Archive for the Q&A Category

Question

My company introduced a training program so managers and senior staff can learn how to mentor employees, new hires and so on. They brought in a consultant to teach it. It’s so formal and structured. That’s just not me. I’d feel very awkward. But I’d like to start helping some of the people under me. Have you got some tips on how I can be a good mentor?

Nick’s Reply

It’s fashionable to be a mentor. You know: a wise old coot who can spout wisdom to naïve young upstarts. Mentoring is such a popular human resources concept that employees in lots of companies are required to take on protégés whether they like it or not.

Most mentoring programs I’ve seen, though born of good intentions, result in little more than awkward meetings, because you can’t really dictate how or whether two people will get along. (Don’t get me wrong: there are also some very successful programs out there, but they’re few and far between.) The problem, I believe, is that too many of these programs are institutionally controlled rather than freewheeling.

Mentoring isn’t a program you administer — it’s a generous, subversive habit you practice. Be available, honest, and quietly useful. Your job is to help someone see and trust their own potential, not to hand them a script.

I learned to mentor by being mentored well

My greatest mentor was Gene Webb, a professor at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Long after I graduated, Gene and I would get together for freewheeling lunches every month or two. There was never an agenda or schedule. We just talked.

Here’s what I learned about how to be a good mentor from how Gene mentored me.

Start simple

Give help only when it’s wanted. The only thing you need to be a mentor is someone who would like your help.

You don’t need a title, a schedule, or a committee. Offer advice, introductions, or a listening ear when someone asks.

Be a guide, not a guru

See potential. Don’t impose answers. A mentor is different from a friend because a mentor sees your potential and helps you develop it.

Let people learn at their own pace. Suggest resources, tell stories, introduce possibilities, then step back and let them choose.

Make your help practical

• Share work-arounds and insider knowledge. Teach how to navigate systems, not just how the system is supposed to work.
• Open doors, don’t push people through them. Make introductions. Let the mentee decide whether to follow up.
• Answer questions and help them ask better ones. Sometimes the best mentoring is showing how you think.

Keep it low-pressure

Make it enjoyable. Meet when you both want to in a social setting, and don’t always be the one to schedule. Talk about what’s good and fun in your life — let the serious issues come up naturally, if there are any.

Don’t keep score. Mentoring is generosity, not a transaction. Not all meetings will “pay off,” except in enjoyment! You can be someone’s mentor for a lifetime — or for a single, well-timed conversation. Both matter. (Because the cost of lunch didn’t make a material difference to either of us financially, Gene and I always flipped for the check. I learned a great lesson about probabilities from this: I paid for every meal for almost two years!)

Watch for pitfalls

• Don’t make promises you can’t keep. You’re a helper, not a savior.
• Beware your agenda. Focus on the mentee’s goals, not your image.
• Encourage critical thinking. If your advice asks someone to take a risk, make sure they evaluate it for themselves.

Multiply the effect

The most important thing I learned from Gene: When someone thanks you for helping them, ask them to pay it forward. Mentoring is contagious: teach others to help, and the world improves.

Bottom line

Be available, be generous, and resist the urge to control outcomes. Mentor like a conspirator for someone’s future — quietly, practically, and without fanfare. But don’t feel you always have to spring for lunch! Flip a coin!

A special case: Mentoring kids

Have you mentored or have you been mentored? What’s the most important thing about mentoring? Are there pitfalls? Who was, or is, your greatest mentor? What did they teach you? How did it affect your career or life? What’s your best advice about how to be a good mentor?

: :

Question

People looking for jobs complain they keep getting rejected. I’ll tell you why: they’re applying for the wrong jobs. We face this every day. We keep rejecting one candidate after another for this simple reason. Every manager in my company will tell you a really good candidate is very hard to find. These applicants don’t even make it through the HR screening or skills testing. You headhunters supposedly have the magic. How can we change our recruiting to avoid losing the best candidates when it’s like looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack? Help!

Nick’s Reply

The first thing you have to do is make your recruiting serious. Stop relying on HR prosthetics like auto-screening, robo-interviews and automated skills testing. In fact, take HR (and its A.I. prosthetics) out of the loop altogether! What does some personnel jockey know about injection molding, power distribution systems, marketing or logistics? Do you really believe an A.I.’s “evaluation” is valid and reliable? If any of this really worked you wouldn’t be asking me for answers!

Don’t send a clerk (or an A.I.) to do a manager’s job.

Even when an employer avoids the impersonal algorithms, leading-edge companies send human proxies — clerks — to impress leading-edge candidates in screening interviews. Personnel clerks who then must wait to get on the hiring manager’s agenda to review the candidate, while the candidate cools their heels. Guess what? The best candidates don’t cool their heels. They smell bureaucracy and walk away.

That’s how you — the hiring manager — wind up with candidates who aren’t qualified for anything except patiently playing the HR game of screening, testing and… waiting.

If your management team is too busy to get personally involved in serious recruiting and hiring, your company will lose the very candidates it needs most. Even in a tight job market, the best candidates are in demand, and while you’re trying to put them through your administrative process, a headhunter like me (or an aggressive hiring manager) will steal them.

Get serious. Put your managers in the game from the start.

No matter how you identify the candidates you want to pursue, never let anyone or any thing make first contact except the manager who would hire them. It tells the candidate you’re serious. It puts you ahead of other employers who send in the clowns first.

Make the candidate feel as important as the job you want them to fill. Never allow hiring to be represented as an automated administrative process. (I know, I know — “this how it’s done today!” That’s why you’re asking me for answers! See Tell A.I. robo-interviewer where to stick it.)

