Paul Sweeney (00:00)

 The whole kind of CV and job description-based method of recruiting, I think, is so outdated and so silly that I'm surprised companies ever find anybody good. Job descriptions are a complete work of fiction and they bear almost no resemblance to the actual day-to-day work that people do.

They're incredibly unsuited now for both work that has a high level of emotional requirement, but also for work that has high cognitive requirement because real work is ambiguous, it's political, it's creative. How from a CV are you going to be able to find out whether that's the kind of person a frightened seven-year-old is going to tell the truth to? Or whether that's the kind of person who spots a colleague that's drowning and throws them a lifeline.

And now what we've done is taken an idiotic process and supercharged it with AI.

Siân Harrington (01:04)

Hi everyone. Welcome to Work’s Not Working – a show about forward-thinking people leaders, innovators and academics and how they think we can fix work to make it more meaningful, inclusive and sustainable. Brought to you by The People Space.  

I'm Siân Harrington and today I'm joined by Paul Sweeney to ask a question almost everyone has an opinion on. Why does recruitment feel so broken? If you have applied for a job recently, you probably know the experience. You upload a CV, re-enter the same information into a form, answer questions no human may ever read and then often hear nothing back.

But if you are hiring, it may not feel much better. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. CVs written by AI, screening tools trying to make sense of them, candidates gaming the system because the system is already gaming them. And now we are adding more AI to the process. Paul's argument is that this is the wrong place to start. We are not fixing recruitment. We are just making a bad process faster.

So in this episode we explore why job descriptions often bear little resemblance to the work people actually do, why CVs reward polish over potential, and why interviews can tell us more about someone's ability to perform in an interview than their ability to do the job. We also talk about culture fit, evidence-based HR, the limits of algorithmic screening, and what a better hiring system might look like.

But first a bit more about my guest. Paul Sweeney is an author, strategist, and former FTSE 100 chief strategy officer. His book, Magnetic Nonsense, examines why organisations spend so much time and money on leadership models, values, engagement surveys, wellbeing initiatives and transformation programmes without asking whether any of them actually work. He now helps CEOs improve performance by removing organisational nonsense, simplifying structures and uncovering the talent their systems overlook. 

Paul's career began in an airline lost luggage department, which he describes as an unusually useful education in how organisations really work. Since then, he has worked in operational leadership, consulting at London Business School and in the executive suite. So this is a provocative conversation. Paul is certainly not gentle about HR, but beneath the provocation is a serious challenge. If we keep hiring against fantasy jobs through fantasy documents, using automated tools which are trained on the past, then how will organisations ever find the people they say they need.

Siân Harrington (03:55)

So thank you, Paul, for joining me today. This is a subject that really gets to everyone We're all talking about recruitment, what's going wrong with it. And obviously there's a lot of discussion around algorithmic recruitment - one of the first areas that the legal system is looking at, governments are looking at. So there's an awful lot I'd like to get through here and I know you're going to have some opinions. 

So you wrote a great piece on it's time to kill recruitment. So let's start with that. When you say it in its current form we need to kill it, what do you mean? Tell me what needs to die in recruitment.

Paul Sweeney  (04:31)

Recruitment is one of the funniest areas, I think, where very early on in the evolution of AI everybody jumped into this thinking it'll make us much more efficient in how we recruit people. it's turned out to be a complete disaster. Not only is it incredibly inefficient, it's actually now a completely miserable experience. And it also doesn't help you recruit the kind of people that you should be recruiting. So t's kind of a lose-lose for everybody except the vendors of some dubious algorithmic CV scanners. So it's turned into a complete industry of nonsense, basically. 

And companies are suffering because basically the cost of effort of applying to a job is now zero because you press a button on LinkedIn, LinkedIn's AI will do everything for you, you get ChatGPT to do your CV. So what happens is you have thousands of people applying for roles that previously they wouldn't have applied for because they would have had to put some thinking into it and decide whether they actually wanted to explore that job and actually, you know, check out the company, tailor a CV. But now with all that effort gone, you're just batch applying for thousands of jobs a week in some cases. Some people are. 

On the company side they're now using the same AI that the candidates use to write their CVs, they're using the same AI to screen those CVs. So effectively what you have is a complete nonsense where computers are talking to computers and nobody's actually talking about what the job is really like, what kind of people they really should be hiring, and the whole thing is a giant mess now. Nobody's even replying to candidates.

