 |
|
|
|||||
The best recruiter I know is going to spend the next three months hiring without posting to a single job board website, like Indeed or LinkedIn. LinkedIn? She laughed. You mean Facebook for thought leaders? No, I wont be using any of those sites. Rosa is head of HR for a large tech startup, and someone I trust to tell me whats really going on in the world of professional recruiting and jobs the unflinching truth. The last time we talked, she had finally taken back control of her companys recruiting process, rescuing it from over-automation, misguided AI, and what she called results-last hiring. Ive hired hundreds of people to work with me over my long career. And Ive partnered with some great recruiters and some not-so-great recruiters along the way. I can tell you she has a point about LinkedIn, but its not just LinkedIn. Rosa wants to sidestep the whole damn hiring system, even down to how her company views hiring and talent. We were treating people like fuel when theyre actually critical machine parts, she said. Once you understand that, you realize the whole damn hiring system is broken, and the path becomes clear. Not easy, but at least clear. Her latest experiment, over the next three months, with her executive team behind her: Hire without LinkedIn and the rest of the job boards. The Digital Job Funnel Is Not Going to Be Fixed Anytime Soon On the other side of the country, a CTO friend of mine spent his holiday break clearing a backlog of support tickets. Why? Because a bunch of folks quit, and when he tried to replace them, the modern automated hiring systems his company was using kept throwing up roadblocks. Wasnt that what all of this automation was supposed to do? he asked me. Find me people quickly? He lost three support people the week before Christmas and figured he could get by with two. After getting vague answers from his HR team, the last day before everything shut down for the holidays, he went full White Goodman and took the bull by the horns. I got into the system myself, thought Id be a hero, and I spent hours going through stacks of applications just trying to filter out the bots, or the résumés that werent even close to what I needed. I wondered if I should just write some code to filter [the applications] myself, but I was running out of time and [support] tickets were piling up. I gave up and said Id just handle the tickets on my own over the holidays. After a holly jolly Jira holiday, he had an epiphany. This never should have happened, he said. Were going to take a hard look at why we have all this hiring technology. Its Always the Quiet Ones In my last column, I speculated that were reaching a bottom in the job market, especially in tech, where a sense of capitulation has leaders in the recruiting industry advising tech employees to become baristas, bartenders, and builders. Yeah, thats the right amount of capitulation. I mentioned in that column that, out of the dozen or so SMB tech startup leaders Ive talked to while going down this particular hiring rabbit hole, not one of them is using a major hiring channel to fill their talent needs. In their view, the LinkedIns, the Indeeds, basically all the job boards, have devolved into an automated slippery slope that, in their eyes, produces no signal, just noise. A lot of noise. Were Hiring, Just Without the Purple Sash So these companies are opting out. Theyre posting jobs on their own websites, or sometimes not, and using their current employees and investors networks of networks to find channels. Theyre going through traditional but smaller recruiters, trade associations, user groups, colleges for entry-level positions, even niche online communities like Reddit and Hacker News. Theyre going through me, not to hire me, but asking if I know anyone who knows anyone who would be perfect for the role, like they used to before LinkedIn ate all of hiring which is right before LinkedIn decided there was more money in letting ambitious professionals post AI-written opinions on everything. Oh, sorry, before you ask me who these companies are, Id love to tell you, and I am telling people whom I think they might find a perfect fit, but if I splash their names here it defeats the purpose of what theyre trying to do. Theyre tightening the aperture, as one put it, which sounds uncomfortable, but is really just a way of saying they want 100 targeted résumés for an open position and not 10,000 résumés that are mostly people who didnt read the job requirements plus bots. Crazy, right? But oddly enough, with the sheer volume of talent already on the sidelines, theyre filling these roles much more quickly than they did using LinkedIn, Indeed, and such. So, no, I cant out them, but I can tell you this. Based on how Rosa and her low-tech colleagues are hiring, heres my best advice for joining this worldwide loose hiring network. Turn Your Friends Into Recruiters Good old-fashioned networking is back in vogue. And this isnt just about blasting an email asking everyone you know if they know anyone who knows anyone who is hiring. You want to build an army, a group of folks who will work for you. Be specific about what you can do and what you want, Rosa told me. A personal, concise message is best. Your friends are already willing to help you, they just need to know how they specifically can do that. Itll be different for everyone. Take Time to Do Deeper Company Research Smart companies are, like Rosa said, looking for critical machine parts, not fuel. They need talent, not labor. They want results, not butts in seats. Your best shot is going to be finding a company that can use you, right away, to get the results they need. Use AI to