This turns good candidates right off. No one wants to think they were invited for an interview because the personnel department dragged some keywords out of a database. The candidate wants to know that something specific triggered the company’s interest. Preferably, someone the candidate knows recommended them to a manager that asked, and a manager — not a process — stimulated this encounter. (This latter point is a subject for another article and discussion.)

Make recruitment personal, make it important, make it a carefully orchestrated courtship designed to make the candidate feel special. Make your recruiting serious. Doing it like everybody  else is not serious! You get one chance to create a first impression — and to entice the special candidate.

We’re all fed up with A.I. recruiting prosthetics and with the HR clerks that deploy them. What’s the worst you’ve encountered? When is the last time an actual hiring manager was the very first contact from an employer? What exemplary experiences have you had while being recruited and applying for a job?

: :

Question

This week I’m going to answer my own question. Why would anyone waste a valuable personal referral?
– Nick

Nick’s Reply

It happened again today: another friend in need rejected a good chance at about half a million dollars.

A personal referral

One of my neighbors, a corporate guy out of a job over a year, has been day trading and playing the stock market. After learning it’s a harder job than any he’s ever had, he sheepishly asked my help getting a job again. Let’s call him Mark.

Mark’s skills and corporate experience are a very good match for any of a number of major companies in our area. All he’s lacking is a good personal referral to the right executive.

Mark is successful, smart, self-motivated and a good communicator. I had no qualms about enthusiastically and personally recommending him to another neighbor who’s about one breath away from the CEO’s job in his company. Let’s call him John. Based on my assurances, the very busy John told me to have Mark call him on his private line. I knew if the call went well, even if John couldn’t hire Mark, he would introduce Mark to other managers both in and outside John’s company. John’s professional network was big and soundly based on trust.

So Mark asked for help and John opened the door to help him on my request. This is what often gets lost when I (or anyone) make a meaningful personal introduction for you: Don’t just be impressed that I have excellent business contacts. Carefully consider that to help you, I will stick my neck out and put myself on the line. All you have to do is follow up!

All Mark had to do was follow up.

A wasted personal referral

I offered Mark the chance to add probably $500,000 of additional income to his life when I set up the call with John. Turns out I over-estimated Mark, probably because I slipped into the complacent belief that because he’s a good neighbor and a good executive, he also understands the value of a strong personal recommendation. But that was my mistake.

John was waiting for Mark’s call. That’s what the transaction was about: John’s highly valuable agreement to take a call he’d never otherwise take. I cannot emphasize this enough: A phone call with John could not be bought; it could only be offered. Job seekers learn from career coaches, HR managers and professional resume writers that the purpose of a resume, a job application, a cover letter, a job board, LinkedIn, an elevator pitch, and all that “networking” you do is to achieve one goal: to get a chance to talk to a powerful decision maker. That’s where a serious opportunity is born.

But the all-important first win is to get that call or meeting from a decision maker who is ready, willing, motivated and primed by a trusted personal contact to give you their undivided attention for maybe 15-30 minutes.

That’s the big win.

Well, long story short, Mark blew it and now I want nothing more to do with him. Mark cost me because he wasted my personal referral.

Mark didn’t make the call that I set up for him. He didn’t make the call the next day or that week. But John made a call — to me. “Hey, Nick, I never heard from that guy Mark. Is something wrong?”

Rejecting the lifeline

“I’ll call him soon, thanks, Nick,” Mark told me. Another week went by. I called Mark again. (I hate chasing people.)

“You know, Nick…” started Mark the next time we spoke when I called him. (I hate chasing people but I cut neighbors some slack.) He continued, sounding almost irritated that I was pressing him to accept help he’d asked me for. He gave me three reasons why he wasn’t calling John — reasons he seemed to think were obvious:

1. “I don’t really need that introduction right now. I’m getting some resumes out. I’ll call your friend later if I need to.”

Perhaps Mark rejected the lifeline I offered because he was naive about personal recommendations. He chose to get more resumes out to employers that didn’t know him. His goal was to get interviews. And he was ignoring the chance to skip the resume step altogether. He did not see the difference between treading water and taking a lifeline.

Everyone needs good contacts all the time. After I did the work to help Mark, he should have dropped everything he was doing to call John, who was primed to help Mark or hire him. When you are looking for a lifeline, don’t reject it because you’re busy treading water. You will piss off the person that threw you the line. The line won’t be there later.

“I’d rather tread water.”

Mark badly misjudged what’s a lifeline and what’s likely to wear him out. He wanted to tread water.

2. “I’m interviewing with a company right now and I want to see where it goes.”

So what? You can do both. Interviewing must not be a serial process. It must be parallel. Each new prospect takes so much time to cultivate that it’s a fool’s errand to wait for any one of them to play out. While Mark was waiting for one offer, John could have started him on another.

A great contact is hard to come by. John’s enthusiasm was going stale quickly. And my good will towards Mark required nurturing.

LinkedIn is lying to you: the shore is never as close as you think

Mark thought he was in control of the water.

3. “I don’t want to offend John by not taking him up on any possible offer he might make — because I might take the job I’m working on now.”

Well, that’s just plain stupid, and not least because almost all job opportunities go south. It was no surprise that the “offer” Mark thought he had in the bag never materialized and he was left with no active alternatives. His lifeline was gone.

The right way for Mark to think about John was as a new contact, a new friend and a new channel to lots more good personal referrals. Mark blew it because he was pursuing one job when his focus should have been on an excellent new contact that could yield several good opportunities.

A personal referral is a real lifeline

Mark’s primary focus should have been on what is widely acknowledged to be the single best, most reliable path to a new job: the good personal referral. Time with John, an executive who trusts my judgment enough to take a call from anyone I recommend, was worth more than the next 10 “opportunities” generated by “sending out resumes.”