So it's a miserable experience. it portrays the company horribly. and the biggest problem I have with it is I think it's really not finding the talent that people should be finding because they get lost in the mess, in the sea of sameness, basically. 

Siân Harrington (06:19)

I was speaking to a CEO in America the other day and he's using AI really well for a whole range of things. But the one thing he said is not in screening because they did tested it out and he said it just wasn't working for them at all. In fact he was warning our readers and listeners not to use it.

Paul Sweeney (06:41)

It's really interesting because, well, apart from the whole AI thing, most people will never look at a job description again after they get hired. And it'll only be dusted off if they if they have to go to court or fire somebody. in which case it you know it's kind of used as a defence for something or other. So job descriptions are a fiction. So that's the first point. That's the first lie, effectively.  

Let me give you an example. I was very close friends with a teaching assistant who's now retired, but her job on paper, and I cover this a bit in the book, her job description would say something like support the teacher in the classroom, mark some of the homework, deal with some of the queries from the parents, do some of the class preparation planning, and she did all that. But actually, you know what her job really was? It was actually supporting children from broken homes, because sometimes she fed them when they came to school hungry with her own money. She bought them clothes, she took lice out of their hair. That was the only safe space those kids had, that time with her. And that you can't put in a job description, but it's incredibly valuable. So job descriptions are terrible at capturing the important human and emotional context of some work.

You have to respond to all kinds of things that you don't expect. It's dynamic and it's complex. So how do you fit that on a one side of A4? And then you are training these algorithms to try to look for people that match the fiction of the of the silly job description that you've written. So that doesn't work either. So the whole premise of CV and job description based recruiting should have been killed anyway. And now what we've done is taken an idiotic process and supercharged it with AI.

Siân Harrington (08:20)

Absolutely. There's an awful lot to unpack there. So there we're talking about fantasy job descriptions. So it sounds to me like you think they're not really working for anyone.

Paul Sweeney (08:30)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the job descriptions, some of them are hilarious. We chatted, didn't we, about one that was created by the Lego company, where basically the job was for an HR admin person whose job was to update records and change people's addresses and things like that. But it was articulated as co-creating an amazing culture. Engaging everybody, making it the best place in the world to work. So the amount of weird kind of spin that goes into this stuff, as well you know, it's kind of essentially propaganda, trying to portray these companies as actually take a link back to Lego. I don't know if you remember the Lego movie where everything was awesome, well, job adverts are the Lego movie because everything's always awesome in a job advert in a job description, so it's it is quite funny.

Siân Harrington (09:13)

I've spoken to some HR directors about this, where they've been led by the job description and by the interviews to thinking that their job was going to be, let's say, less admin or more high level, or there are some serious issue they needed to look at. And then when they've got there, they are just glorified admin. So that's not working for anyone. So really, we're saying they're not really helping candidates, they're not helping the organisation, they're not helping HR, the people hiring them or HR. 

Paul Sweeney (09:43)

There's something else that's missing in the whole thing as well. I've been doing this course with Oxford Business School, trying to get more into the nuts and bolts of how these algorithms work and they're deep neural networks that are trained, and in the context of this kind of AI CV screening, they'll be trained on the job descriptions, which are a fiction, and then they will be trained probably on the CVs of people that were hired before into those roles, particularly the ones that have done well.

So that's kind of the training set of things that are fed into these algorithms. And then what they'll do then is try to match somehow the characteristics on paper of candidates. Now, this does a few things. It means that if there was any bias in the training data, the same bias will flow through into the selection. And that creates some legal jeopardy, which is going to get a lot worse shortly. 

But what it also does is it screens out anybody interesting. Anybody different. And actually I would argue that you're much better off trying to find curious, interesting and different people for a lot of roles than you are trying to replicate the people that you already have. 

I would love to talk to somebody who applied for a job and said, actually, you know what, I haven't been working for two years because I've sailed around the world with my family. And you think, whoa, that's an interesting thing to do, right? Like let's go and have a conversation with that person. So it's looking for that kind of sameness, steadiness, nothing out of the blue, nothing super interesting, and if you hire for that you will get what you deserve, I think.

