Oct 13, 2026 · 39 min · 15 segments
Episode Blurb: Your next top hire may just be someone already on your team or your colleague from another department. You just haven't spotted them yet. Tigran Sloyan…
Tigran SloyanGuestAnne SparacoHostSo I love your term skill spotting because earlier this year, Sherm coined a term called skill fishing, and that's when candidates look far better on paper than they turn out to be for when they're hired for the job.
Similar to the experience you've seen while you were at Google, So on one hand, we're choosing external hires who may be overselling their skills.
And on the other hand, for skill spotting, we may be ignoring the proven talent already inside our organizations.
So how do you see these two problems as connected? And what does that say about an employer's default hiring instinct has turned into?
Yeah, it's very interesting because over the last decade, we have helped the industry move towards more of a skills-based hiring, where everybody coming into the organization would have an opportunity to demonstrate their skills in a simulated environment and be able to prove that they have the skills, allowing you to spot their skills, really, and not just rely on the keywords, and allowing really innovative companies to open the funnel for who they are interviewing because traditionally it has been all about resumes and pedigree, but that still doesn't fully solve the problem of understanding your own workforce because that is fundamentally is almost more important.
Even if you know their skillset coming into the organization, a few years in those things change.
And I feel like today with AI that has become ever more pressing because jobs are changing.
You might hire somebody for job A, and that job might be very, very different a few years down the line.
I feel like these days, every day, it's compressing the timeline of how quickly jobs and skills are changing.
So it becomes even more imperative to not just understand the skills that your employees have, but also what skills are required to actually be able to do certain jobs.
Because we said skills are psychological attributes to complete work related tasks.
But then if you're going to talk about a job, you have to define what set of tasks does somebody typically complete in that job, because those are changing and they're changing very fast.
So I love your term skill spotting because earlier this year, Sherm coined a term called skill fishing, and that's when candidates look far better on paper than they turn out to be for when they're hired for the job.
Similar to the experience you've seen while you were at Google, So on one hand, we're choosing external hires who may be overselling their skills.
And on the other hand, for skill spotting, we may be ignoring the proven talent already inside our organizations.
So how do you see these two problems as connected? And what does that say about an employer's default hiring instinct has turned into?
Yeah, it's very interesting because over the last decade, we have helped the industry move towards more of a skills-based hiring, where everybody coming into the organization would have an opportunity to demonstrate their skills in a simulated environment and be able to prove that they have the skills, allowing you to spot their skills, really, and not just rely on the keywords, and allowing really innovative companies to open the funnel for who they are interviewing because traditionally it has been all about resumes and pedigree, but that still doesn't fully solve the problem of understanding your own workforce because that is fundamentally is almost more important.
Even if you know their skillset coming into the organization, a few years in those things change.
And I feel like today with AI that has become ever more pressing because jobs are changing.
You might hire somebody for job A, and that job might be very, very different a few years down the line.
I feel like these days, every day, it's compressing the timeline of how quickly jobs and skills are changing.
So it becomes even more imperative to not just understand the skills that your employees have, but also what skills are required to actually be able to do certain jobs.
Because we said skills are psychological attributes to complete work related tasks.
But then if you're going to talk about a job, you have to define what set of tasks does somebody typically complete in that job, because those are changing and they're changing very fast.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.