I find that most people talk a good line about “networking” but have no idea of its real power and value. That’s how Mark blew it. He didn’t see that a personal referral is a valuable lifeline. He spent the next  year knocking around the job boards and paying for “LinkedIn Premium” and getting rejected by employers that had no evidence he was worth meeting.

When someone vouches for you and gets you a call or meeting with another well-connected manager, recognize that it’s not a job interview. It’s a new launching pad to potentially many new personal contacts, interviews and, yes, job offers that few people ever have the chance to profit from.

Mark’s last words to me were, “Thanks, Nick, I don’t want to offend you.”

I never took his calls again. General estimates are that the right new job can be worth $500,000 dollars or more in lifetime earnings.

When was the last time you were offered a personal referral to a well-connected manager? Did you take advantage of it? If you decided not to, why not? Have you ever felt burned by someone you tried to help with a personal referral?

: :

Question

Our company requires departing employees, whether they quit or got laid off or fired, to do an exit interview if they want to remain “in good standing” with the company. That means they can be rehired down the road and will also receive certain other benefits. A lot of them decline the meeting anyway. Personally, as a manager I think an exit interview is valuable for the employee and the company. It’s a safe place to do an honest post-mortem. How would you advise us to get more employees to do exit interviews?

Nick’s Reply

We’ve discussed exit interviews at length elsewhere on Ask The Headhunter. (I’ve referred to them as cockroaches of the employment world.) Readers that know my opinion of these tete-a-tetes might expect me to flame you. (See Exit Interviews: Why you should just say NO.) But I think you’re asking a legitimate question if you and your company truly want to learn something useful from the departing employee while ensuring you do nothing to hurt them on their departure.

The exit interview: what does it change?

In virtually every case, the employee stands nothing to gain by “opening up” in an exit interview. If the employer really cares what the employee honestly thinks about their experience at the company, management would ask them long before their departure.

That is, ask all employees regularly, while they work for you, what they think  — not on their way out the door! — and while there’s a chance to change something that might benefit everyone involved.

Wait, then buy lunch

You asked my advice so let’s get to it. I think the best way to benefit from an exit interview is to wait six months after the employee leaves. Then, call and invite them to lunch. Figure this will cost your company about $25. (Note: Your HR should have nothing to do with this lunch meeting.)

Discuss the former employee’s old job, their experience and their insights and thoughts. Ask them for advice. Tell them about your company, what it was like when they were there, what it’s like now and what you plan for the future.

Then let the former employee talk. You will likely learn a lot. The reason for doing this post-mortem six months later and away from the company is that it is relatively safe for the employee compared to doing it in the throes of job change. Your willingness to wait is a good test of whether you really want and can use the information you think you need. Time and distance may make the former employee more willing to share — from a safer place.

Is an exit interview really worth it?

If the information you seek from an exit interview is really valuable to you, then it should be worth prudently waiting for the emotion and upheaval of parting company to subside.

Is this too much trouble? Then you had no business doing a traditional exit interview in your office. If the information you want isn’t important enough to invest in a lunch, you don’t need it – you’re doing exit interviews for the wrong reasons.

If it’s not worth $25 to you, then you don’t deserve to know what the former employee might tell you. Of course, the employee might decline the lunch altogether. That would tell you your company has other problems with its reputation.

Exit interviews are the cockroaches of the HR world: no one knows why they exist, no one can justify or eliminate them, and they will likely survive into the third millennium. Every employee should know well in advance how they’ll handle a request to do an exit interview, and every manager should really know why they’re doing it.

What’s your experience with exit interviews, whether you’re an employer or an employee? What’s your personal policy about doing them?

: :

Question

What is the relationship nowadays between recruiters, companies and applicants?

Nick’s Reply

Typically, it’s skimpy at best. The typical relationship is a database.

A friend of mine is an HR exec at a Fortune 50 company. He complains he has no budget to actually go find and recruit good people, because his top management dumps almost all the recruiting budget into the big job boards. He is unable to actually meet and talk with people he needs to recruit.

For the most part, recruiters, companies and applicants all live in databases, waiting for algorithms to make matches between jobs and workers. It gets pretty dizzy in there! Everyone is sitting on their duffs in front of computers going blind, deciding which database record to interview via a bot. They think they’re recruiting, or job hunting.

This is why it appears so difficult to find and fill jobs whether the job market is considered good or bad. Employers, recruiters and applicants do very little talking with one another.

Question

Are you more interested in passive or active candidates (passive being ones that aren’t actively looking)?

Nick’s Reply

As a headhunter, I’m not as interested in candidates as I am in sources. I’ll jump over 50 possible candidates, whether they’re actively looking or not, to get to one “shining light” in the industry I hunt in. Because that’s what I get paid for: Knowing people who make the industry tick.

I place candidates, but I look for sources. That’s who I spend my time with. My sources help me fill the positions I work on. One good source is usually worth several placements. A good source also helps me find good candidates quickly, without having to sort through the drek.

It’s irrelevant whether someone is active or passive, employed or out of work. What matters is what the shining light thinks of them — and I’ve placed some phenomenal unemployed people that most recruiters wouldn’t even talk to.

A database is not a hub. Recruiting isn’t about posting jobs and filtering resumes. That’s not what companies pay recruiters for. They pay you because you are a hub of sources — the person others in the industry come to for advice, information and introductions. So what matters is not whether the candidate is active or passive. It’s whether the recruiter is active — as a respected hub of good relationships.

Good jobs, candidates, job offers and hires flow to and from that hub.

If you’re a job seeker, what does this tell you about the job market and about how to land a job?