Siân Harrington (11:15)

So we're talking about needing that curiosity, that creativity. And I've spoken to a lot of people about how are you identifying that? And actually, even if we ignored the AI and algorithms, we'd be at that stage where the job description itself as a method for doing this is already failing. And then, as we've been discussing, what we're just doing is we're multiplying that. So we're using a broken system and then sort of speeding it up basically.

Paul Sweeney (11:46)

I know. 

Siân Harrington (11:47)

So there's a real sort of dichotomy there in terms of what people are trying to recruit for or say they want to recruit for and the methods that we have to recruit. What do you think for HR leaders who might agree with you but there's a lot of pressure at the moment to use AI in particular, and recruitment seems to be one of the areas that has taken to it first. They might agree with you but there's that pressure on them and they're managing the risk, they're managing hiring or whatever. I mean, where would you say people can start to try and look at this and argue back maybe or work with vendors? It's a big question.

Paul Sweeney (12:32)

Yeah, and I think the problem with most of the vendors is they are answering the wrong question. They're trying to speed up that broken process and make it more cost effective, and then the question that the HR director should be asking is if I was to test that process against what I do now, would it give me a better outcome? You know, not just would it be cheaper, but would it give me a better outcome in terms of the kind of people that I'm able to find. And I think the answer might be surprising. I haven't yet found anybody doing anything interesting in recruitment with AI. 

And I think there are interesting things you could do that would solve the cost problem but might give you a more intelligent outcome. One is kind is reverse auditioning, almost. The idea that the company pitches to the individual with a more truthful picture of what the role is like. And then the individual perhaps can select or deselect that role. And I've been playing with how would you do that? And I think you could have quite fun with that. 

But one of my ideas is to get almost an anonymous collection of feedback from people doing the role. And that could be collected by the company, but on an anonymised basis, which would essentially ask them the question, if a friend of yours or a or a nephew or niece of yours was applying for a job in this company in this area, what is the story that you would tell them about it? And I think you can then use AI quite interestingly to gather that information, but also then to do sentiment analysis to do kind of paint that picture in which would be a much more honest picture of what the job is really like. And then that would allow candidates to kind of step back and go, I can see where it's going to be interesting, I can see where it's going to be difficult. Is this the kind of thing I really want to do for the with the next, you know, X number of years of my life? So I think that might be kind of interesting. 

Interviews are part of the problem because interviews reward people that are good at interviews. And just because you're good at interviews doesn't mean you're going to be good at the job. So there's a fundamental kind of attribution problem in the middle of the interview idea. I'm not saying, by the way, that we shouldn't do interviews, but they reward people who can tell good stories about themselves. And whether or not those stories are true, nobody knows until afterwards, but I think there is something in being able to use AI to perhaps present people with different scenarios or simulations.

That might test actually how do they really think. So not just how can they tell stories about the typical question. You know, give me an example of a time where you showed leadership is one of the dumbest questions in the world, probably, right? But actually putting them under pressure in a time-based scenario that might say something like, and this is one from my past actually, it might say something like, you work in a safety critical organisation and you notice there's a strong smell of alcohol from someone who's your manager in this context, what do you do? Do you do nothing? Do you take them to one side and tell them to go home? Or do you tell their line manager and you have three seconds to answer? All right. So I think more simulations to get to the heart of how people might actually respond under pressure, I think might be fun. 

And then the third thing is this idea of trust networks. 

Siân Harrington (15:45)

Yes, can you explain that a little bit? Because I've read some of your work on that.

Paul Sweeney (15:51)

This is fraught with risk as well, but I think. Nevertheless it could be kind of fun. And my experience of this came years ago from a crazy German entrepreneur that I'd applied for a job with and he said, I like you. You've done a good interview. now you must give me 25 references and I will select five at random. And so I had to get 25 references, which is quite an effort, right? Then he did select five at random and he grilled the hell out of them and then he still gave me the job for unknown reasons. But I asked him afterwards, I said, that was a lot of overhead, and he said, Yeah, look, the thing is I keep making mistakes because people do good interviews and I hired them, and then they're not what I thought they were. And so this does two things. It makes you have to make some effort, so I know you're interested. But also, if you can even find 25 people that will say something nice about you you're probably not a complete waste of space. So actually, having that broader perspective on candidates that you don't get from an interview or from maybe just one reference is quite interesting,

Siân Harrington (16:49)

We were talking a lot about young people trying to get jobs at the moment. So of course they're not going to have 25 referees or things like that. How do you see them being affected by all this change? Because as you said, on the one hand, it makes it easier for them to actually apply, but we need to teach them it's not worth doing that. it's actually better to spend more time really trying to look at a proper job that you really want to do and make an effort there. But it's a really tough time for them at the moment.