find these companies that are sidestepping tese channels, instead of using AI to turn your résumé into one more needle in an ever growing haystack. Then, instead of sending an application to 50 companies if you might be a fit for five, find 50 companies where you would be valuable and hope that five of them are hiring, whether they have a job posted for you or not. Look for Positive Proof That the Job They Have Is for You When you do find a job that looks right, dig a little. Is it real? Is it what it says it is? Are you going to be dumped into an applicant pool with thousands of other candidates? Then dig a little deeper. Read the job description with some skepticism. Is it generic? Is it a carbon copy of all the others youve seen? Are they hiring just because they have fresh money? Is it more about joining a club than getting results? On that last one: Companies will do that when they have a lot of problems but they dont know what they need, said Rosa. Instead of a finely tuned job description, theyll spend a lot of time on values and goals and what they believe. Theyre hiring fans, not talent. And finally, focus on companies that move quickly. The truth is there is still a huge supply of available talent out there, thus theres no need for a hiring company to wait for the right fit. If theres no urgency, the company might be just testing the waters or, again, not really sure of what they need. Neither of those aspects works in your favor. Dont Fall For False Progress These are desperate times in the job market. I know there will be counterarguments to these strategies, probably led by Well, thats nice advice, but I need a job now. Heres the thing. Job now is more about luck than reach. Scanning or spamming job board websites might feel like progress, but weve gone so far down the digital black hole of hiring that a lot of the companies that are hiring now, quickly, and for the right reasons, are bypassing those job boards entirely. Im not talking about Easy Apply and Im not suggesting these strategies will speed the process. Im talking about adding a growing channel that isnt getting attention because it doesnt want the attention. Theyre not going to find you. Youll need to find them. I can also speculate that these companies wont stay in the shadows for long. The success of this loose network will get noticed, and it will get centralized, maybe not with AI, but it wont be long before Rosa and all the recruiters like her are up to their eyeballs in tens of thousands of applications again. So now is a good time to go job hunting instead of job scrolling. Now is also a good time to join my email list, a growing rebel alliance of professionals who want a different perspective on tech and business. Joe Procopio This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
A variety show thats still revered for its absurdist, slapstick humor debuted 50 years ago. It starred an irreverent band of characters made of foam and fleece. Long after The Muppet Shows original 120-episode run ended in 1981, the legend and legacy of Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and other creations concocted by puppeteer and TV producer Jim Henson have kept on growing. Thanks to the Muppets film franchise and the wonders of YouTube, the wacky gang is still delighting, and expanding, its fan base. As a scholar of popular culture, I believe that the Muppets reign, which began in the 1950s, has helped shape global culture, including educational television. Along the way, the puppets and the people who bring them to life have earned billions in revenue. Johnny Carson interviews Muppet creator Jim Henson, Kermit and other Muppets on the Tonight Show in 1975, ahead of one of an early The Muppet Show pilot. Kermits origin story Muppets, a portmanteau of marionette and puppet, first appeared on TV in the Washington, D.C., region in 1955, when Henson created a short sketch show called Sam and Friends with his future wife, Jane Nebel. Their motley cast of puppets, including a lizardlike character named Kermit, sang parody songs and performed comedy sketches. Hensons creations were soon popping up in segments on other TV shows, including Today and late-night programs. Rowlf the Dog appeared in Canadian dog food commercials before joining The Jimmy Dean Show as the hosts sidekick. After that show ended, Rowlf and Dean performed on the Ed Sullivan Show, where Kermit had occasionally appeared since 1961. Rowlf the Dog and Jimmy Dean reprise their schtick on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1967. From Sesame Street to SNL As Rowlf and Kermit made the rounds on variety shows, journalist Joan Ganz Cooney and psychologist Lloyd Morrisett were creating a new educational program. They invited Henson to provide a Muppet ensemble for the show. Henson waived his performance fee to maintain rights over the characters who became the most famous residents of Sesame Street. The likes of Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster and Big Bird were joined by Kermit who, by the time the show premiered in 1969, was identified as a frog. When Sesame Street became a hit, Henson worried that his Muppets would be typecast as childrens entertainment. Another groundbreaking show, aimed at young adults, offered him a chance to avoid that. Saturday Night Lives debut on NBC in 1975 when the show was called Saturday Night included a segment called The Land of Gorch, in which Hensons grotesque creatures drank, smoked and cracked crass jokes. The Land of Gorch segments ended after Saturday Night Lives first season. Saturday Night Lives first season included Land of Gorch sketches that starred creatures Jim Henson made to entertain grown-ups. Miss Piggy gets her closeup The Muppet Show was years in the making. ABC eventually aired two TV specials in 1974 and 1975 that were meant to be pilots for a U.S.