: :

Question

I need you to settle an argument. Overall, what’s going to serve a person better: a career-focused professional degree, or a liberal arts education? My buddy the software engineer says the former. I say the latter. What got us going is an article in The Washington Post about this question. The author is a liberal-arts type. Here’s his bottom line:

“Artificial intelligence makes purely technical skills less valuable and human judgment more essential. There has never been a more powerful case for the liberal arts, a kind of education that cultivates human discernment.”

What kind of degree would you get if you were going to college today?

Nick’s Reply

Well, because my degrees (B.A., Psychology and M.A., Cognitive Psychology) are technically in the liberal arts, I know not to touch this question with a ten-foot pole!

Professional and/or liberal arts education?

A person that wants to do software development should get a degree in Computer Science, Engineering and/or Information Technology, or a technical certification (or five) in relevant technologies. If the person is working on a liberal arts degree and then wants to do software development, they should finish their degree and then get skills in designing software and writing code (or in learning to use A.I. to write code).

Which person will have a better career and life? Now I’ll dive in. I think that would be the person that learns it all.

Literal or liberal education?

I encourage everyone, no matter your career bent or your philosophical leanings, to read the excellent article by Greg Weiner that you refer to, The best education for future success might surprise you. (The WaPo will let you read it free in exchange for your e-mail address.)

I think that Weiner, while he leans toward a liberal arts education, actually makes a good case for hybrid studies by distinguishing between literal education and liberal education. He turns his case on the example of A.I. and by emphasizing the importance of being able to apply human judgment and discernment — which have long-term value — to the more immediate utility of A.I. and other technical skills.

There’s enough said and written about the career value of degrees in engineering, science, medicine, law and accounting. Evidence of this value is found in salary studies that favor professional degrees. That’s why my own writing looks at how people with liberal arts degrees can spin the skills they’ve acquired to succeed in business, management, and even in “professional” careers where they don’t have, say, a technical degree. For example, Liberal arts degree: Asset or albatross?

Well, which is it?

You’re asking an important question in a time when the definition of “intelligence” (whether acquired from education or from machine learning) is being hotly debated. My only contribution to the controversies will be a very loaded question: Why do you think they call it “Artificial?” Meantime, I like Weiner’s distinctions between literal and liberal education, and between the more immediate versus longer term value of each.

A debate about your question will be more valuable than my opinion. I don’t expect we’ll reach a consensus — but I’d love to know how everyone interprets Weiner’s argument, and what your views are about a liberal arts versus a career-focused education. Why do companies — tech companies especially — hire people with a liberal education and pay them well? Where are these jobs?

: :

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS SCAM?

Did you receive a scam recruiting e-mail from:

corco.headhunting.recruiting.inc@gmail.com that’s signed:

Best regards,
   Nick CORCODILOS 
Executive Independent | Job Search Placement Specialist | Executive Board Level Talent
* * * * * *
About: I help hiring leaders secure high impact talent while minimizing time to hire and long term risk. Your Go To Executive Headhunter.
LINKEDIN PROFILE

A recruiting scam

Ask The Headhunter readers have been getting very detailed “confidential” solicitations — and asking me if they are really from me.

Of course not!

These scammers are using my name illegally. The link to the LINKEDIN PROFILE beneath my name goes to my actual profile, further suggesting I’m behind the solicitations.

If you received these e-mails in your Gmail, you will see a copy of my avatar beside the “from” field:

 

 

 

This is a fraudulent, illegal impersonation. They stole the avatar and created a fake e-mail address that starts with the first five letters of my last name.

How the scam looks

Victims have been sending me the e-mail threads, which include detailed information scraped from their own LinkedIn profiles. I suspect the e-mails are AI-generated, made to seem tailored to each victim, referring to the victim’s current job title and skills, and pitching a “relevant” executive-level job opportunity.

The scammers engage the victim in a back-and-forth via e-mail using common social engineering tricks. They plant enough details in each e-mail to make the victim ask questions and to make them engage in discussion. Social psychology refers to this “foot-in-the–door” sales tactic as a compliance, or persuasion, strategy. If the scammer can gradually get in the victim’s door, the victim is likely to rationalize away any hesitation to disclose more information. “I let them in this far – might as well see where this goes.”

That’s a big mistake.

Are they after you or your employer?

I showed this recruiting fraud to a data scientist at a leading cybersecurity firm.

“It looks like a spear phishing scheme designed to harvest information from high-level executives, likely as a pivot point to target their current employers. The scammer gets little bits of personal information through casual, friendly sounding questions. Then leads the victim into revealing more facts about themselves that appear innocuous. It’s not hard to build a profile of the victim and use it to compromise their digital identity. The ultimate target is often the victim’s employer and the goal is to access internal corporate systems for real exploitation.”

They’re also after your money.

The scam recruiting e-mail

Below is the full text of the e-mail one victim received from “Nick Corcodilos,” and the ensuing back-and-forth. I redacted any information that could identify the person. E-mails received by other victims are similar. Automation is clearly involved in producing these. Sort of customized boilerplate.

(My name appears again and again in the From field. Don’t be lulled into any idea that what you’re reading is from me! Note the e-mail address.)

From: Nick Corcodilos <corco.headhunting.recruiting.inc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:01 AM
To: [REDACTED]

Hi [REDACTED],

I’ve been reviewing senior [REDACTED] Policy directors with hands-on experience in [REDACTED] reform, particularly those who have led cross-government frameworks.

Your leadership in your current role at [REDACTED] Corporation and your work around analyzing [REDACTED] and engaging stakeholders reflects the level of strategic oversight institutions are increasingly seeking as 2026 frameworks continue to evolve.

I work independently with a small number of director-level global [REDACTED] leaders when they are open to discreetly exploring strategic mandates aligned with their background, particularly where policy formation and implementation governance intersect.

I’m reaching out simply to understand whether you would be open to a confidential conversation should a closely aligned leadership opportunity emerge.