Paul Sweeney (17:19)

It is quite difficult because it's so hard to get through the screening process and it's very disheartening for young people who apply for hundreds, even thousands of jobs and don't even get the courtesy of a response, which I think is just very rude, actually. So I think we have to move away from this CV based stuff and try to find a way to engage with young people. And that might be more around looking for evidence of creativity, evidence of critical thinking, evidence of collaboration on work projects, or school projects because I think in a world where AI will creep into doing the sort of donkey work and the less cognitive stuff, more and more I think employers will be having to hire for that curiosity and creativity. 

I've got a son who's looking for a job at the moment in IT and I've actually encouraged him. When he was 13 he randomly did this amazing project, which I didn't even know he was doing, but he entered a competition to run or to figure out an experiment to run on the Raspberry Pi computer on the International Space Station. And he submitted this project and his software was run on the space station by astronauts and they sent him back the details by email. I was thinking, dude, like put that front and centre in your CV because if anybody reads that, that's really interesting. So how do we find a way to encourage young people to tell those stories about the really interesting things they've done and mine that as a seam of telling you about how curious they are, how creative they are. I would love to find a way to help that happen.

Siân Harrington (18:53)

I would too. So maybe we need to put our heads together on that. So let's, talk about a phrase I know you're going to hate. Culture fit. Are those the most dangerous words we could possibly hear in recruitment? 

Paul Sweeney (18:59)

Yeah. Yay, my favourite. Totally. Well, the first thing is that most companies, if you ask the CEO, are trying to change their culture. So the first question you should ask is well If you're trying to change your culture, why are you trying to hire people that fit with the one that you're trying to change? So that's kind of the first silly thing, right? 

My favourite research in this space was commissioned by the CIPD, who commissioned a huge evidence review run by the Center for Evidence-Based Management, which is a very good research outfit, looked at all the academic evidence around culture and the conclusions were absolutely brilliant. The first one was there's no agreement on what the term even means and there's no way to measure it, even if it did mean something. The second was if there's a link between something called culture and organisational performance it's too weak to be statistically significant. And the best one they saved for last, which was there is no evidence whatsoever from the research that any culture change programmes ever improved the performance of any organisation. So I think this is really a big fun topic and the there's so much nonsense out there and it's just it's quite hilarious. So culture can't be defined. There's no evidence that it can be changed by hiring some kind of culture team or having a director of culture. You know, none of it makes any difference and it's an utter waste of time.

Siân Harrington (20:28)

I'm sure a lot of people I know would be pushing back on that a bit. But, and there is some argument, that not everything can be measured.

Paul Sweeney (20:39)

I agree with that. I agree with that. Yeah.

Siân Harrington (20:33)

Or some things that do make a difference. And it may be that you can't immediately save one thing lines to the other, but certainly when you work in somewhere, you do feel a sense of culture and you could talk about places I've worked where I'd say the culture was terrible, toxic and I didn't perform as well because I didn't engage in it in that same way. So it's a bit of a tricky one in that respect, whereas others where you want to do your best because everyone there's a team, it's all related to everything. A team around you, bosses, managers, all this, isn't itI I guess that's the wider culture?

Paul Sweeney ((21:05)

I don't disagree with some of what you've said. So, I think what people experience is behaviour. And then the lazy default we have, and this is the same in every public inquiry that's ever been convened, as far as I can tell, looking at a major corporate collapse or an NHS scandal, what's the answer? It was the culture m’lord. Now culture is a very lazy abstract on which to blame everything. And particularly in corporate scandals, and I did some quite in-depth research on this with a book, but in corporate scandals, what you tend to see is the same patterns of behaviour playing out again and again. And then the question is if it's not culture, is there something else going on, right? But if, once you start looking at the research into power and hierarchy, you realize that the research into those is entirely predictive of the things that we are blaming culture for. 

