none-oias-kcr01

Thought, Idea or Concept What's the Difference and Why it Matters

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:52:52 GMT

Four Years, Three Job Hunts, One Lesson: It Wasn't What I Learned - It's What I Knew All Along

By: Brandon Bader

Words are powerful, and often, without even realizing it, what we say to others can come across as dismissive — unintentionally.

When someone is known for their smart thinking, their ability to bring solutions to the table, they’re often labeled as a “great ideas person.” This type of recognition can feel rewarding at first. People praise their creativity, their ability to think outside the box, and their vision for solving problems. But, all too often, these brilliant ideas don’t lead anywhere.

There are levels to everything. And when it comes to problem-solving, there’s a clear difference between someone who merely something to the table and someone who takes it further. While none of these contributions are inherently more or less valuable in a discussion, they’re received and applied in very different ways.

A Thought:

Anyone can have a thought. In fact, everyone has opinions, and we live in a time where those opinions are shared far and wide — sometimes, perhaps, too much. Just because someone has a thought doesn’t mean they have more than that. Yet, we often treat these fleeting ideas as if they are legitimate discourse when, many times, they’re simply riffs or off-the-cuff remarks.

Thoughts certainly have legitimate value in our discussions. The exchange of ideas is something that feels increasingly absent in our society today. However, where thoughts become dangerous is when they are legitimized as facts. People naturally gravitate toward ideas that align with their own beliefs. When thoughts echo similar viewpoints, they create a sense of community — this can be validating. But that sense of validation can sometimes cloud judgment, leading people to believe that their thoughts are indisputable truths.

Thoughts belong in discussion, but they should not be seen as the final destination. They are just the starting point, the spark for further discourse. A thought alone doesn’t hold all the weight — it’s through dialogue, exploration, and the sharing of perspectives that true understanding emerges. We need to recognize that thoughts are simply ideas to build upon, not conclusions to settle on. They initiate the journey, but it’s the process that leads to deeper insight and solutions.

An Idea:

Ideas are often what we praise. A good idea has the potential to move systems forward; a great idea can bring about sweeping change. Unlike thoughts, which are speculative, ideas are more actionable — they are a step further down the road toward solving a problem. Ideas are forged through experience, often firsthand. When someone sees a problem, they don’t just acknowledge it — they propose a solution, a way to fix it. The value of an idea lies in its ability to spark tangible change and action, turning abstract thinking into something that can be implemented and tested.

An idea is more than just a thought. It requires depth — a level of understanding that goes beyond the surface. To have an idea, one must comprehend the what, how, and why of a situation. It’s about recognizing a problem, understanding its context, and then figuring out not just what needs to change, but how that change can be effectively brought about and why it matters. It’s the ability to connect dots that others may overlook, to see potential solutions where others see only obstacles.

Ideas, by nature, are hypothetical. They are the blueprint for what could be, but they are just that — a vision until action is taken. The challenge comes when ideas are put into motion. It’s one thing to propose a solution, but it’s an entirely different thing to make it happen. The real work begins when human variables enter the equation. People with different perspectives, priorities, and skill sets may influence or even challenge the idea. Disagreements can arise, and the original concept might evolve — or even stall — along the way.

If an idea progresses to implementation, it’s no longer just about brilliance, it’s about the people who are responsible for executing it. A successful idea is dependent on how well others can execute the plan and adapt it in practice, not just in theory.

Having an idea is no small feat. It’s often the product of creativity, experience, and insight. However, just like thoughts, anyone can come up with a good or a bad idea. The real test comes when that idea is shared with others. Once presented, it requires collective action to make it come to life. People need to rally around the idea, contribute their expertise, and work together to bring it to fruition.

This is where many ideas falter — because they require more than just one person’s vision. They need buy-in, collaboration, and often compromise. When there isn’t alignment, or when the necessary support and resources are missing, ideas can remain grounded, never reaching their full potential.

A Concept:

Concepts are not ideas. There’s a significant distinction between the two, and I’ve often found myself pushing back when someone calls what I’m presenting “just an idea.” If I’m bringing something to the table, it’s because I’ve seen it work in some other context — whether in another industry, situation, or environment. It’s not purely theoretical or hypothetical. It’s something that has been tried, tested, and proven, and I’m adapting it to the current situation.

A concept, then, is more than an abstract notion; it’s an idea that has been grounded in real-world application and experience. It has depth because it’s built on evidence and results, not just speculation.

Bringing a concept into a conversation means you’re not just copying something verbatim. It’s about emulation, not replication. Emulation involves taking something that already exists and figuring out how it can fit and function within your own environment. You don’t want to simply make a carbon copy, you want to retrofit it, adapting it to your specific ecosystem.

Concepts are built from the thoughts and ideas that have proven successful elsewhere. They are the result of what has already worked, and the goal is to refine and improve upon it. Implementing a concept is about more than just execution; it’s about evolving it, making it better, and ensuring that it thrives in a new context. That’s where the real work lies: transforming a proven concept into something that works even better in your situation.

Concepts represent the intersection of practice and expertise. When you bring a concept to the table, the question isn’t whether it will work; it’s about how it will work and what the necessary steps are to make it a reality. A concept is grounded in real-world experience and proven strategies, with an understanding of what needs to be done to succeed.

To dismiss a concept as simply an idea does more than discredit the person presenting it — it stifles progress. It undermines the value of combining knowledge and experience to create something that can drive real change. Ignoring the depth of a concept is not only a disservice to the person presenting it but also to the broader potential for improvement and innovation. Concepts push us forward; they challenge the status quo and demand action.

It’s easy to blur the lines between thoughts, ideas, and concepts because, at times, we cut corners with how we label them. However, the nuance between the three is crucial. If you pay close attention, the differences become clear. Understanding whether someone is bringing a thought, an idea, or a fully developed concept to the table is vital for growth and progress.

Each type of contribution carries its own weight and purpose, and knowing which one is being presented provides context that can shape how you approach the discussion. Recognizing the distinctions can transform how teams collaborate and innovate. It’s the foundation for fostering deeper dialogue, creating actionable plans, and ensuring that the right resources are allocated to the right opportunities.

Understanding the layers of thought, idea, and concept empowers us to not just react to proposals but to approach them with a clearer mindset, one that recognizes the value in every stage of the creative process. By acknowledging and respecting this differentiation, we can drive smarter, more effective solutions forward.

Four Years, Three Job Hunts, One Lesson: It Wasn't What I Learned - It's What I Knew All Along

Mon, 05 May 2025 03:11:37 GMT

Four Years, Three Job Hunts, One Lesson: It Wasn't What I Learned - It's What I Knew All Along

By: Brandon Bader

I’ve written and rewritten this piece probably six times. It was supposed to be a moment of triumph — all of the pain from trying to establish myself, the different jobs, different states, the long hours pursuing a doctoral degree. I was supposed to be having a victory lap, high-fiving the crowd and doing everything I said I would be doing.