I look forward to hearing from you if this aligns with your current priorities.

Best regards,
   Nick CORCODILOS 
Executive Independent | Job Search Placement Specialist | Executive Board Level Talent
* * * * * *
About: I help hiring leaders secure high impact talent while minimizing time to hire and long term risk. Your Go To Executive Headhunter.
LINKEDIN PROFILE

Notes

My boldfaced “signature” in fuschia with all caps for my last name at the end should stop you in your tracks. If that doesn’t signal quackery, please take a breath and read the e-mail again!

But people do respond. They get sucked in. They pay up or, worse, try to impress the scammer with how important they are by revealing information about their employer.

I find that the higher the executive title and the higher the salary of the target victim, the more likely they are to fall victim.

Judging from certain telltale vocabulary, the scammers are likely overseas. They use five-dollar words and silly expressions only someone with poor knowledge of English and little business savvy would use. Here are some tip-offs:

• “Confidential Leadership Alignment”
• “discreetly exploring strategic mandates aligned with their background”
• “I’m reaching out simply to understand”
• “a closely aligned leadership opportunity”
• “I approach each mandate with careful alignment in mind”

All that “alignment” reveals an uneducated scammer trying to impress and stroke a corporate manager who might never bother to check whether this is even real.

***

[E-MAIL OMITTED: VICTIM REPLIES, EXPRESSES INTEREST, SUBMITS RESUME, AND “NICK” WRITES BACK]

***

From: Nick Corcodilos <corco.headhunting.recruiting.inc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 1:39?PM
To: [REDACTED]

Hi [REDACTED],

I’ve now received initial feedback from the hiring side and wanted to share it with you directly.

HIRING MANAGER FEEDBACK

Thank you for forwarding [REDACTED]’s profile for review.

I’ve completed both an initial screening and a detailed evaluation of her background in relation to the Director, [REDACTED] Policy mandate. Overall, her profile demonstrates strong alignment with the strategic, regulatory, and cross-functional leadership expectations of this role.

Based on the review, the following strengths stood out as particularly relevant:

1. Deep [REDACTED] Regulatory Expertise
Her current leadership in monitoring and synthesizing [REDACTED] regulatory activity impacting [REDACTED] particularly the Star Ratings program, Advance Notice, and Final Rule cycles reflects direct subject matter alignment with the core focus of this position.

2. Strategic Policy Translation for Executive Leadership
Her ability to translate complex regulatory developments into executive level decks, policy briefs, trackers, and strategic communications demonstrates the level of analytical maturity and clarity required at the Director level.

3. Enterprise Wide Stakeholder Leadership
Leading cross-functional engagement across 180+ stakeholders to align positions for comment letters reflects strong internal influence, coordination, and policy alignment critical for External Affairs strategy.

4. Advocacy & Policy Positioning Experience
Her recent promotion to Lead Quality Program Strategist Regulatory, including work developing advocacy materials presented to [REDACTED] and maintaining a [REDACTED] advocacy portfolio, signals readiness to operate in a more externally facing policy leadership capacity.

5. Project Management & Regulatory Cycle Oversight
Her leadership of the [REDACTED] Plan Preview cycle and structured management of regulatory timelines demonstrates operational rigor and ownership across high-stakes policy processes.

6. Executive Communication & Written Policy Strength
Her portfolio of policy briefs, regulatory summaries, and strategic analyses reflects strong written communication skills and the ability to synthesize complex legislative developments into actionable insights.

Overall, her experience reflects a strong progression from policy analysis into strategic policy leadership, consistent with the scope of a Director-level mandate.

That said, before moving her profile into final review, the following documents will be required to complete the submission package:

• • Executive Bio
  • SWOT Assessment Letter

While her resume demonstrates strong alignment, these documents are important at this level to further assess leadership philosophy, strategic positioning, and her perspective on [REDACTED] policy evolution within a broader enterprise context.

At this stage, we’re unable to move into final evaluation without receipt of both documents. Once provided, her candidacy will be fully positioned for senior-level consideration.

[END “HIRING MANAGER FEEDBACK”. SCAMMER ADDRESSES VICTIM IN NEXT PART OF SAME E-MAIL]

[REDACTED],

As you can see from the feedback above, your background has been very well received and you are in a strong position at this stage.

To move this forward efficiently, the next step will be preparation and submission of the Executive Bio and SWOT Assessment Letter. Once those are finalized, I can formally advance your candidacy and continue direct engagement at the senior decision-making level.

Timing is important, as the review process is active. I would recommend sharing these documents as soon as possible so we can maintain momentum. If you would like guidance on structuring either document to align with hiring leadership expectations, I am happy to support you.

I look forward to your update and to receiving the materials so we can proceed accordingly.

Best regards,
   Nick CORCODILOS 
Executive Independent | Job Search Placement Specialist | Executive Board Level Talent
* * * * * *
About: I help hiring leaders secure high impact talent while minimizing time to hire and long term risk. Your Go To Executive Headhunter.
LINKEDIN PROFILE

Note

The numbered-list “analysis” of the resume against the “requirements” of the “role” clearly reveals another tip-off to the fraud. This a classic AI formatting trope in query results: boldfaced, numbered, bulleted or numbered short paragraphs. You can just see an AI bot spitting out that six-point list in the “HIRING MANAGER’s internal e-mail”! This has high-volume, automated AI-driven snake-oil sales pitch written all over it.

***

[E-MAILS OMITTED: VICTIM ASKS FOR HELP WITH REQUIRED DOCUMENTS. SCAMMER OFFERS TO REFER VICTIM TO SPECIALIST THAT CAN CREATE THEM. VICTIM REQUESTS REFERRAL.]