So, for example, there's a guy called Paul Piff at the University of California, Irvine, who spent 20 years researching the effects of power and status. And if you put people in positions of high power, interesting things happen to them. They start to think they're smarter than everybody else, they start to think of people as just resources and costs, so they lose a lot of empathy for the people at the bottom of the organisation. They start to make decisions that favour their own compensation and not other stakeholders. And over time, the research shows they're more likely to condone unethical behaviour to get those rewards and that is the same pattern you see again and again in every massive corporate failure and it's just blamed on culture, where the research would suggest actually it's much more to do with power and we should be addressing the effects of power in organisations. 

And it turns out that if you put people in a situation where they have very little autonomy and control, and if you then subject them to continuous job insecurity, which basically is what life is like for many millions of people now at the bottom of organisations, some research from the US indicates that those conditions were more predictive of early death than high blood pressure. So there's real harm being done by the uneven distribution of power and autonomy in organisations. And I think we need to pay more attention to the mental health impact of not giving people enough autonomy and giving some people too much autonomy and power.

Siân Harrington (23:25)

So you used to be the chief strategy officer of a FTSE 100 business. Was there anything in that role that started you thinking a bit more critically about areas like culture, wellbeing, particularly recruitment, but generally about the way organisations are going about work today. 

Paul Sweeney (23:46)

I think probably it was a bit more before that role that was more formative. So I bailed out of university and took a job in the lost baggage department of an airline once upon a time and so I was right at the bottom of that organisation. Then I worked my way up through various operational jobs into middle management, into senior management, then I bailed out of the airlines and worked in a startup for a while, but then I became an accidental management consultant through a conversation in a pub. And that gave me exposure to loads of companies in loads of different sectors and in different countries, even. And there was a point in the whole thing where I became a bit like the kid in the Sixth Sense movie who saw dead people everywhere. I was just going into organisations, thinking why are you all doing exactly the same things? Well, it's really clear if you step back that none of it's working. And also, if you looked at the macro level picture. Employee engagement has been abysmal for decades. well-being is going south despite a hundred billion will be spent on it worldwide this year and have no effect. performance management doesn't improve performance. Values are a completely pointless waste of time. All the stuff about culture is made up. But so all these companies who are full of intelligent people, all doing the same thing for no reason that I could kind of discern, right? 

So that was what sparked my curiosity. And then working in a senior role in an organisation was interesting because if anything, that kind of removes you from most of the nonsense and you don't have to see it anymore. It was only the experience of having to work up through from the bottom, I think, and then seeing loads of companies from the outside that really started me thinking about why this was. And that's why like I took a year out to do the research in the book to try to figure out what the hell was causing all this mindless activity where no one questioned anything despite the results being fairly dismal.

Siân Harrington (25:40)

So it's all very easy to criticise, but how do we move forward? Let's look at some concrete possibilities. 

You've talked about simulation-based training and things like that. It's very difficult to change an organisation, let alone a system that's in every single organisation. What would you think we could do to redesign recruitment? And who do you think should be playing the lead role in that? Are we talking about HR managers, organisations? Where could we start with that? Because it's bigger, as I said, than one organisation.

Paul Sweeney (26:16)

Yeah, it's bigger. It's a symptom of a lack of critical thinking in organisations. I actually think the place to start would probably be with the HR team. And the intervention that I would love to do with HR teams is not just about recruitment, but it's about how do you learn to think critically so that you can challenge some of the assumptions you're working under and then learn how to construct some interesting experiments where you might test a different approach and see what happens. And that to me is an interesting approach because it's relatively low risk. You're not saying throw everything in the bin and let's come up with something completely different. What you're saying is look, let's look at the evidence and the issues and work out a set of hypotheses to say, why don't we run a small experiment to say, the next 20 people we recruit. Let's do it in a completely different way and see what happens. 

I think the learning from that could be an awful lot of fun and could really point you in a direction that you might not even expect. And it may be that it's a disaster and you go back to what you were doing before. But my big problem with organisations in general is that nobody ever seems to test anything. We test loads of stuff about products and marketing and sales, but when do we ever test stuff about how we fundamentally run and design the organisation? I recently gave a talk at a KPMG event for C-suite leadership training stuff that they were doing. And started by saying, look, imagine you were an alien from a faraway planet whose job it was to keep an eye on planet Earth and the last time you were here was 1966, because it takes 30 years to get to your planet and back again.