It didn’t turn out that way — at least not right away.

I did a podcast in October 2024 outlining some of this, so I won’t rehash it all. But a change in plans means full commitment to the new process, an acceptance of the reality, and some delusional confidence that you’ve got this.

In 2017, I had just moved to the East Coast. I was the head coach of a high school volleyball team, and we were in the middle of a pretty intense match. When I took over that team, I knew it was going to be a rebuild. I had the time, and there were ways I wanted to develop the team that would hopefully create something sustainable and lasting.

In that game I mentioned, I had a young player, a sophomore we were trying to scale up to the varsity level. The plan was to do it gradually, not toss her into the middle of a match early in the season. Until it was.

I remember walking over, sitting next to her on the bench, and saying, “We may need you to go in.” There was a look of absolute horror in her eyes because the plan had changed. And when I saw that look, before she could say anything, I said, “Look, we don’t have time for that. It’s time to go. You in or you out?”

She was in. She was more than up to the moment and became one of our best players. That memory reminded me that sometimes, it’s just time to go and you need to make something happen.

If you’ve ever played competitive sports, you know how much work goes into being good — as a team and as an individual. Games are the reward for a week of practice. The expectation is to win. So, when you don’t, it hurts. It’s like resetting to zero and starting the process all over again.

The good news is that season’s end. Even if you’re losing every game, there’s a date on the calendar when the suffering ends.

But a job search? That’s the losing season with no end in sight. Application after application. Screen after screen. Weeks-long processes just to hear “no thanks” — usually not even from a real person.

Cruel is the word that comes to mind. Not long ago, finding work meant walking into a place with an opening. Sure, you had to fill out an online application, but I remember being able to contact people directly. I remember Facebook having a jobs section. I remember asking how to gain experience and managers making it happen. I’m 31. I’m not giving a “back in my day” lecture — this was only 2020.

For all the talk of being short-staffed, it’s started to feel like just another excuse to ignore the underlying problem. I have had a lot of affirmations the last few years. In 2021, I “retired” from coaching after nearly a decade. I wanted something new and knew that with a doctoral degree in the works, I needed to shape my career differently. I accomplished that, but it was because I was doing everything I knew would help get me there, even if in the moment, it didn’t feel like that was the case.

People Need People

The people in your circle matter. The first thing I did was link up with a career counselor offered by my alma mater. Years later, he’s become someone vital to my professional and personal growth. I don’t go into situations hoping to make friends — I go into them hoping for a human experience. Authenticity can be a double-edged sword because most people aren’t comfortable being their true selves all the time.

I don’t view this person as an advisor anymore — he’s a friend. Because when someone willingly walks part of your journey with you, that’s the essence of the human experience. As lonely as the job hunt can be, I never felt alone. That kept me afloat.

Generational Disconnect

Not everyone understands the current job market. I’ll have a longer conversation about that later. But trends show increased mobility among millennials and Gen Z. Talk to Gen X or a boomer and the idea of changing jobs every few years doesn’t compute. That disconnect contributes to the struggle.

I spent most of the last four years lying to my family, in-laws, and acquaintances. My mom, wife, and a few friends knew the truth because I trusted they wouldn’t make my life harder than it already was.

Part of me blames outdated mindsets. Part of me thinks they’re selfish or oblivious. I’ve been around diverse people. No one chooses instability. People want to work. Assuming those without work are flawed is damaging, because work contributions are not a way to determine someone’s value.

A Title is a Designation, not a Definition

You are more than your title. That took me time to understand — and I still haven’t fully mastered it. America is so work-centric that even at a 7pm social event, someone asks, “What do you do for work?”

I’ve made a point to shift my mindset. I talk about anything but work outside of work. Even in interviews, when asked, “Tell me about yourself,” I steer away from my resume and give them a glimpse of who I actually am.

Relating to people goes back to the human experience. Remember how easy it was to make friends as a kid? Someone had a Power Rangers Band-Aid and suddenly you were besties. That might not come back as an adult, but we can detach people from titles and make things easier.

There’s pride in being a VP. But whether you’re a VP, flipping burgers, cleaning windows, or answering phones, there’s a person in that role who is more than their job. It takes intentionality to think this way, but it has been a catalyst for my mental health to separate the two beyond just not bringing work home.

Hiring is Broken, Probably Beyond Repair

Companies don’t get it. Whether it’s high turnover, low-quality applicants, or hiring delays, they often treat people negligently. Somewhere we lost the plot. Gone are the days of growing into roles. Now it’s about instant production. I’ve been tossed into overwhelming roles with no support more than once.

I can share those stories because I survived. But is that how we want people to experience work? That existential dread? That white-knuckle grind just to make it through a day with no support? Mental health has cratered, pay hasn’t adjusted with living costs and people skills are eroding by the generation.

I did a dissertation on hiring practices. I won’t bore you. But companies forget there are people applying for jobs. Most applications vanish into black holes, screened out by algorithms or entry-level recruiters who don’t know how to evaluate talent.

The amount of work it takes to get an interview let alone a job is Cruel. That’s still the word. Every application carries hope. Emotional capital. Hours filling out information already on your resume. Then you wait — only to get a robotic rejection, and have to start the process all over again, hoping that the next day is going to be that day.

Be Human, Make A Routine

People apply because they believe they can do the job. And most of the time, they can — if given the opportunity. But the hunt for perfect candidates and perfect jobs? A waste. Neither exists. Like any relationship, it requires compromise.

Routine matters. I’m disciplined. I thrive on structure. I did all my grad school online — you have to be efficient. I know how I like to start and end my day. What happens in between? Unpredictable. And that’s fine. It’s the little things that help you survive the chaos.

During a job search, this matters even more. It’s easy to spiral. Suddenly it’s noon, you haven’t eaten, haven’t showered, and feel like the day’s a waste.

Treat the job search like a job. Wake up on time. Eat. Move. Shower. Put on real clothes. Humanize the day. Give yourself a chance to win it.

Treat yourself. Even if money’s tight, get creative. For me, Tuesday night is spa night. Wine. Bath. Face masks. Whatever I’ve got in the bin. It matters. You matter. You deserve something to look forward to.

If you’re unemployed, you likely have free time. Fill it. Don’t sit idle. That’s draining. It doesn’t have to be paid. Volunteer. Work part-time. Do projects. Create. Stay sharp.

You protect your sanity. You shrink the work gap. And who knows — you might meet someone who leads you to your next role. Control your narrative.

Your Feelings Are Real and Your Value is High

Be sad. Be frustrated. Just don’t let it consume you. You will hear “no” a lot. But it only takes one “yes.” Feel it all. Process it. Then keep going.

