happen to have, we need to listen locally.

So yes, it’s interesting when we look at that organizational metric, or target, or the results, even item by item. But, hopefully we are starting to learn that the world of work happens locally, much more than it does at an org level. Not saying the org isn’t important, but that listening thing that we do is like, “oh, we’re doing a great listening thing, and we have a listening survey”. That’s awesome. But, you need to look at that data and think about people’s experiences on a local level. In other words, the people I work with every day, and whether I show up on an org chart or not, but the team leader that I work with, or team leaders that I work with. I mean, work is changing. You talk about this with your guests all the time. So, I think we need to come at it from a different place.

A lot of organizations are doing a really good job at listening at an organization level.

William Tincup: Right.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: But we’re not doing such a good job at listening at a local level. And when we’re talking about new entrants to the workforce, or… It’s interesting, we always put it in generational terms, but new entrants don’t necessarily need to be a gen-Z.

William Tincup: I agree.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: New entrants might be somebody new to an organization. It might be somebody coming back from leave. It might be somebody going from one position to another. Getting a new team. Those are all those kind of new, novel if you will, experiences that can be… If we don’t handle them correctly and give people the resources and support they need, it can be so counterproductive to having them do what we hired them to do.

William Tincup: Well. And what’s interesting about the generational stuff is, we’ve learned so much from gen-Z. I’ll just say it, or gen-X. I’ll say it like this: we’ve learned so much from millennials and gen-Z, that we’re different. So, if I were to get a new job tomorrow, I would care about pay equity and pay transparency. I would care about diversity inclusion and their strategy. I would care about social justice and their strategy. So, it’s almost like you can throw the generational things out and go, you know what, actually people care. People that go to work and that you want to hire, or that you want to promote care about these things.

And in our title, we have two things. One is “desires”, and one is on the “where” they want to work. And so we’ve started to peel some of the onion around how do we get to the listening part, and finding out of what the desires are. But, let’s go a little bit deeper into desires, because desires are hard to get to. Or can be harder to get to, I should say.

So, what’s the suggestion for your clients and for people that you interact with of saying, “Okay, desires, passions, other types of things, they’re a little bit soft, it can be, and they can move on us. But, it’s important for us to have a finger on the pulse of the desires, especially of this workforce that we’re talking about, the new generation of employees.” How do you suggest that we figure out, and decipher their desires?

Amy Leschke-Kahle: I think you said something that’s really important, William, and that is when you talked about gen-Z, and those of us who are not gen-Z, and how we have learned from them, and how we have… I don’t even want to say adopted. I think the pandemic has accelerated as many, many folks, really smart people have been talking about how it’s accelerated work that has been going on, or shifts that have been going on a long time. And I think what we see in that, and we can take a listening again at a local level, is the things that they desire are the things that we all desire. [crosstalk 00:12:12] Right. You’re absolutely right. I want agency. I want to be treated like a grown up at work. Yes, I want to work for an organ… Let’s take purpose because… Another hot topic. Everybody’s talking about purpose, and they should be.

But, we think about that purpose of the organization. I want to work for an organization that has purpose, or my purpose with them. And, perhaps it’s as much my own personal purpose. Can I fulfill those things that I want to accomplish? Is this a place where I can contribute my best? Is this a place where I am respected? So, I think, again, we need to think much more locally. And, even when it comes to hybrid work, you think about… And again, I get this great privilege of talking to so many HR leaders and CHROs and talent leaders and so many different kinds of organizations. And one of the things that’s like, “Oh, what are we going to do with hybrid? Is it two days a week we want people in office, or three days a week?” I’m like, “Why don’t you experiment it and find out. Ask people. Try some things. See what works best for people. See what doesn’t work. Find out what they want.”

So, I think as we go into… And it’s not the new normal, but you settle into perhaps a different way, a new way of working, which we already are doing. It becomes more about treating our employees like grownups, and giving them reasonable flexibility and agency to figure out how can they do their own unique, best work, which might be different from somebody else’s. And, when you look at the gen-Z data and research, one of the things that I read in a survey not too long ago, about how gen-Z is the most diverse generation in the world of work. And that diversity is… Yes, those things that we typically think about diversity, but it’s also how I want to work. Some people want to work… I just spent two weeks ago, a whole day with a bunch of gen-Zers and millennials.