***

From: Nick Corcodilos <corco.headhunting.recruiting.inc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:17?PM
To: [REDACTED]

Hi [REDACTED],

Thank you for your prompt response, I truly appreciate it and value your decisiveness as we move forward.

As discussed, below are the details of the executive document specialist I work with closely. She has extensive experience positioning senior leaders and understands precisely how Executive Bios and SWOT assessments are evaluated at hiring leadership level.

Executive branding Specialist

Name: Ava Archibald
Email: Avaarchibald.executivecareers@gmail.com

Please feel free to reach out to her directly and let her know you were referred by me. That will provide immediate context and allow her to align the documents strategically with the expectations of this mandate.

Given the active nature of the process, kindly inform her that the completed documents are needed within the next 24 hours so we can maintain momentum with the hiring team.

Once you’ve connected with her, Kindly keep me informed so I can track progress on my end. As soon as the documents are finalized, we will be in a strong position to advance your candidacy without delay.

I appreciate your engagement and professionalism throughout this process and look forward to next steps.

Best regards,
   Nick CORCODILOS 
Executive Independent | Job Search Placement Specialist | Executive Board Level Talent
* * * * * *
About: I help hiring leaders secure high impact talent while minimizing time to hire and long term risk. Your Go To Executive Headhunter.
LINKEDIN PROFILE

Note

There’s no indication there’s a real “Ava” waiting to write your Exec Bio; not any more than there’s a real “corc”! I expect there may be a real Ava who’s being impersonated just like I am.

The payload

The intended victim didn’t take the bait and contact “Ava,” who undoubtedly would have quoted several thousand dollars to concoct an “Executive Bio and SWOT assessment” so the victim could “move into final evaluation” so her candidacy could “proceed.”

This is the payload in this painfully long set-up.

After paying the fee up front, the victim would never again hear from Ava or “Nick CORCODILOS” and would be forced to find a real e-mail address to track me down to get her money back. This Executive Bio and SWOT assessment “consultation” is the new iteration of the “resume repair” scam.

What to do about this scam

A final tip-off: If you read Ask The Headhunter you know I never use the site to recruit. I never use a Gmail address, nor does anyone else that has a legit website and domain name. I have never referred to myself as “corc”! I’d never dress up my name in fuschia! And I never promote my LinkedIn page! I have an entire website — why would I send traffic to LinkedIn?

Consider notifying the FBI via its Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). Scammers get busted when crowdsourced evidence reaches critical mass. We’ve done it before on this website.

If you’ve been targeted, please forward to me any such e-mails you’ve received and let me know if you’ve filed a complaint with law enforcement. I’m doing my own investigation and I’ll report back on what I learn. These crooks can’t stand the bright light of public scrutiny, having their methods exposed publicly, or their victims sharing information on a public forum like this.

Please share the details of this scam with your friends and coworkers. You’d be surprised how many people succumb to scams like this. More than one career scam crowdsourced and exposed on this website has led to federal charges.

Have you been scammed by such hucksters? Did it cost you much? Did you get your money back? Got any ideas how I can stop them from using my name and LinkedIn profile to rip people off?

: :

 

 

 

SPECIAL EDITION

For decades Americans have been told that online job boards are the engines of modern hiring. LinkedIn, Indeed, CareerBuilder, ZipRecruiter — the whole digital carnival — all insist they’re indispensable. They promise efficiency, reach, and “data-driven hiring.” They promise to match talent with opportunity at unprecedented scale.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: None of these companies publish audited success rates.

Not one.

And when they do make claims, those claims tend to be… let’s say, “aspirational.”

LinkedIn’s “seven hires per minute” is only the latest in a long line of job-board boasts that collapse under scrutiny. The entire industry has been selling the same fantasy for years, and the numbers — when you can find them — tell a very different story.

Let’s start with the current king of the hill.

The 7-hires-per-minute myth

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman posted on January 12 on X the now-famous line: “Every minute, seven people are hired via LinkedIn, a rate that equates to 3.67 million people a year.”

It’s a great sound bite. It’s also nearly impossible to verify. The number appears everywhere — in blogs, in influencer posts, in SEO-bait “career advice” articles — but try to trace it back to a primary source and you’ll find yourself in a digital funhouse of circular citations. Everyone cites someone else. No one cites LinkedIn, the job-board operation of Microsoft.

The closest thing to an origin is a Microsoft earnings call from 2020, where CEO Satya Nadella said, “Three people are hired every minute on LinkedIn.” Since then, the number has mysteriously doubled and tripled, with no explanation, no methodology, and no published data.

And even Nadella’s number wasn’t a count of actual hires. LinkedIn can’t see real hiring events. They don’t have access to payroll systems or HRIS data. What they do have is a proprietary metric called a ”Confirmed Hire,” which is triggered when a user applies for a job on LinkedIn and later updates their profile to show they work at that company.

That’s not a hire. That’s a profile change.

When the lag time is too long, LinkedIn uses “Predicted Confirmed Hires,” a machine-learning guess based on signals like recruiter messages, job saves, or interview requests sent through LinkedIn Recruiter. (See Online Experimentation with Surrogate Metrics.)

This is marketing dressed up as labor-market facts.

The echo chamber that built a myth

Once the “seven hires per minute” line escaped into the wild, it became self-replicating. Career coaches cite it. Bloggers cite it. SEO farms cite it. Some claim six hires per minute. Some claim eight. Some claim 75% of all job transitions happen on LinkedIn.

None of them cite primary data. Most of them cite each other. And LinkedIn? It doesn’t correct them. Why would it? The myth is good for business.

The real numbers are embarrassing

Let’s take Hoffman’s version at face value: Seven hires per minute = 3.67 million hires per year.