-produced Muppet Show. After no American network picked up his quirky series, Henson partnered with British entertainment entrepreneur Lew Grade to produce a series for ATV, a British network, that featured Kermit and other Muppets. The new ensemble included Fozzie Bear, Animal and Miss Piggy Muppets originally performed by frequent Henson collaborator Frank Oz. The Muppet Show parodied variety shows on which Henson had appeared. Connections hed made along the way paid off: Many celebrities he met on those shows sets would guest star on The Muppet Show, including everyone from Rita Moreno and Lena Horne to Joan Baez and Johnny Cash. The Muppet Show, which was staged and shot at a studio near London, debuted on Sept. 5, 1976, in the U.K, before airing in syndication in the United States on stations like New Yorks WCBS. As the shows opening and closing theme songs changed over time, they retained a Vaudeville vibe despite the house bands preference for rock and jazz. The Muppets hit the big screen The Muppet Show was a hit, amassing a global audience of over 200 million. It won many awards, including a Primetime Emmy for outstanding comedy-variety or music series for which it beat Saturday Night Live in 1978. While his TV show was on the air, Henson worked on the franchises first film, The Muppet Movie. The road film, released in 1979, was another hit: It earned more than US$76 million at the box office. The Muppet Movie garnered two Academy Award nominations for its music, including best song for Rainbow Connection. It won a Grammy for best album for children. The next two films, The Great Muppet Caper, which premiered in 1981, and The Muppets Take Manhattan, released in 1984, also garnered Oscar nominations for their music. As The Muppet Movie opens, Statler and Waldorf tell a security guard of their heckling plans. Fraggle Rock and the Disney deal The cast of The Muppet Show and the three films took a break from Hollywood while Henson focused on Fraggle Rock, a TV show for kids that aired from 1983-1987 on HBO. Like Hensons other productions, Fraggle Rock featured absurdist humor but its puppets arent considered part of the standard Muppets gang. This co-production between Henson, Canadian Broadcast Corporation and British producers was aimed at international markets. The quickly conglomerating media industry led Henson to consider corporate partnerships to assist with his goal of further expanding the Muppet media universe. In August 1989, he negotiated a deal with Michael Eisner of Disney who announced at Disney-MGM Studios an agreement in principle to acquire The Muppets, with Henson maintaining ownership of the Sesame Street characters. The announcement also included plans to open Muppet-themed attractions at Disney parks. But less than a year later, on May 16, 1990, Henson died from a rare and serious bacterial infection. He was 53. At the end of Fraggle Rocks run, its characters look for new gigs. Of Muppets and mergers Hensons death led to the Disney deals collapse. But the company did license The Muppets to Disney, which co-produced The Muppet Christmas Carol in 1992 and Muppet Treasure Island in 1996 with Jim Henson Productions, which was then run by Jims son, Brian Henson. In 2000, the Henson family sold the Muppet properties to German media company EM.TV & Merchandising AG for $680 million. That company ran into financial trouble soon after, then sold the Sesame Street characters to Sesame Workshop for $180 million in late 2000. The Jim Henson Company bought back the remaining Muppet properties for $84 million in 2003. In 2004, Disney finally acquired The Muppets and most of the media library associated with the characters. Disney continued to produce Muppet content, including The Muppets Wizard of Oz in 2005. Its biggest success came with the 2011 film The Muppets, which earned over $165 million at the box office and won the Oscar for best original song Man or Muppet. Muppets Most Wanted, released in 2014, earned another $80 million worldwide, bringing total global box office receipts to over $458 million across eight theatrical Muppets movies. The Muppet Show goes on The Muppets continue to expand their fandom across generations and genres by performing at live concerts and appearing in several series and films. Through these many hits and occasional bombs, and the Jim Henson Companys personnel changes, the Muppets have adapted to changes in technology and tastes, making it possible for them to remain relevant to new generations. That cat of characters made of felt and foam continue to entertain fans of all ages. Although many people remain nostalgic over The Muppet Show, two prior efforts to reboot the show proved short-lived. But when Disney airs its The Muppet Show anniversary special on Feb. 4, 2026, maybe more people will get hooked as Disney looks to reboot the series The Muppet Show will be back for at least one episode on Feb. 4, 2026. Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Some high-profile acquisitions take out a rising competitor, such as Facebooks acquisition of FriendFeed in 2009, some immediately expand a businesss suite of offerings, such as Salesforces 2020 purchase of Slack, and some may morph into an unrecognizable asset, like Amazons 1999 purchase of Alexa Internet, then a web traffic-tracking website. (The first Amazon Echo marking Alexas debut would launch in 2014.) But many lower-profile tech company acquisitions are made at least in part to gain access to specialized engineering talent. So-called acquihires havent traditionally raised many eyebrows. But the terms definition has been expanding as the AI arms race has accelerated a new form of tacit takeover, the reverse-acquihire. In this move, which isnt technically an acquisition, a company either takes a minority interest in a company or makes no financial investment in it at all. However, it hires one or more founders or key members of the executive team. This can leave the reverse-acquihired company rudderless or can cut off less senior staff from employment opportunities or liquidity. It can also allow the company conducting the reverse-acquihire to avoid the kind of process and oversight that comes with an acquisition. The Federal Trade Commission has said that its starting to scrutinize both reverse and traditional acquihires more closely given their potential for abuse. The canonical answer is that one avoids regulatory scrutiny, right? says Kyle Jensen, professor in the practice of entrepreneurship at Yale School of Management. Particularly antitrust scrutiny. A formal acquisition can trigger merger reviews and give regulators a clear set of documents, valuations and control rights to interrogate to decide whether or not healthy competition has been diminished. Reverse-acquihires dont do any of that. So the FTC is now starting to ask whether hiring the team is basically the same as buying out a company (which would retro-correct the term’s definition drift), but avoiding regulatory scrutiny. My understanding is that [the FTC] really want to make it more of a level position between standard acquisitions and the so-called [reverse-]acquihires, says Igor Letina, associate professor at the University of Bern, Switzerland, speaking in an academic capacity. (Letina is also a vice president of the Swiss Competition Commission.) What they’re signalling is that they will examine both types of deals in the same way according to the same standard, and make sure that they are compliant with antitrust laws. Letina is wary of any attempts to call it a crackdown by the FTC. But what the Commission decides could have huge ramifications for the industry. Reverse-acquihires are expedient exits for the executive team. If the fastest exits become harder, what happens to hiring, to equity promisesand the idea that a soft landing is always an option when setting up a company? Mergers and acquisitions have long been key to the world of business, argues S. Somasegar, managing director at Madrona Venture Group, a Seattle-based venture capital firm. Its how companies can acquire talent, customers and technology. But particularly with the urgent imperative to tap leading AI talent, big firms strategic framework has shifted in recent years from build, buy or partner to build, buy, and partneran ideal scenario for reverse-acquihires. Its somewhat of a new construct, he says. Indeed, that construct is now becoming familiar: a big tech firm hires a founder and a chunk of the team while signing a licensing deal or service agreement with whats left of the startup. Google brought on board Character.AI co-founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas in August 2024 and then licensed its tech, all while avoiding an investment. Meta acquired 49% of Scale AI in June 2025 for $14.8 billion and made co-founder Alexandr Wang Metas Chief AI Officer. Given how closely the impact matches that of an acquisition, Letinas view is that competition authorities should treat it that way. We really shouldn’t focus on the form, he says. We should focus on the economic essence. Is it an acquisition of assets or not? Not everyone thinks reverse-acquihires are inherently suspect. For Jensen, there are plenty of legitimate reasons a buyer might prefer people over the corporate entity. There is a company that has really talented people, he says. Things haven’t really worked out. Maybe the company has a bunch of debts and weird assets and things like that. You don’t even want those. The danger, he suggests, is when a deal stops being just a hire and starts operating as a shadow acquisition. The problem is what to do about it. If such deals are made so risky in regulation that big firms stop doing them, entrepreneurs decision making could start to shift. Every founder wants their company to succeed, but a good backup plan is to exit by selling the top team. If thats closed off, it could impact the rate of new startups being founded. The individuals in the startups also potentially lose their free will to work for a potential acquirer, argues Jensen. Am I forbidden from working for Google? he asks. That’s a weird outcome, right? I ought to be able to work for whomever I wish to work for. Even if a clampdown is politically popular, its not obvious it would protect the people startups employ. Letina points out that the recent move to cherry pick staff and leave the remainder of the team can be especially ugly for what it leaves afterwards. All those people who were left behind got, in essence, a rather bad deal, he says. The recent trend of management leaving rank-and-file staff left holding the bag after they leave may also harm the ability for startups to hire staff. A stricter regime from the FTC could push big firms back towards full acquisitions that scoop up or provide liquidity for more staff. But Somasegar worries any regulatory change could impact on the speed of innovation. Things are moving fast, he says. Industries are changing fast. You can’t put arbitrary speed breakers along the way, he says. I don’t want to be in a situation where a company wants to buy another company and it takes two years before you know whether the acquisition can happen or not.