And I was at talking to them about these very things. And it was like, some people want to work offsite to 100 percent of the time. Some people want to work on site a hundred percent of the time. Some want to be hybrid. So it’s like, “I’m a unique individual. See me for my unique individuality. Don’t make the assumption that I am like every other gen-Z. Don’t make the assumption that I am like every other Xer, or every other baby-boomer. See me for me.” And that it’s a fundamental human thing in any aspect of our lives.

William Tincup: It’s also a fundamental kind of a change in HR. As we grew up with HR, a lot of it was coded in best, quote unquote, I’m using air-quotes, best practices. And a lot of it was treating people, actually the same, cookie-cutter. And we hid behind that. On some level we hid behind that because that was the only thing we knew. But also we hid behind that because we wanted to treat everybody the same. So we wanted to… To manage risk we wanted to treat everybody the same. And, it’s backfired on us to some degree, in the sense of, “well, you can continue to do that at your peril, but what folks want, and generations aside, what folks want is they want you to actually see them and respect who they are, and treat them accordingly. With highly personalized experiences and highly personalized things that meet their… Exceed their needs and desires.

And so let’s talk about the radical shift for HR, and how they’ve got to rethink the way that they think even just about best practices, and how they think about creating great experiences. I think you nailed that. It’s creating great experiences for everybody. Yes, we’re talking about… In this particular call we’re talking about gen-Z and younger folks to the workforce. But really it’s everybody. If you’re working with boomers, 20 hours a week, you know what? Turns out they’re going to care about the exact same things. So advice for HR and how they throw out this idea of best practices, or maybe cookie cutter approaches to employees. Throw that out and try something new.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Absolutely. And, HR as a thing, as a practice. We have smooshed all these functions together. So we’ve smooshed the compliance with the process, with the talent development, with succession planning, with talent acquisition. We’ve put all of these things that happen to have people in common, underneath a common umbrella, if you will. We’ve smooshed them together. And a good example of that, and people may disagree with me, which is fine. But, it’s like the HR business partner who’s supposed to be everything to everybody.

William Tincup: Right.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: And when you think about the work that we do from a human resources, and call us whatever you want, it’s not about the name, it’s about the work that we do. There are some things that do need to be the same. Think about processes. Think about compliance. Think about even skills, which is such an interesting topic as well.

Like those are the things that are table stakes, and they are homogeneous. You Like, you need to be able to do a macro in Excel, or a program in Python, or draw blood, whatever that is. That’s great. And then there’s this whole other part of the world of people at work, which is unique, and different, and coachy, and leadery, and how do we help people discover their own… I’m going to use our terminology: their own unique strengths, and work in that place where they are adding unique, extraordinary contribution to the organization. Which is completely different work, different research, different data than the other more operations focused. And they’re both critically important. So it’s not an “or”, it’s got to be an “and”. Yet most of our organizations are structured, and still think… I’m going to say almost all of them. Like, they’re the same thing, but they’re not. It’s like the analogy I use, William, so often is like sales and accounts receivable. They both have to do with money and having money and revenue come into an organization. They don’t report to the same organization. They’re very different things. So…

William Tincup: Yeah, go ahead. No, finish your thought.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Well, I was just going to say… Is it time, and maybe the pandemic has accelerated that and kind of shone a light on how we do the work of people inside of organizations, and thinking about, “yes, how do we be more efficient and effective with our processes and compliance approaches”. Absolutely, critically important. So important. In fact, I think that should be elevated as a function. Not thought of as a, “Oh, you’re the compliance person, or you’re the payroll person, or you’re the HIS person.” I think that work ought to be elevated because without doing that, quite frankly almost perfectly, it puts the organization at risk. And, there’s a… Big, giant, capital, bold letters “and”, we also, for the organization to be successful, it’s our differentiator. We need to invest very specifically, and targetedly and focused. Is that a word “targetedly”?