Now reference that to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports 63 million hires in 2025. If all 3.67 million LinkedIn hires were U.S. hires — which is extremely generous since most of its market is global — LinkedIn accounts for 5.84% of all hires.

If only half were U.S. hires — a more realistic assumption — LinkedIn accounts for 2.9% of all hires.

Either way, the number is tiny.

And here’s the kicker: Newspaper want ads in their heyday filled 12–15% of jobs. Four to five times LinkedIn’s performance. (See What Color Is Your Parachute 2013 Edition and BLS publication Job Seeking Methods Used By American Workers.)

I’m not suggesting that in today’s world employers start once again running want ads in print media. But it would be worth studying why want ads worked so well, even while acknowledging those ads were not the best solution, either.

LinkedIn isn’t the only offender — The whole industry does this

LinkedIn’s marketing isn’t uniquely misleading. It’s simply the most visible version of a long-running pattern.

CareerBuilder once told me — with a straight face — that they “fill 57% of all jobs.” When I asked for the data, they declined to provide any. They just repeated the line, as if saying it enough times would make it true.

Indeed went even further. In 2016, they claimed that “65% of all hires from online sources” came from Indeed, citing a SilkRoad report based on a narrow sample of SilkRoad’s own clients.

The job-board industry has always relied on big, impressive-sounding numbers that fall apart under scrutiny. LinkedIn is simply the latest to benefit from the same playbook.

The real problem: 4.7 billion failed applications

Another widely repeated LinkedIn statistic claims that 9,000 job applications are submitted on the platform every minute.

Do the math. Job seekers submit 4,730,400,000 applications per year to LinkedIn. If LinkedIn “fills” 3.7 million of those jobs, that’s a success rate of 0.078%.

Not even one-tenth of one percent.

This explains a phenomenon every job seeker knows too well: You apply for a job on LinkedIn and get a rejection minutes later. Those are just the odds your application faces. (This is how the entire online recruiting system works: More is better. Except it’s not. But that’s another discussion.)

It’s not personal. It’s not even human. The problem is structural, because LinkedIn’s system is designed for volume, not quality. Employers are flooded with hundreds or thousands of applications within hours. Algorithms filter most of them out instantly. Recruiters never see them. The platform optimizes for engagement — clicks, applications, impressions — not outcomes.

The result is a hiring process that fails almost everyone involved.

Why LinkedIn lets the myth spread

Because it works. The “seven hires per minute” claim:

• makes LinkedIn look indispensable
• justifies recruiter subscriptions
• drives job-seeker engagement
• reassures investors that the platform is a hiring powerhouse.

And since the number is based on internal, unverifiable signals, no one can audit it.

It’s not that LinkedIn is lying. It’s that they’re letting the world misinterpret a black-box marketing metric as a labor-market fact.

LinkedIn could actually fix hiring — if it wanted to

Here’s the irony: LinkedIn is perfectly positioned to solve the hiring crisis it helped create. Unfortunately, LinkedIn decided years ago to take the wrong fork in the road. Rather than build out the world’s best professional network to leverage better, more trusted personal and professional relationships among its members, LinkedIn turned the site into just another job board that could milk ever more fees for “recruiter seats.”

That misstep cost LinkedIn, job hunters and employers what could have been the most effective recruiting system in the world.

The most effective sources of hires have always been:

• personal referrals, and
• targeted, relationship-driven recruiting.

Referrals fill 40–70% of jobs, depending on the study. They produce better matches, faster hires, and longer retention. They’re the opposite of the high-volume, low-signal chaos of job boards.

LinkedIn could lead a revolution by:

• helping job seekers activate real relationships instead of spraying resumes
• helping employers identify warm introductions instead of drowning in cold applicants
• building tools that prioritize trust, not traffic
• publishing transparent, audited hiring metrics
• shifting the focus from “more applications” to “better matches.”

LinkedIn has the network, the data and the reach. What it needs now is the courage to stop selling the myth — and start building the solution.

The benefits of friction

Print publications including newspapers, magazines, professional and industry journals (and even the free fish-wrap found in stands on city street corners) once owned recruitment advertising. They ran pricey help-wanted ads that added lots of friction to hiring and job hunting. You had to get the publication, find the right ads with no “search” help, print up your resumes and cover letters, stick them in envelopes, stamp and address them and take them to the post office. Still, this employment channel delivered 12-15% of hires.

How was that possible? I believe it’s because even if some job seekers aggressively sent out hundreds of resumes, there was so much friction in the process that it was self-limiting. (I recall a Kansas City firm that would mail your printed resume to 3,000 companies in your industry code for $5,000. Readers reported it didn’t work very well but it sure sounded good!) The monetary and time costs forced job seekers and employers alike to fine-tune their efforts — and this “friction” paid off in higher likelihood of success. I think it’s that simple.

Optimize for results not volume

It should come as no surprise that a job application process that’s so frictionless and easy as LinkedIn’s fails 99.92% of the 9,000 applications daily submitted to LinkedIn. We can only wonder what Linked could accomplish if they focused on the challenge of what to do about the 4,726,720,800 of job applications submitted via LinkedIn that don’t result in a job.

While 12-15% success handily beats LinkedIn and the job boards — whose success historically was mainly in the single digits as tracked by CareerXroads — even that pales beside finding and filling jobs via personal contacts.

But productive methods could be added to the stack of tools that digital recruiting relies on. This could also help LinkedIn’s wretched reputation by helping job seekers escape the black hole of mass-application misery.

The job-board industry has spent 25 years optimizing for volume, yet it still hasn’t beaten the performance of the old newspaper want ad. It’s time someone optimized for results. LinkedIn could be that someone — if it chooses to be.

: :

Your comments, observations, insights, suggestions and personal experiences are welcome in the Comments section below.