The job hunt feels personal. But it’s not. It can spiral fast. Protect your peace. Hold tight to the things that bring you joy. Let the rest go. It’s hard. But worth it.

You’re pretty freaking awesome. Truly. Deep down, I always knew that about myself. People in my circle reinforced it. But recently, it took someone who didn’t know me to say it for it to have the impact it needed. My career so far? Impressive. If someone can’t see that, that’s on them. Not me. My value is what I decide it is. So is yours.

If someone needs you to justify yourself instead of simply listening, they don’t deserve your energy. That goes for work — and life.

What You Want Still Matters

What you envision for yourself matters. I hate when people ask about goals like they need to be set for life. Five years ago, I was going to keep coaching. Ten years ago, I thought I’d be on ESPN. Ask me now? I’ll probably have a different answer in 2030.

The constant is this: I value autonomy and sanity. I don’t value work. I value what work enables. I’ve done the 70-hour weeks. Missed events. Felt trapped. I’m done with that. I won’t put myself in environments where that’s the expectation.

I’m privileged. I have a successful track record. A doctoral degree. And yes, because I’m 31 and live in America, I’ll probably work another 35 years. But at least I have a long road left to enjoy the things I want. Have a family. Find joy. Make some money in the process.

Nothing is forever — unless you let it be. Whether it’s your current job, your career path, or anything else. We create these long-term roadmaps that become impossible burdens. Forever is a long time.

You can quit anything. And sometimes, you should. Nothing is permanent. Maybe it’s time to do your own thing — and make sure forever never even crosses your mind. If you’re in this position, I won’t lie: it won’t be easy. If it’s your first time job hunting in a while, a lot has changed. If you’ve been at it a while, I know it feels endless. But it won’t be. Someone will say yes — or you will.

I don’t wish this process on anyone. I don’t envy those in it. I know the pain. But on the other side, you get to take the lessons and build your joy.

My mom always says: if 10 people threw their problems into the middle of a room, most would take theirs back. She’s right. I wouldn’t trade my experience. The pain. The struggle. The growth. All of it is part of my story, and that story is not even halfway written.

I’m not going to say good luck. I’ll say this: your day is coming, and it will feel incredible when it does.

I’m not where I thought I’d be, if anything I’m 10 years ahead. But because of that I’ve stopped trying to force the fit and took the control back where it belongs. I’ve known for a while that this was the likely outcome. There’s no more waiting and it’s time to go. I’m all in.

Subsequent Podcast to this Article

If Your Job Sucks Today, It’s Still Going To Suck Tomorrow

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:25:19 GMT

If Your Job Sucks Today, It’s Still Going To Suck Tomorrow

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published August 13, 2023)

A fish rots from the head down, and a toxic culture can have employees often feeling trapped in adverse situations beyond their control, evoking feelings of powerlessness and anxiety. Unfortunately, if you are in this situation, that likely means that it is not going to get any better. In fact, it will likely get worse, especially if there is not an attempt at meaningful change from leadership.

Detached leadership myopically prioritizes optics and profits, not the people which truly are an organization’s most valuable and important asset. Employees often operate within narrowly prescribed parameters, either begrudgingly accepting the stagnant reality or trying to take agency where possible. But individual agency can only go so far within a rigid and toxic cultural framework.

As problems mount, some organizations instead of addressing these issues, instead make hollow offerings. Beware the sudden influx of minor or superficial internal role changes, morale-boosting events that temporarily mask dysfunction, or my personal favorite planned concessions that fix one problem but create another. However, these solutions do not even begin to address the root cause of toxicity and is the equivalent of putting a band-aid over a bullet wound.

Of course, many employers do genuinely value their people and cultivate an environment for employees to grow and thrive. However, for unhealthy organizational cultures, nothing will ever substantially improve unless the enablers of toxicity fundamentally evolve or leave. As an employee, your main options are to either cling to the slim hope of unlikely positive change, or to proactively assert agency where possible and advocate for yourself in that organization, or outside of it.

In recent years, many workers have rejected unhealthy organizational dynamics by freely pursuing better opportunities elsewhere. I myself did just that. It wasn’t an easy decision or transition. Leaving a job means exchanging the relative certainty of a stable position for the potential of something unknown but hopefully better. It means jeopardizing reliable income for a chance at greater fulfillment.

Just the prospect of having to start over and depart an organization amplifies the anxiety. We’re conditioned from an early age to inextricably link our self-worth with our work. We’re taught that if we depart it could hurt our chances to get a new job, regardless of if it is justified or not. However, that mindset only holds power if you enable it and accept it as truth. Your value as a human far exceeds any value that comes from your employment.

Every organization has challenges and areas for improvement, but some completely lose sight of their people. If your workplace culture feels irreparably toxic, first take care of yourself mentally and emotionally, then carefully evaluate your options. In some cases that may ultimately mean deciding to move on. Your personal fulfillment and well-being matter most. Seek out organizations that will truly recognize and appreciate your talents — they do exist, even if it takes effort to find them.

All Information is Useful When Evaluating People

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:24:12 GMT

All Information is Useful When Evaluating People

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published August 25, 2023)

I have a few burner online accounts and I have no shame about it. They’re not for antagonizing others on social media either. What they do allow me to explore digital spaces detached from my identity. This enables deeper inquiry — and in the right contexts, useful insights into people.

Information is power in capable hands. The right details help people make informed choices, which is vital when building a team. As a coach, I used personality tests, odd interview questions — anything to align what I already knew and to potentially uncover something I may not have known.

With personal interaction fading more into digital communication, we can hope for fruitful exchanges, or we could be proactive and examine the trail that people leave online.

The concept may seem a bit shady, but nothing here is unethical or illegal. I’m not prying into private lives, only viewing public information. Social media chronicles individuals, for better or worse. Reverse search platforms further simplify finding their presence. My coaching days involved extensive online research about prospects. In pro sports, scouts can uncover minute personal details — down to elementary school breakfasts if they really cared to.

Vetting is that exhaustive because draft picks and signings are multi-million-dollar investments. In sports, roster spots are finite. Making the wrong decisions can result in an entire regime being let go. In an organization, turnover is expensive, and team dynamics are a vital component to success. With impactful roles, it’s prudent to utilize available resources to learn about who may be coming into your team. By using anonymous accounts, you can examine some of that existing online material.

While companies can hire who they want, doing it based on social media presence (extreme circumstances excluding) is not a reason to not move forward. It just gives you a glimpse into that person that maybe you can know a bit more about them and what might be a fit.

I have surprised interviewers and prospects and may have disconcerted them with the information I knew, but with public profiles, what did they expect? I liked having an idea of whom I was meeting to have an idea of how the conversation was going to go. As a hiring manager, I examined everything to strategize integration. An anonymous view allowed insight without their knowledge.