Category:
E-Commerce
Around 70% of large-scale corporate transformation efforts fail. That figure has remained consistent for 25 yearsand it comes from an era of relatively manageable change. Artificial intelligence will demand far more of companies: faster adaptation, more comprehensive reinvention, and continuous evolution rather than periodic adjustment. Yet more than three years after the launch of ChatGPT, only 5% of businesses report extracting significant value from their AI initiatives. If companies struggled with transformation before, the coming years will be harder still. Managing rapid change is becoming the central competency for business leadership. Every serious observer agrees that executives need to develop new skills and mindsets to navigate what is coming. Yet there is a paradox at the heart of corporate America’s response. In a recent survey of leaders at large organizations, the Center for Creative Leadership found that 82% believed leadership development offers a competitive advantage amid economic uncertainty, and 72% said that cutting development budgets would create significant challenges. Yet 71% expected those budgets to be reduced in the event of any downturn. How can leaders simultaneously believe that executive development is essential while treating it as expendable? The answer isnt confusion or hypocrisy. It is that businesses have lost faith in the solutions on offer. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/creator-faisalhoque.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/faisal-hoque.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Ready to thrive at the intersection of business, technology, and humanity? ","dek":"Faisal Hoques books, podcast, and his companies give leaders the frameworks and platforms to align purpose, people, process, and techturning disruption into meaningful, lasting progress.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/faisalhoque.com","theme":{"bg":"#02263c","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#ffffff","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#000000"},"imageDesktopId":91420512,"imageMobileId":91420514,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} The Problems With Traditional Approaches And rightly so. Traditionally, companies have turned to executive education programs to help guide them through change. But most of these programs tend to focus on information transfersharing research findings without showing how to apply them to the specific realities of an individual business. The work of translation falls entirely on the leadership team. At the same time, much of the research informing these programs is backward-looking. Foundational studies may have been conducted two, three, or even more years ago. That cadence just cant keep pace with the speed at which AI is reshaping competitive landscapes. The classic consulting model does not fare any better. Whether providing leadership coaching or conducting transformation work directly, these engagements are expensive and the results they deliver are unreliable. More fundamentally, the pace of change ahead makes it simply unfeasible to bring in external teams to reshape the organization every time an advance in AI tech delivers paradigm-shifting capabilities. This approach is not sustainable financially, operationally, or culturally. The Resources Are Already There At present, most companies see organizational change as something rare that needs to be handled episodically. As a result, they lack the embedded processes that enable continuous innovation and transformation. They invest in a leadership program here and an external engagement there without ever establishing the permanent mechanisms that can capture value from new developments on an ongoing basis. This means that every disruption must be addressed from scratch, as if the organization had learned nothing from the last one. Instead of looking outward, corporations should be making the most of the resources they already have. Most companies employ extremely capable leaders who understand how their organizations actually work far better than any outside advisor could hope to. I have seen this repeatedly in the more than thirty years I have spent leading transformation initiatives at major corporations and government agencies. The talent and the institutional knowledge are already therethey just need to be unlocked. What is missing is not capability. It is a repeatable management systemand a spark. Repeatable Management Systems If the internal resources are already there, why aren’t companies already building these management systems on their own? The answer is that potential is not the same as momentum. Most organizations need something to break through the inertiaa catalyst that disrupts established patterns and creates the conditions for change to take hold. This is where outside expertise remains essential. But the nature of that expertise must change. The goal is not to perform the transformation work on the organization’s behalf. It is to provide the spark that sets internal capabilities in motion: diagnosing the current state, establishing the right frameworks, and building the confidence that allows leadership teams to take ownership of what comes next. Think of it as the difference between hiring someone to drive your car and hiring an instructor who teaches you to drive yourself. Both involve external help. But only one leaves you with a capability you can use forever. The key is establishing repeatable management systems that can be applied consistently across different challenges. When transformation processes are repeatable, each new disruption becomes an occasion to deploy proven methods rather than an emergency that demands improvisation from scratch. Building repeatable management systems is not a matter of snapping one’s fingers. But all the core ingredients