So you come back in 2026 and you would be absolutely amazed at the progress of human society. We'd have been to the moon, we've been to the deepest oceans, we've invented the internet and AI, we've made vast, vast advances in medicine, decoded DNA. But then if you were to go to a typical organisation, you would go, whoa, hang on a second, why is this still the same as it was in 1996? It's the same hierarchies, it's the same philosophy, it's broadly the same functions. Some of the tools are different, but the fundamental design and thinking of how we run organisations hasn't really moved on, apart from a handful of quite pioneering ones, but they are very much in the minority. So I'm always really intrigued by the fact that we don't test different approaches about how we run organisations.

Siân Harrington (28:49)

So let's just look at a couple of things end to end. So where in your mind should HR be concentrating? Where can it make the real difference?

Paul Sweeney (29:03)

In my mind, actually, I would say HR started out with a noble purpose, which was to protect the human against exploitation and try to create better working conditions for people, and I think they need to go back there. And it seems to me that somehow along the way, HR has kind of lost its purpose and become kind of the execution partner to not very well thought out things, like transformation programmes that don't deliver, culture programmes that make no difference, values, rollouts they've self-fulfilled their own kind of brochure, if you know what I mean. So at some point, HR made a play for let us be the architect of all the human experience, let us be the designers of culture, the people that will engage the employees, we're in charge of all the human stuff.

But in reality, they have very little influence over most of the things that drive that experience, which is job design, your line manager, your workload, etc. etc. So there's something about how does HR reclaim that ground where it was more about protecting the human and creating a really nice working environment that isn't based on myths and cause effect fallacies about abstract things like culture.

So how does HR get some teeth into things like job design, pay, poor management, the things that make a real difference to people, particularly at the bottom of the hierarchy. How do they tackle power and the downsides of power? How do they fight for autonomy? Because actually the wellbeing research reliably indicates now that giving people more autonomy is the thing that makes mental health better. 

So how does HR take that evidence and that purpose and create a completely new set of things to test in organisations, but that have actually got some teeth. So rather than just being the execution partner for dumb stuff, can they take the lead again? I would love to see HR do that because I think more and more with AI as well now there's a need for some function to protect the human and to fight for things that are genuinely humanly valuable, I think.

Siân Harrington (31:04)

I was going to say with the age of AI that does sound like a possibility. Also, AI can take away some of the stuff that's no good, but it can take away some of it. 

Paul Sweeney (31:13)

The other interesting thing about AI is you can use it to help your critical thinking. So, if you're if you work in HR and you're curious about what you're doing, you can put AI in research mode and go and say, well look, here's all the stuff we're doing on wellbeing as a company. Is there any evidence that any of this is actually going to work?

And AI will give you quite a detailed and objective answer pointing to evidence that says, actually, probably not. it's a waste of money. And here's all the research that you should be looking at. So I think rather than just carry on with the same stuff endlessly and hoping that something changes, I'd like to see HR leverage the research capabilities of AI to support critical thinking and evidence-based practice.

Siân Harrington (31.58)

So if I gave you all the power now, tomorrow, what one hiring practice, what recruiting practice would you abolish? Would you stop? Just one. 

Paul Sweeney (32:09)

I would stop the CV based recruiting and I would try to test at least one or two different approaches and see what happens. And that's something you could do quite easily. It could help with diversity as well and inclusion because there’s some evidence that suggests if you have to hire for one role, which is which is a relatively important role, you'll be much more risk averse. But if you batch hired five at a time for those roles, you'd be much more willing to take a punt on somebody more interesting. So there's other little things you can try out and test. I would love to create a whole set of experiments that you could at low risk try out with recruitment. Why not? It might be fun, right? 

Siân Harrington (32:50)

That was Paul Sweeney making the case that recruitment is often built around a fiction. Job descriptions rarely capture the real work. CVs rarely capture the real person. And AI will not solve this if all we ask it to do is move faster through the same old process. 

Paul's challenge to HR is a tough one. Stop accepting best practice because everybody else uses it. Instead, start asking what the evidence says. Test small alternatives and look harder at power, autonomy, job design and the real conditions that shape how work feels.

So thanks for listening to Works Not Working, Let's Fix It. I'm Siân Harrington, and you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And follow me on LinkedIn at Siân Harrington, The People Space. For more bold ideas and practical tools on the future of work, head to the people space dot com. This episode was produced by Nigel Pritchard. Until next time, let's just keep asking what would make work better. Goodbye.