It’s a straightforward, intelligent practice for managing any team. People are independent variables; no information is bad information. You can use your actual profiles or a throwaway one for discretion and time to evaluate.

You needn’t disclose your methods either. It’s simply due diligence to make those informed decisions I keep mentioning. Nuance matters — a few odd posts shouldn’t necessarily disqualify someone. However, relying solely on social media could raise legal issues regarding dismissing candidates. It should simply provide a glimpse to better understand fit and that should always be the priority.

A Resume Should Tell a Story, Not the Whole Story

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:22:45 GMT

A Resume Should Tell a Story, Not the Whole Story

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published September 13, 2023)

We’re often told a resume is the first chance to make an impression on a potential employer. But consider this — before you even get a chance to meet someone, share your story and skills, you’re being judged by a stranger, or worse, an applicant tracking system, on whether you’re deemed worthy of being spoken to.

Undeniably, a resume remains a requisite for job applications. However, the way resumes get evaluated ends up inequitably eliminating qualified candidates from roles they could thrive in. I speak in part from personal experience, but also as someone who is studying this field. Philosophically, there is a disconnect — the professional world insists resumes must be done a certain way, while in an athletic setting, we evaluate potential fit from every angle.

This begs the question — what should a resume’s role be? A resume tells a story, that is its purpose. Stories allow for interpretation, but the storyteller understands their own story best. Regardless of philosophy, there are flaws in hiring practices. As humans we cannot escape bias. But the goal should be to evaluate what’s in front of us objectively against what will lead to success.

This whole process mirrors recruiting student athletes. From a brief video, I could know within a minute whether or not they could play volleyball. But tapes alone did not show other factors that determined fit for our program. Even subpar tapes warranted a deeper look, as circumstances vary.

Likewise in hiring, a subpar resume could mean many things based on the perspective you look at it from. Remember, people apply to roles because they’re interested and believe they can succeed. If that can be acknowledged, what is the harm in talking to them even if the resume is underwhelming?

No two resumes will ever be identical. People describe the same role differently based on their own experiences and desired next steps. If you had two applicants with the same background, subjective factors could lead one to be favored over the other.

I’ve been openly critical of applicant tracking systems for these reasons. Hiring necessitates human decisions, so relying on computers to weed out resumes hurts both prospects and organizations. If your volume of applicants requires software filtering, that is what we call a “champagne problem.” It essentially indicates your employer brand has strong interest. That only further warrants investing in a more robust personnel team to effectively manage human capital.

I wish I had better advice to offer job seekers navigating this flawed system. Even with resume assistance, applicant tracking software can make the application process painstaking and uncertain. Resume preferences vary wildly across industries and companies, so any advice feels inconsistent and at times impractical.

Organizations need to provide more resources and training for their personnel teams to evaluate candidates holistically. Investing in skilled staff and limiting over-reliance on resume screening software can make the hiring process less taxing for applicants. It also leads to more meaningful interviews by enabling the ability to truly assess a candidate’s potential fit and value, beyond just what they see on paper.

The current state of resumes and job applications remains problematic. But by developing robust personnel teams and human-centered hiring practices, companies can dramatically improve the experience for job seekers while building a stronger workforce. The more we can move away from resumes as arbitrary gatekeepers, the better for all involved.

Everyone is For Sale in the Workforce

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:21:16 GMT

Everyone is For Sale in the Workforce

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published September 21, 2023)

In 2023, mobility defines our workforce. Job stints have grown shorter, and the political influence is dictating where individuals choose to call home. This new reality is a stark contrast to what was considered conventional just a decade ago. However, it’s precisely this environment that presents organizations with a golden opportunity.

Turnover, in many ways, is an inevitable part of any organization. Yet, it’s crucial to recognize that if it’s happening within your company, it’s also happening elsewhere. So, what’s the silver lining? A pool of talented individuals is eagerly awaiting their chance to seize new opportunities. While some might be ready to make a leap without the safety net of having a new role in place, there are even more who are passively seeking, patiently waiting for the perfect role to come knocking. And therein lies the key.

The job search process is a challenge. It’s exhausting, frustrating, and often overwhelming. After a demanding day at work, coupled with the responsibilities of daily life, diving into yet another taxing task is a tough ask. However, this doesn’t mean people aren’t interested in new opportunities; quite the opposite is true.

Angst is a constant in the workplace. Despite organizational commitments to non-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies, the reality is that these issues still persist. Most employed individuals keep their job search efforts under wraps, and for good reason. If your intentions to leave are exposed, what incentive does your current employer have to retain you?

Every currently employed individual is a potential asset for your organization, provided you’re willing to engage with them accordingly. One of the most common hiring mistakes is limiting the search radius. Often, organizations focus locally and then lament the limited number or quality of applicants. If your organization operates in a metropolitan area, you’re competing with numerous other organizations for the same talent pool. It’s possible to win some of these battles, but why only wage constant warfare?

When recruiting my volleyball team at the college, the majority of my recruits came from out-of-state players. We had a less-than-stellar reputation within our state, so I pursued individuals seeking novelty, eager to embrace a fresh experience and buy into a vision that didn’t exist in their current location. It paid off the first year in a way I could never have envisioned. Was it more effort? In some ways, yes, but what I learned was that with the right pitch and opportunity, people will respond.

Organizations should adopt a similar approach. Start by identifying the unique strengths you offer that others may lack. Is there a geopolitical advantage that might appeal to some? Does your organization provide exposure to a larger market? Does your locale offer a distinct lifestyle? Can your organization act as a “transfer portal” where individuals can gain valuable experience to propel them towards better opportunities? It could be anything; the key is to be transparent about what you can offer and then target individuals who align with and are attracted to those offerings.

Recruiting, at its essence, is about finding inventive ways to attract the talent or attributes your organization desires. There’s power in embracing this approach. No one is off-limits, and you’d be surprised who’s willing to engage in a conversation and even consider leaving their current situation for a fresh opportunity.

On the employee’s side, loyalty has undergone a seismic shift. Reflect on your current job — if someone offered you an identical role at a different organization with a $20,000 salary bump, at the very least, you’d listen. It might not even take that substantial of an offer to pique your interest. A simple message about a new opportunity could set your wheels in motion. But unless that outreach is made, organizations will remain in the dark about the who in the workforce is available and interested in pursuing a new opportunity.

Have a Conversation Instead of an Interview

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:19:53 GMT

Have a Conversation Instead of an Interview

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published October 21, 2023)

Imagine for a second that you have put in all of the effort to position yourself to ask someone out on a date. They say yes, excitedly and you set a time to meet one on one to learn more about one another.

Now imagine that the asking party during this date decides to kick the front door down and just start asking a series of questions.

“What made you want to go out with me?”