William Tincup: I love it. I just stole it. Trademarked. Done.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Okay. Love it. And we need to invest in that other part, which is how do we help pull that uniqueness out? Pull that unique contribution because that’s the differentiator we have, not only inside of our organizations as individuals, but it’s the differentiator that organizations have in the market. Because technology is much more commodity-ish than it’s ever been. We’ve all done lean and six Sigma, we’ve processed. We’ve done… I’ve done that work. I think most of us have done that work in so capacity. So we’ve got one big differentiator left, and it’s that unique contribution piece of our employees.

William Tincup: You know what’s funny about uniqueness is we’ve had it, it’s been here forever since work began. And, we haven’t respected it, and we haven’t given it space. And so on some level you’ve got to… People have always been unique in their thinking, at least, if not other in any other way that we’d like to define that. We just haven’t respected it from a leadership, from a board, from an HR perspective, et cetera. And we haven’t given uniqueness, and our talent the space to be unique. And so, that safety of, “we know you are unique, we’re unique, I’m unique”. Okay. Now let’s have some safety. Let’s have some space and say, “Okay, be unique. And it’s okay.” You mentioned something very early on about trying, and as you mentioned it, I was thinking about trying and failing.

It’s something that HR, we’ve historically not been great at, is being okay with failure. Being okay with, “eh, that didn’t work”. And, being okay with it. As a marketer, that’s actually the job. The job of a corporate marketer, or the B2B marketer is to fail. You throw stuff against the wall. It doesn’t stick. “Oh, okay. All right. Try else”. But it’s somehow in HR that didn’t transfer. In HR, it’s very rigid, and if we try something it’s got to succeed. And, I think that’s squeezed all the air and innovation out of the room. And again, getting back to the important part of what you’re talking about with uniqueness, I think that’s where we don’t give them space. We don’t give that uniqueness the space, nor the respect it deserves.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Yeah. Wholeheartedly agree with that. And, how do we as practitioners, talent practitioners, stewards of our organization’s talent, creates space for of that? It’s a great phrase that I use all the time as well, when I’m working with clients, is how do we create space for that? We need to simplify some of the mess that we’ve created. First of all.

William Tincup: First of all, you have to admit you have a mess.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Make a mess. Make a mess.

William Tincup: In denial…

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Don’t mean that in a derogatory way.

William Tincup: No.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: [crosstalk 00:22:46] I’m absolutely brilliant at creating really complicated development programs. I am so… I’ve done so many of those. Competency models is another great example of creating these idealistic models or pictures in our minds about what the perfect employee does. Everybody… Here’s a great one. Everybody needs to be collaborative. I spoke at a collaboration conference a couple weeks ago. It’s like, “everybody needs to be collaborative”. And it’s like, “well, no, they don’t”.

William Tincup: Hard stop.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: No, actually some people don’t work very well like that. So, back to the uniqueness in honoring that. It’s about honoring each person’s unique skills, talents, gifts, again not in a mushy-smooshy way. Not in an HR Pufnstuf way, but in a, “how is your business going to get…” I’m going… Again, I don’t always like to use financial terms in this context. But, how are we going to get ROI of what for many organizations is their largest line in the budget, which is people stuff. Salaries, right? How are we going to get ROI out of that? You’re not going to get that by treating each person the same. And being able to… One other, thing is you were talking William, that I talked about again, that I speak a lot about with clients is… you’re right marketing. We do, “oh, it failed, try something else”.

We do the same thing in technology, right? We do AB testing. Here’s two different approaches. Let’s go, let’s see, is it two days a week when we tell people how many days they should be in office? Or, is it three days a week, pick your own? Or is it, pick two days a week, or two days a month, and we’re going to do all hands on these two days every month, we want everybody in. And the rest of the time you figure it out on your own. We can test that. We can measure how people experience that. And we… If we call it, this is such a simple thing to do. If we say, “Hey, we’re going to do an experiment”. Now, all of a sudden you’ve got permission to try different things. We just need to call it what it is. We’re going to go do an experiment and see what happens.