exist within most large organizations. Outside partners can help establish the frameworks and get things moving in the right direction. But once an organization has built the engine to manage its ongoing evolution, it should not have to keep returning to the well again and again. The Compounding Advantage Businesses cannot afford to keep approaching change in the same way they have for decades. It has not worked well historically, and it will work even less well in the years ahead. The companies that thrive will be those that stop waiting for external partners to perform transformation on their behalf and start building the internal systems that make continuous adaptation part of how they operate. The organizations that get this right first will build a compounding advantage. Once the spark has been provided and the engine is running, each successive change becomes easier. The organization leans from one transformation and applies those lessons to the next. Meanwhile, competitors who remain locked in cycles of episodic external intervention will struggle to keep pace with technological shifts that arrive faster than any outside partner can respond to. Five Steps to Unlock Your Internal Transformation Capability Recognize that the capability already exists. Stop assuming that transformation requires importing talent or expertise your organization lacks. Audit the skills, institutional knowledge, and leadership capacity you already have. The gap is rarely capabilityit is the management systems and confidence needed to channel that capability toward change. Seek sparks, not ongoing support. When you bring in outside help, structure engagements around ignition, not dependency. The right external partner diagnoses your current state, establishes frameworks, and builds internal confidencethen steps back. The measure of their success is whether your organization can manage the next transformation on its own. Establish permanent change infrastructure. Create the internal systems, frameworks, and repeatable processes that will allow your organization to manage continuous evolution. This includes clear decision-rights for transformational initiatives, standardized methodologies for workflow redesign, and protocols for evaluating and deploying new capabilities. The goal is to make transformation a core organizational competence rather than an occasional intervention. Move transformation ownership to the CEO. Stop treating leadership development and organizational change as HR functions or IT projects. When the chief executive owns the transformation strategy, it becomes integrated with business objectives rather than running parallel to them. Development initiatives should be evaluated against strategic outcomes, not training completion rates. Build learning loops into every change. The compounding advantage comes from treating each transformation as an opportunity to strengthen your capacity for the next one. After every significant change initiative, capture what worked, what failed, and what you would do differently. Feed those lessons back into your frameworks and processes so the organization genuinely learns rather than simply moves on. The age of AI demands a new approach to how organizations change. The old modelswhether executive education or traditional consultingserved a slower world. That world is gone. The companies that will lead in the years ahead will not be those that find the best external partners to perform transformation for them. They will be those that find the right spark to unlock the transformation capability they already possess. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/creator-faisalhoque.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/faisal-hoque.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Ready to thrive at the intersection of business, technology, and humanity? ","dek":"Faisal Hoques books, podcast, and his companies give leaders the frameworks and platforms to align purpose, people, process, and techturning disruption into meaningful, lasting progress.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/faisalhoque.com","theme":{"bg":"#02263c","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#ffffff","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#000000"},"imageDesktopId":91420512,"imageMobileId":91420514,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
A college degree is usually thought of as a ticket to a great job and a secure future. Yet, the job market over the past few years has not been kind to graduates. Rapid changes in technology and uncertainty about the influence of AI on the economy have made it harder for companies to know what their new employees need to know to be successful. I have argued in the past that this uncertainty actually makes college degrees more useful than ever, but higher education is doing a poor job of helping students navigate this uncertainty. Sadly, universities arent going to fix this problem by hiring more career counselors. Instead, theyre going to have to do the hard work of restructuring their teaching mission for the 21st century. As it turns out, there is a straightforward (if labor-intensive) way for higher ed to make graduates (and continuing education students) more future-proof: focusing on teaching students durable skills, that will see them through the future; tying assessments to outcomes; and tracking competencies rather than courses. I believe so deeply that this change must be made, that I have left my role as a university professor and administrator after 27 years to work for Minerva Project, a company that built Minerva University, a private university, from the ground up using this approach and now brings it to schools around the world interested in reform. Here’s what this looks like: 1. Focus on durable skills Most college graduates credit their degree programs with helping them to