“What are your expectations tonight?”

“What can you tell me about your last relationship?”

“Are we paying together or splitting the bill?”

We’re now 15 minutes into the date and one side is getting the information that they may be looking for, but the other side is probably sweating and uncomfortable being grilled about everything that doesn’t matter in that moment, especially for a first date.

Why is that my example? Because it’s exactly how we treat interviews in the professional setting. A one-sided affair where one side (the company) invites someone for an interview and does not do anything except want to check the boxes they have to determine professional viability.

Among the reasons that most “recruiters” are awful at their jobs is because they don’t know how to have a conversation. Whether it’s a date or an interview for a job, the goal should be to get to know one another and that isn’t done through a sequence of questions on a list, it’s done by just talking to one another.

I may have some things that I would like to know about whoever I am talking to, but I never go into any situation with a bullet point list of questions. It feels robotic and it is the complete antithesis of what human interaction should be.

The scripted nature of a job interview gets scripted answers. Those are easy to ask, easy to answer and very easy to discern what they are. They also do a terrible job of helping you learn about someone.

In an ideal situation, a conversation is relaxed, it’s casual and it has people exchanging information that is useful and engaging. If we can do that in a non-professional setting, what can’t we take that same mindset into the workplace?

A more conversational two-way interview format has benefits. Open-ended questions allow candidates to showcase soft skills. Rigid questionnaires stifle authentic interaction. Throughout the process, transparency and mutual evaluation should be integrated, not tacked on at the end.

When I kiss my wife goodnight, besides being happy that we’re together, I am just as happy that I don’t ever have to date again because it looks absolutely miserable. Now with job hunting, I imagine that I will have to do that again at some point but after my last experience and searching for almost six months, I don’t want to do that either because of how equally painful that process was as well.

It should be mutual when meeting people, because you don’t want to just determine viability, you want to determine compatibility. As an interviewer I want to be just as open and transparent because I want any candidate to make an informed decision about their next steps. There are so many things that can be learned in an interview setting, from what you may be looking for, to what you might need all the way to what you didn’t even know existed.

All information is good information, but to extract the right information, you need to be willing and able to go beyond what you just want and create a situation where you can get what you need.

Building Your Team With Nuance Not Consensus

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:16:11 GMT

Building Your Team With Nuance Not Consensus

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published October 30, 2023)

Skillsets are diverse, they should complement one another and value is subjective. One of my best hires in my career was a 3 hour per week contributor at our front desk when I worked at the YMCA, and she was 83 years old. Why? She wanted to be there, she wanted something to do and she was willing to be plugged in anywhere we could fit her. She filled a prime need in the middle of the day that allowed me as a manager to take care of some important operational tasks.

So often we want “that hire,” you know, the one where you can parade them to others and boast about how you landed a superstar for your team. It’s understandable, and having high level assets on a team makes everyone’s job easier. The problem is, we spend too much time chasing just those types of people.

We lure ourselves into a trap, thinking that we need to be wowed into hiring someone, that if they don’t pop off the screen, they may not be successful long term. This ideology couldn’t be further from the truth. I always got a chuckle from people I interviewed for jobs with who said they wanted all-stars or “A players” for their team. It sounds great, but it’s not realistic in any team setting to have a bunch of elite skillsets and personalities for a multitude of reasons.

Teams rely on mixed skillsets, collectively working together to create a functioning body. Teams look different in every situation and there are great teams and poor teams. The person in charge of personnel is an engineer, an architect, they’re the person with the vision of how the parts will work together as a fine-tuned machine.

To determine the needs of your team, make a list of all essential functions and roles. Note where there are gaps or overload. Bring team members into the process by asking them what skills or support could help them thrive. Also assess whether part-time or cross-trained roles could fill needs in a novel way.

I like to think that I am generally good at selecting personnel based on the situation. People as a monolith are very simple, individuals are complex. Impulsive or emotional decisions are not the best way to make any decision let alone a choice on personnel. Building a team is a nuanced process and sometimes it’s easier to have a part missing in the machine than to have a part that is operating in the wrong place.

Philosophically there are a multitude of ways to build a team and there is none better than the other. Team building is situational, and it’s an imperfect science. The difference between good and great teams is the acknowledgment that you won’t get every decision right, you just need to get it right more than you get it wrong, and when you do get it wrong, you have it right in so many areas that it covers up the mistake.

In any interview I conducted for a job I was hiring for or for a recruit I wanted on my team, I assumed that if we were having the conversation, they were at a baseline interested in knowing more. I didn’t necessarily want to know just how they fit into what I was doing, but what else they did that could amplify what we were doing.

Building an effective team is a complex balancing act. Focus on assessing and filling the practical needs first. An “unconventional” approach to personnel will encounter outside skepticism at times. Have confidence in your vision and continue making adjustments to optimize the machine.

Implementation Matters More Than Ideation

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:12:16 GMT

Implementation Matters More Than Ideation

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published January 3, 2024)

The best-laid plans are undone by poor implementation. So many great ideas get presented, pitched, and green-lit into actualization, and then, in an instant, they go up in smoke with everyone wondering what just happened.

For the most part, implementing a new plan, project, or program within an organization is done with good intentions. Innovation is exciting; it’s one of those buzzwords you see on websites when companies tout their environment. In interviews, recruiters say they want innovative minds to help move into the future, all of that until they realize it’s more than just a bunch of great ideas on paper. These ideas require actual work.

No shock — America loves a quick fix. When something sounds good, people want to go with it because if it works, they will all be hailed as geniuses who signed on to the next great thing.

But what happens when it doesn’t work out that way? Ego, stubbornness, miscalculating costs or logistics — all of these can play a role in a great idea failing. However, what kills most projects is poor implementation.

In sports, we called it execution. We spend all week game planning, watching film, understanding the tendencies of the team we are going to play. After all that work, come game time, everyone lays an egg and completely forgets why we spent all that time doing what we did leading up and why suddenly things aren’t going as planned.

An example in the workplace could be a new payroll system, one that has been in development for a few months and is supposed to make the submission process significantly easier. In the old system, supervisors needed to go through a series of checks to ensure accurate time cards. With this new system, supervisors have fewer codes they have to input as the time auto populates. Payroll is able to do a quick scan to ensure accuracy, and a few button clicks later, everyone gets paid.

But instead, the system was rolled out too quickly and doesn’t have all the codes your organization uses to auto populate the timecards. Supervisors were never informed of the system change, so they input their timecards like it’s the old system which makes time cards show double shifts on the same day. The amount of time spent doing payroll related job tasks has now doubled during pay week because of organizational negligence. The payroll staff is now spending their time making code corrections and is now slipping on other aspects of their jobs because they are doing an entirely new job function without any notice.