We don’t don’t know what the right answer is. So having had experimental mindset as a practitioner gives us the space to rethink, rework, redesign our workplaces in a way that works for our employees. So I’m going to go back to where we started, which is some of those surveys, which are great. They open up the door to curiosity. Those are wonderful. And our organizations are unique and diverse. Our employees are unique and diverse. So again, it’s much more of an “and” than an “or”. Let’s use that data and information for that door for curiosity, to help bring awareness to things we might not be able to see or have been thinking about. And, let’s also make sure that we’re not assuming that there is a best practice. Best practices is a… We should ban that term from our lexicon.

William Tincup: 100 Percent.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: It’s because there is no best practice. I talk about next practices. What’s your next practice.

William Tincup: Right? Because that also assumes that you’re going to audit it and make it better. It’ll change best. The unfortunate part of saying best practices is that, there’s nothing else to do. It’s done. It’s the best practice, so we don’t need to audit. We don’t need to rethink it. We don’t need to ever even touch it again. It’s the best practice. The last thing I want to talk about…

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Yeah, that’s bad.

William Tincup: It is a horrible term. Is on some level, I love how you went into the hybrid work. A part of it is of, letting… Figuring out what works and what doesn’t. And then you touched about it on earlier in the show, that people want different things. So now we have to match those two things up. How much do you think this is about human beings, and some human beings need structure and guidelines and some don’t.

I’ll give you a for instance while you’re figuring out what you’re thinking about. When I taught at the university of Arizona, my first class, I didn’t have a syllabus. In fact, it was very much, I just want people to have conversations. I just wanted kids to come to class. We’re going to talk about a topic. I put it up on the board and we just talk. There were no tests. There were no papers. There were no quizzes. There’s none of that stuff. We’ll just get together to talk. So half the kids, literally, after I went through the first class and I told them how the class was going to roll. It was on American Indian studies 100. So it was a core class. But, not a lot of kids in there that cared about American Indians or history, but I just wanted the discussion.

So, I wanted to try something different. Half the kids at the end of the class go, “Hey, Professor Tincup…”, Not a professor. But, “Professor Tincup, where’s the syllabus?” Yeah. There’s no syllabus. That’s antiquated. The idea that we would have a syllabus, just the concept of a syllabus is antiquated. Let’s not think that thought. We’re going to get together as adults, young adults at this stage. And we’re just going to talk, we’re going to figure it out together. We’re just going to get together. We’re going to talk. Half the kids. “But what’s the… When do we have tests?” There are no tests. There are no [inaudible 00:28:01]. There are no quizzes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So, I get called into my Dean’s office later that week. “Yeah. What are you doing in class?” I said, “Ah, it’s fascinating. Okay, so here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to have conversations, and we’re just going to get together”. There’s 50 kids in class. We’re going to get together. We’re just going to talk. We’re going to hash stuff out. We’re just going to go like, “Okay, what is tribal solidarity?” like, “Whoa, what is that? What does that mean?” And he goes, “Oh, that’s fascinating. That’s fantastic. So what’s the syllabus?” I say, “Yeah, we don’t have a syllabus”. I say… Go through the same thing with the Dean. Dean goes, “Yeah. Okay. So here’s what I need you to do. Go create a syllabus, create some tests, create some quizzes, create some papers”. And I said, “Well, I mean, isn’t this a perfect opportunity?” He goes, “Yeah.” He goes, “But here’s the deal. Half the kids in your class, they can’t. Their minds are blown, because they can’t deal with that lack of structure.”

He goes, “First of all, I love the idea. We’ll do it with one of the grad classes, or PhD classes that you teach, because they can handle. But undergrads can’t handle it”. Not half of them. Half of them can, half of them can’t. Half of them were celebrating. When I was talking, they were like, “Oh my God, this is the class I’ve always wanted to take”. And half of them were in terror, pure terror because there wasn’t a little thing that said on December 8th, there was this test, there was this quiz.