become better learners, communicators, and thinkers regardless of their major. Indeed, liberal arts degree holders may struggle to get jobs initially, but they are quite successful in the long run. These degree programs provide value, because they ultimately teach durable skills. A skill is durable when it can be applied usefully in many different settings. Someone who learns to use a particular computer programming language has a potentially valuable skill. But, if the industry changes the standard for the language being used, or if AI can do a lot of the coding that companies need, then this skill loses value. Someone who learns the more durable skill of characterizing a problem and framing the path to a solution can continue to play a role even if much of the work to implement that solution can be automated. Universities are in the business of teaching these durable skills. Students learn key competencies like characterizing a problem, engaging in systems thinking, and communicating that problem and solution to others. Unfortunately, this teaching is done unsystematically in a way that can make it hard for some students to truly achieve competence in these deep skills and makes it difficult for graduates to articulate what they have learned. The solution is for institutions to align on a framework to characterize the core set of skills they deliver. This framework benefits employers, faculty, and students. Employers get a clear statement of what graduates have learned. Faculty get a common language for talking about these skills so that they can call them out explicitly to students in classes. Students then have a better understanding of the skills they are learning. That enables them to be strategic about selecting classes that will help them to solidify key abilities and provides them with a vocabulary for talking to employers about what they will bring to their work. In order for this approach to be successful, though, faculty need to provide students with authentic assessments and students need some kind of record to track their expertise. 2. Authentic assessment Just talking about the skills that are (somehow) being taught in higher education is not enough. Students need evidence of their progress toward gaining competence in these durable skills. Unfortunately, when students take an exam or do an assignment, the most visible result of that work is a grade. A professor (or teaching assistant) may write comments on the work, but the student tends to focus on whether they got an A. Authentic assessment happens when each assignment is related directly to outcomes that the course is designed to develop. Students should be aware of the relationship between these assignments and the outcomes. More importantly, assignments need to be evaluated by using a measure (a rubric) that relates the students work to the skill being practiced. In this way, the feedback students get on their work is focused on what the exam or assignment says about their current proficiency rather than on the number or letter at the top of the page. While this wont get rid of grades altogether, it does provide prospective employers with a way to emphasize the skills they believe signal success, which is a recipe for changing the focus of students from grades to competency. While it might seem obvious that authentic assessment is crucial to good education, most college faculty are not trained as educators, and so their assignments (and bases for grading) are often disconnected from the desired learning outcomes for students. Universities need to provide more support for faculty to improve the quality of their assignments and grading rubrics. Authentic assessments change the focus of a students work from achieving a grade to developing competence. That focus can motivate students to put in the effort to improve. As a result, students are not trying to game the system to get a good grade. Instead, they are looking for opportunities to expand their skills. This approach also provides a guard against academic misconduct. After all, what is the point of cheating on an assignment if the sole purpose of the work is to help you get better and understand your skills? 3. A competency tracker, not a transcript Part of what obscures the value of a degree for students and employers is that the primary record a student gets of their time in college is a transcript. Transcripts are just lists of courses (whose names dont provide much information about their content) and grades (that provide a blunt assessment of how students performed). Indeed, few people ever look at a graduates transcript, because the entries on it dont say much about what that person can do. The alternative is to build a record of student performance around the institutions framework for durable skills that accumulates the evidence from the many assignments students have done that teach and assess these skills. This tracker provides students with a current snapshot of what they do (and do not) do well. The record itself links back to past assignments. This tracker enables students to look back at past work to see the growing complexity of their thinking. Anyone who has looked back with some horror at a paper they wrote in their first year of college can recognize the improvements in their communication ability and complexity of thought. This record systematizes that experience. It also enables students to clearly articulatetheir skills to employers. In addition, over the course of a career, maintaining a competence tracker can signal to someone that it is time to get some more education to stay a step ahead of economic and technological changes. Higher education must make these changes . . . now in order to equip students for the future. It is up to all of us who care about colleges and universities to push them to do so.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] next »