Easy fix though — return to the old system until there are practical steps taken to streamline the new process. Unless that’s too easy of a fix. Perhaps the better option is to double down because you don’t want to admit the giant mistake made and don’t want to tell your CFO that you wasted a ton of money. So, let’s try to make it work in real time.

The issue is that never addresses the actual problem. Trial by error works in a controlled setting. It’s measured in the sense that there is support to develop in real time, which is typically predetermined. In real time, when there are actual implications, the “let’s just get through it and survive” model is not one that works and is organizational malpractice.

Rather than hastily rolling out major change organization-wide, leaders should take a phased approach to implementation. Start with small pilot projects first to work out any issues on a smaller scale. Set reasonable timelines for each phase — planning, preparation, training, controlled rollout, and evaluation.

Throughout the process, actively solicit employee feedback through surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one conversations. This identifies pain points and boosts buy-in for the changes. Provide thorough training and communication to equip employees to adopt the changes. Be prepared to adjust timelines and processes based on feedback.

Look at the light bulb, the printing press, cars, computers — innovation is supposed to make lives easier. If whatever is being implemented is making life harder, not only did you fail, but it’s the organization’s job to hold themselves accountable and admit that fault for the current situation. Messaging matters because there are likely employees saddled with the organizational lack of attention to detail and it is having a real time impact on their work.

View implementation as an ongoing process, not a one-time event. Set up mechanisms for continuous improvement after changes are in place. With thoughtful staging, strong communication, and readiness to modify based on feedback, leaders can effectively implement impactful changes without unnecessary disruption.

People want to be successful; they want to feel like they are being put into a position to develop, not set up to fail because of lackluster decision making by leadership — and certainly not because that same leadership decides to dismiss what’s clearly in front of them and not acknowledge the glaring mistakes in implementation.

The latter costs organizations employees, and it should. No functional operation with any real standards would do business this way, and those that do, it shows in their workforce when they begin hemorrhaging their best assets.

Brandon is a HRD doctoral candidate at Drexel University and he brings his perspective with a decade of experience coaching volleyball from the youth to collegiate levels. Brandon is also the host of “Outsider Information,” a podcast with the goal of bridging the world of athletics and business.

Extracting the “Right” Information to Make an Informed Hire

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:09:34 GMT

Extracting the “Right” Information to Make an Informed Hire

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published March 28, 2024)

We see it, right? Hiring is becoming increasingly difficult, but we also have to realize that as organizations, we have complete autonomy over who we bring into our building. So many mistakes are made simply because people cannot get the basics of hiring right. People are a monolith in the sense that we have basic fundamental needs that are relatively uniform. Where things split off is in the individual and what each person brings to the table.

An interview is about getting information, as I discussed in my series back in Q4 2023. The more information you have, the easier it is to make an informed decision, and that’s true in any situation. It’s an art, it’s a science, and should be rooted in a philosophy that is intertwined with your organization’s objectives.

So where does it all go wrong? It starts with not committing to your own philosophy. When evaluating anything, it has to be done through the lens of evaluation. It takes time to know someone, and while it is difficult to get all of the information on someone, we owe it to ourselves to get as much as possible when determining how to build a team.

Personality Tests: I’ve taken plenty of these, and there is some question about their ethics and validity. If you are making a decision on someone solely based on a personality test, you shouldn’t be in a position to hire. However, something like this can create a baseline for a bigger conversation.

https://www.16personalities.com — This is probably my favorite one, and I used it when recruiting players. It’s rooted in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Is it an absolute? No, however, it can provide insight into a person. It’s lengthy and pretty accurate. My type is INTJ-T, and I will include the link at the end for that.

https://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html — Another interesting one. I do not play Dungeons & Dragons, but I am familiar with the alignment chart. This can be interpreted in many different ways, but the nine alignments hold validity into what people truly value in their everyday lives. I am chaotic neutral, and I will include that at the end as well.

There are many different types of tests, and the importance lies less on the test itself and more on the information you want from it. These are also relatively lengthy tests, so the likelihood that someone trying to lie their way through it won’t put in the effort. It is also easy to cross-reference answers to interview questions with the information they provide via these tests.

Better Questions, Better Answers, Better Information: Interviews are stale in 2024. A scripted list of questions will get scripted answers. Or worse, fake answers that sound better than they are. I personally have things I want to know based on what I already know about someone, but I try not to have a script. I want a conversation. However, if you do have specific questions you want to ask, keep them broad so the answer is organic in the moment. Reframing basic questions can be the difference in making the right or wrong hire.

Standard: Tell me about yourself.

Revised: Tell me your story in the three most important chapters up to the present day.

Just asking someone to tell them about themselves isn’t a great question because what is being asked? Is that work? Is that personal? Long? Short? It has elevator speech tones as well. If the goal is to get information about the person, encourage them to give it to you. The second question gives a framework and a template; you could get some great insight into the individual that could allow for some higher-level inquiry into the person.

Standard: How did you hear about this position?

Revised: What interests you in these types of positions?

Remove the company angle because it could distort the answer. This question shouldn’t elicit a response that comes across as a pitch to why a prospect liked this role at this organization. It should give information as to why this role or title is of interest.

Standard: What do you consider to be your weaknesses?

Revised: What are three things you have historically struggled with and why?

I don’t love the strengths/weaknesses question just because it’s easy to get scripted answers with little depth. We know what pushes us out of our comfort zones, and we often know why we struggle with certain situations. Make them think about the answers they give because that’s valuable information you can use to really assess fit.

Standard: Tell me about a time you demonstrated leadership skills.

Revised: Who is someone that you would want to be led by?

It’s easy to make up a story about leadership. But think about the person who is trying to become a leader. What if they don’t have that experience yet and do not have an answer? They may know of a person who is a great leader, and their insight as to why they like that style could give better insight into the kind of leader they would want to be.

Standard: Tell me about a time you made a mistake.

Revised: How do you define accountability?

We all make mistakes, and it’s easy to script the answer. The first question is too broad as well. This is a question that can be layered in a few ways. Just asking for their definition of accountability will tell you most of what you need to know. If you want to add an additional part to it, follow up with how their definition of accountability would be applied to a mistake they made in the past.

Standard: Where do you see yourself in five years?

Revised: I don’t have one. Don’t ask this.

Whenever I get asked this question, I reply with “Alive.” Seriously, what is the goal with this one? The likelihood that someone you interview is in their current role after two years is unlikely, let alone where they will be in five. We make the mistake of thinking we have to have it mapped out or planned in a way that makes us seem like we have it all together. We don’t, and asking someone about the next five years when most of us are just trying to survive the day isn’t a good question to ask, especially if the job is entry-level.