And so I wonder, giving you that backstory, how much of this is both from the HR side that we need guidelines and structure, but more importantly, the employee side, and even more specifically within that, the young talent, that some of this is they need guidelines. So this idea of testing sounds good, but, again, with some folks, it might stick, and with some folks that need more structure. Like, “No, you have to be in the office two days a week. Pick two days, it doesn’t matter, but you need to”. To me, it sounds lovely. Now for folks that maybe can’t handle ambiguity, or can’t consume ambiguity in the same way, they might see that and that might really terrify them. So what’s been your experience with that? This whole idea of guidelines and structure.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: First and foremost, we have to start with the work. So, some work requires more structure, more checklists, more rubrics if you will. And you have to start there. Part of the challenge, I think with a lot of organizations approaches to hybrid right now, is employees feel like it’s about… The decisions aren’t being made on a… It’s about the person, right? “Well, you let this person work hybrid, but not me”. It’s got to start with the work. So I think that’s first and foremost, again, table stakes. And we’ll go back again to that notion of personalization. There would be a great analogy with job descriptions was how you were teaching that class as well. What’s up with job descriptions? Who needs that? What do they do? What? I don’t know what mine says even. I have no idea.

But for some people having that structure around, “”these are my job responsibilities. And I think it starts at the… I know it starts at the team leader, team member level. And HR can support that, but team leaders need to be, and we call them team leaders in our world, anybody who provides support guidance and direction, whether they show up on an org chart or not. And, let’s explore how you work best. Let’s track that in our world. We do this with our software. We’ve built it this way in the Marcus Buckingham Company world. Where we’re looking every week and keeping track of: how are you experiencing work week, by week, by week? What are you working on? And what do you love about that? What do you loathe about it? And it comes down to, a lot of cases, frequency of attention from the most important person at work, which is your team leader. Because then we have the intelligence, and this is not a synchronous/asynchronous thing.

This is not a “where it geographic proximity” thing. It’s an attention thing. And so when team leaders pay really frequent attention to their team members, we now have the intelligence to have the conversation around “how do you work best?”, “What works best for you?”, “Do you need more structure? How can we add that to your world? Do we need less structure? Do you want to be more independent? What does that look like? Is it even possible in the context of the work that we’re paying you to do, in the context of the contributions that we expect you to make?”

We can absolutely do that. In fact, we do that with so many of our clients. It’s the work that I get to do every day. The thing organizationally is, I think so many of us are not quite ready to pull the grown-upness into the world of work yet. We need to get there, and we need to get there faster because things like turnover, productivity, innovation. Those are all going to suffer for organizations who are not figuring it out. We need to figure it out. We’ve got really smart grownups working for us in all aspects of our organization. Now we have to help them go be smart.

William Tincup: You know what I love about that, is you mentioned it earlier, is treating people like adults. And for the pear shaped, middle-aged white guys, loosely translated that’s also treating women that they’re not made of porcelain. So, for those that are listening, that resemble that remark, myself included. It’s again, getting back to honoring, respecting some of the basic things. It’s really, really interesting how the shows come full circle, because we started out with a topic that then eventually got to the best version of you. How do we unlock… How do we unlock the best version of you? Cause if we unlock the best version of you, we unlock the best version of us, and the company. Which in turn unlocks ROI, and unlocks the market potential, and unlocks market growth, and money, and profit, and all the other things that we want as a company. But, we get there and serendipitously we get there with unlocking the best version of the individual, and then that manager, the company, et cetera.

So Amy, I could talk to you all day, but unfortunately I know that you probably have a job, and things to do, and whatever. So I just want to thank you for your time and your wisdom, and I appreciate you coming on the show.

Amy Leschke-Kahle: Oh, it was absolutely my pleasure. I’ve been a fan for a long time. So it was super fun.

William Tincup: Well, that’s awfully kind of you, and thanks for everyone listening to the Recruiting Daily Podcast. Until next time.

Music: You’ve been listening the Recruiting Live Podcast by Recruiting Daily. Check out the latest industry podcasts, webinars, articles, and news at recruitingdaily.com.