INTJ-T

Chaotic Neutral

Let’s end the Practice of Using Past Employers as References

Fri, 02 May 2025 00:02:30 GMT

Let’s end the Practice of Using Past Employers as References

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published March 28, 2024)

The job search is one that I think for many of us detest. Among reasons is that there is seldom comfort in the process. If you’re unemployed and looking, the angst is not knowing when you may run out of resources and you will have to settle. If you are employed, you have to keep it a secret because God forbid you actually want to advance yourself and see that doing so will not happen in your current environment.

From the applicant perspective, when filling out a job application you never know if checking the “do not contact” box when listing your previous jobs hinders more than it helps. But the reality is, it’s a no-win situation regardless.

If you are trying to fill a job posting, there are reasons to avoid this practice, and there are many better ways to get information to make an informed decision about who you want to hire for a role.

Your previous employer can’t say anything bad but…

They could also say nothing at all. Legally your previous employer cannot malign your character or say really anything negative about you. The issue is, you have no control over what they can say either. Or worse, they could choose to say nothing when called and asked about you as a past employee. (I have done this) and it is the most impactful statement to make. From the former employee side, as we have seen former employees come back and sue for defamation especially with some higher profile positions, why take the risk and why put someone else at risk?

It’s Awkward:

Imagine you break up with someone, you’ve moved on more or less and you get a DM from someone asking you about your experience with your ex that they are now dating. Referring back to my first point and foreshadowing my next one, what can you realistically say and what should you say? It’s just a weird position to be in. I’m leaning into the relationship metaphors with this one, but imagine you find out your current partner is on a dating app and they matched with someone who knows you, it’s going to spark some questions and possibly ruin the whole dynamic.

Organizationally, it’s best to assume that every employee you have is for sale in some way and they are at the minimum passively looking for a new role. People don’t stay as long as they used to and that reality is not changing. Also, if you make that call and it blindsides a current employer there could be some serious unintended consequences over what could have been an application that may not have been part of a serious job search.

It’s Not Relevant or Helpful:

What if you had a poor experience with someone, does it mean that the next person will? The biggest mistake that gets made in most personnel decisions is that we allow personal feelings to influence decision making. People grow and change so referencing my previous point, what are you as a recruiter hoping to gain from this? If the job is from the distant past, the people this person may have worked with may not have any knowledge of them. If they are from the recent past and decline to comment outside of confirming they worked there, you could be in a position where you may overthink your evaluation.

Ask an applicant to provide a substantive list of references. If they cannot, there is your red flag because everyone should be able to scrounge up a list of people who could personally to vouch for them. If they can, you likely have a sample size that will get you the information you want based on who they were in that person’s lives.

It’s Not Necessary:

It’s 2024 and if your goal is finding information about people, you do not have to try very hard especially with younger applicants. Social media is great for getting information, it is also terrible because the information is not always the best. However, if your role is dependent on someone being a face for your team this may be something to take into account. On the positive for having a digital presence, people are creating their own experience (like I am with this platform) and letting their brand or personality show in a way that is designed to be seen by future employers.

Verifying work experience in itself is not all that difficult if someone doing the interview asks the right questions. Asking about specific projects related to what is shown on a resume can tell the entire story about whether or not someone is being truthful. If it is a high-profile position or something where there is a significant investment being made, hire a professional to do a deeper dive into their background.

When Everyone is "Too Busy" Trust and Productivity Erodes

Thu, 01 May 2025 23:53:46 GMT

When Everyone is “Too Busy” Trust and Productivity Erodes

By: Brandon Bader ( Originally Published April 10, 2024)

How often does it happen when you need the person directly above you for something, and suddenly your top priority is clearly not theirs? You get frustrated, but you understand because they have much more important things that need to be done. How about the scheduled meetings that constantly get pushed back? It’s slightly annoying because you have relied on those to stay on the same page, but it’s not THAT big of a deal, right? Things happen.

What about a decision that is being made about some of your role? You express concerns about the changes, they’re acknowledged in the moment, and no meaningful steps are taken to address them. Then, a few months later, the changes turn out to be a disaster, and your performance and reputation begin to suffer.

Resentment builds, trust erodes, and respect is lost. A situation that was once promising can become unsalvageable if it crosses a certain threshold, and while the staff typically has to take the brunt of the failures, however it is an organizational failure first and foremost.

Look, everyone is busy, and there are really no easy jobs, but what we have in many instances is a situation where everyone is SO busy that communication breakdowns become the norm rather than an outlier. The result is that people become siloed, people build habits and routines for themselves, and they go into survival mode. In short, work does not get done in an effective way.

Compounding this is when suddenly an absent superior suddenly decides to try and actively dictate your work. While the title allows for it, it’s akin to a parent who is never around suddenly trying to act like an authority figure over your life, and it simply DOES. NOT. WORK. We are all beholden to someone, and when it comes time to provide answers, there’s no foundation for it and no understanding of why, what, or how.

That, however, does not pass for acceptable, and as a result, decisions will need to be made, often with the two sides deciding to part ways in some capacity. It’s unfortunate because it’s not a single moment that creates this dynamic. It’s constant neglect, thinking that because someone is self-sufficient, they will continue to be so. Even more so in this world of remote work, the danger isn’t that people won’t be able to manage their work; it’s whether or not you will be able to support them when they need it most.

Decision-makers are in those positions for a reason, and if an environment is going to be an autonomous one, some of that power needs to be distributed better, or there needs to be a more active presence to prevent the erosion of an environment. Coming from athletics, there is only one definition of team: win as one, lose as one. If one person is struggling, we all have to act as the rising tide that lifts the boat.

People will only take so much, especially if they are adept performers. At a certain point, frustration will boil over, and the feelings of being dismissed will spiral into something that might be more than unmanageable; it will be unsalvageable.

The Letdown of a Stale Interview

Thu, 01 May 2025 23:48:57 GMT

The Letdown of a Stale Interview

By: Brandon Bader (Originally Published June 4, 2024)

Application after application, the clock ticks, and you finally get the interview. You’re excited; you research the organization, and when the day comes, you’re prepared to discuss the company, the role, and how you can be the key that unlocks what’s hidden behind the door. Then, it falls completely flat.

In my experience, the interview is often where the biggest disappointment comes. Looking for a job is hard, getting an interview is hard, and the moments leading up to it are filled with angst. As applicants, we all want to feel wanted by the place we end up working; we want to be shown a little love in the process. It has to matter.

I can think of multiple interviews I was excited for, only to be met with a series of generic questions that felt more like a checklist than a conversation. This experience left me questioning why the interviewer hadn’t invested the same level of effort. It is dejecting because it felt like it didn’t really matter and, as slow as the process can be, it’s a huge waste of time.

These surface-level questions don’t allow either side to get the necessary information to make an informed decision. At its core, an interview should help someone on either side make an informed decision.

For me, the letdown that comes from a mediocre interview isn’t rooted in what I could have done better; it’s more about asking, why didn’t they try harder? Interviews are a two-way path in 2024. We, as applicants, spend all this time making our resume look impressive, only to have it willfully ignored during the process.

As an organization, those conducting interviews are the first presentation that any applicant will see. It’s not just about collecting people; it is about sharing a vision of a puzzle and how they could be one of the missing pieces to it. People need to work, but people want to have an experience. The way interviews are being conducted not only deprives applicants of that, but it’s also having tangible effects on turnover.

There is no right way to interview, but there are many wrong ways, and it starts with what you are projecting. You shouldn’t give a sales pitch; you should lay out a road map, a vision for success for both the organization and the employee. Asking open-ended questions that invite candidates to share their experiences and aspirations can provide deeper insights than a standard list of questions.

People tend to avoid hard things. Conducting an interview, evaluating, and ultimately making a decision is not easy. In the world of personnel, it shouldn’t be easy. These decisions are impactful on an organization, and the less you put into it, the harder it will be to get the right people for your organization.

Experience is a Dangerous Buzzword

Thu, 01 May 2025 23:46:12 GMT

"Experience" is a Dangerous Buzzword

By: Brandon Bader (Originally Published June 6, 2024)

When we look at some high level roles, it’s a safe assumption that to get there that individual spent years doing or learning a skillset. While this is true, we pigeonhole ourselves by thinking that experience is accrued in only one way.

An earlier podcast I recorded warned against relying solely on institutional knowledge, simply because it can create complex structures that are difficult to undo. Allow me to take it one step further: people who remain in an organization for over a decade pose a greater risk to the workforce than they realize. This is because growth only happens when we look beyond our immediate surroundings.

If you examine your current environment — your home, neighborhood, the route you take to work, and even your hobbies — there is a commonality: familiarity. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; however, we tend to rely on what’s comfortable to build our frame of reference. This comfort can limit our ability to adapt and innovate in a rapidly changing world.

All of our experiences shape us, but in the workplace, experience becomes a label — a way to identify whether someone has the ability to perform a task. More often than not, it’s a buzzword used to diminish or uplift someone based on perception.

This raises a question: is school experience?

Many job descriptions place education requirements as a prerequisite for a role. Is it then right to say there needs to be accrued experience on top of it? There is an argument on both sides, and there is nuance in that question. However, education — the four years of undergraduate work, learning, and understanding how to work in a field — certainly should factor in. The same applies to graduate school, where additional education becomes a choice to expand one’s knowledge base. The additional years for a master’s or certificate program are spent further immersing into a subject and refining expertise.

This leads to another question: is current knowledge better than past knowledge? If two people have the same degree, is one earned in 2024 more valuable than one earned in 2004? Does 20 years of experience automatically cancel out someone who is coming into a field or industry with a fresh perspective and modern training? These are all complicated questions that matter when building a team.

In 2024, people are no longer spending their entire careers in one place. The benefit for job hoppers is that they expand their knowledge base in multiple areas, allowing them to have an immediate impact. Conversely, organizational lifers may never get the chance to tap into new knowledge, partly because they contribute to the reason modern workers need to stay mobile with work.

Experience will need to be redefined in the next decade because workers now gain experience in diverse ways, contributing to the fields they want to work in. The idea of waiting 5, 10, or 15 years to get a coveted position doesn’t exist in the mind of the modern employee. Instead, it’s about having experiences to gain experience, and this is what the older workforce struggles to grapple with.

Redefining experience means embracing a broader and more dynamic understanding of what it means to be qualified and capable. Organizations must recognize the value of diverse experiences and adapt to the evolving expectations of the modern workforce. Only by doing so can we build teams that are not only skilled but also innovative and resilient in the face of change.

People’s Hobbies Should be Considered Part of Their Skillset

Thu, 01 May 2025 23:40:36 GMT

People’s Hobbies Should be Considered Part of Their Skillset

By: Brandon Bader (Originally Published July 10, 2024)

My favorite athletes to coach were the ones who played multiple sports. It was like a puzzle to see how the skills and techniques from other sports aligned with what I was trying to teach. Where I believe I differed in my philosophy was in the focus on adaptation. Those skills that were viewed as quirks when trying to transfer them to the sport in the moment were often “coached out” of players to make them fit the needs of that particular game.

It takes a lot of time to retrain something. Often, retraining means breaking an old habit and building a new one. If an athlete plays multiple sports, by the time you get them back up to a baseline, the season is likely over, and they are going to play another sport where everything you just spent time doing will likely be undone.

An abstract skillset is valuable because it’s different. In sports, different is an advantage because if your opponent has never seen it before, they will have to figure out how to adjust. In the world of business, that abstract skillset likely comes from outside your organization, presenting a great opportunity to learn something that could be beneficial going forward.

I want to focus on hobbies. What people do or like to do should be considered a skill used to evaluate their viability as an employee. Think about why. We have spent a decent amount of time doing other things our whole lives. What has an individual dedicated their time to? Do they like to cook? Do they play video games? Do they build LEGO sets? Besides getting to know someone in a screening, this offers valuable information about their ability to learn, communicate, and ultimately produce.

Let’s look at the examples listed above. Someone who enjoys cooking is likely creative, able to think quickly, and follows instructions well. Do you work in an environment where those might be requirements? Is that something missing on your team? How can you peel that back further? Ask them what they like to cook and have them outline how to make one of their favorite recipes. Little things that seem like they don’t matter can really tell the story of an individual.

How about the gamer? Boomers, Gen X, and older Millennials may not have the same attachment to video games as some and dismiss it as wasting time in front of a screen. Think about the vast array of video games — the different consoles, button strokes, and types of games. As a gamer myself, there is a huge difference between playing Call of Duty and Mortal Kombat. What kinds of games do they play? If you have this knowledge in advance, how can you peel the layers back to see how they fit? That gamer likely has a good ability to learn and retain information because of the diversity of control maps. They are also likely competitive and driven by advancement. For those technical roles that require being behind a screen and focus, you may have a good fit.

What about LEGO sets? Intricate models that require time, patience, high levels of focus, and attention to detail. What does it say if they can do this repetitively? What kind of workload could they handle? They can likely self-regulate, work at a pace, set goals for completion, and swiftly move between projects. Is your role project-based? Does someone who works this way fit exactly what you need to really move your team forward?

These are all generalities — the examples and how they fit — but the point is to think and expand beyond what we traditionally consider a quality fit when it comes to hiring. The outdated metrics of simply measuring experience and education are just one piece that factors into an evaluation.

When it comes to building a team, who you hire matters. It sounds obvious, but we get blinded by the shiny objects we see without fully knowing if that shine is just on the surface or if it shines through to the core. Finding people is easy and evaluating them is hard, but if you have done your evaluations right, the decision will make itself when it comes time to do so.