We talk a lot here about how the Employment System is broken. We talk about how Human Resources isn’t actually looking for resources, and how the “Apply” button on LinkedIn is usually a direct line to a digital trash can.

But sometimes, the absurdity of the process is so high, you just have to laugh so you don’t cry.

A reader wrote to me recently. He’s not a desperate job seeker — he’s a smart professional who got annoyed by the sheer incompetence of LinkedIn’s targeting algorithms. He decided to test the system by doing exactly what I always tell you to do: Do the job to get the job.

The result? A stark demonstration that LinkedIn usually doesn’t work. On the one hand LinkedIn claims its powerful AI matches the best candidate to a job. But on the other hand, LinkedIn clearly lacks the “intelligence” to avoid re-marketing the same job to a person the AI already rejected just a day earlier! How does LinkedIn square this disconnect with its claim that it finds people and jobs?

The embarrassing truth is this dog won’t hunt.

Here’s the reader’s story.

Question

I have been totally annoyed by repeated recruiter advertising on LinkedIn for a VP of Business Development role at Sesame Workshop. I am not qualified for this job. But the algorithm kept serving me the job and insisting I was the one.

So, I decided to apply. But I didn’t just send a resume. I used AI to generate a legitimate, high-level revenue growth strategy for them — basically doing the work of the VP before I even got the interview. I submitted it with a cover letter telling them to stop wasting money on LinkedIn ads targeting the wrong people.

My cover letter to Sesame Workshop’s recruiter started like this:

H-E-L-L-O! This cover letter is brought to you by the letters H, E, L, and O. Given how many times I have seen this ad… there is no doubt you have more than enough people in the applicant pool…

I don’t match the exact required experience, so why the heck are you paying LinkedIn to troll sub-optimal accounts?

What was the result? The Applicant Tracking System (ATS) immediately fired back an e-mail rejecting me and providing a link to apply to other jobs at the company. Clearly, no human ever saw what I submitted.

A couple of days later LinkedIn served the same job to me, encouraging me to apply. For jollies I tried again, but the employers’ algorithm “recognized” me and wouldn’t let me. Just how smart is it, I wondered? And how smart is LinkedIn’s AI? Does LinkedIn’s AI talk to Sesame Workshop’s AI? I altered my name slightly and resubmitted the same materials. This time it let me through. I got the same rejection e-mail the second time from Sesame via its jobscore.com ATS partner. Taken together, LinkedIn’s claims and behavior raise serious questions about its recruiting and marketing prowess.

Nick’s Reply

There are two main lessons here. The LinkedIn hiring funnel is actually a sewer pipe. And, this dog won’t hunt.

You provided a perfect case study of two massive failures in the modern job market: The LinkedIn Spam Machine and the ATS Firewall.

The LinkedIn spam machine

You asked, “Why the heck are you paying LinkedIn to troll sub-optimal accounts?”

The answer is simple: LinkedIn repeatedly spams you because HR departments (and LinkedIn!) measure activity, not results. That’s a critical failure point. The recruiter at Sesame Workshop likely has a metric to hit: “Generate 500 views.” They don’t care that the algorithm is succeeding or failing or spamming the wrong people again and again. They just want the clicks. You are a data point to justify their recruitment advertising budget.

The ATS firewall

I’ve never met a hiring manager that would ignore an applicant who offered a mini-business plan about how they’d do the job. I have preached for years that the best way to get a job is to demonstrate you can do the work. You did exactly that. You outlined a “YouTube-First Pivot” and a “Roblox Economy” strategy. You gave them free consulting. You gave them a roadmap to save their declining revenue.

In a sane world, a hiring manager would read that and say, “This guy might not have the years of experience, but he understands our pain points. Get him on the phone.”

We live in a recruiting world where rejecting a demonstrably good candidate is not counted as a failure of the AI. We live with an ATS firewall that blocks the candidate that shows they think “out of the box” — candidates like you.

The robot gatekeeper

You sent a thoughtful, strategic, and humorous proposal. But you fed it into a machine that only understands binary code and keyword matching.

The ATS scanned your resume. It didn’t find “15 years of Muppet Management.” The robot doesn’t know what “strategy” is. It doesn’t know what “humor” is. It definitely doesn’t know that C is for Cookie and S is for Strategy. It scored you a zero.

So, it sent you the standard “Dear Candidate, please go away” e-mail. Twice.

The Takeaway

If you had sent that same 5-point plan via FedEx directly to the CEO of Sesame Workshop, or if you had found a board member and e-mailed it to them directly, you might have a consulting gig right now — or at least a real shot at it.

But the moment you clicked “Apply” on an automated system, you ceased to be a consultant offering value. You became a row in a database.

The lesson for everyone else: Stop feeding the LinkedIn robots. They have no appetite for your value, your humor, or your solutions. (Some critics go farther and say Job boards like LinkedIn are dead.) Stop waiting for LinkedIn and the HR department to come find you. Because that dog won’t hunt.

LinkedIn: Does this dog hunt? Is it really the leading source of jobs and hires? Does it find the best people and fill the most jobs? How effective is it for job hunters? Is it a job board or a marketing engine that sells little but promises while delivering the bare minimum? What’s LinkedIn to you? Have you ever “done the job to win the job” to impress a hiring manager only to be ignored by a robot?

: :

Question

I was laid off again. I know it’s not just me. Many tech pros are posting on sites like Reddit, Quora and Stack Exchange about being laid off two, three, even four times. How can technology pros who keep getting laid off break the cycle? How should they change their job search, target list or career path? Is it possible to minimize the risk of being laid off again? If so, how? What would you advise us to do?

Nick’s Reply

You’re asking a very good question for which I think there is no answer anyone wants to hear! Over the long term there are really no “safe” companies or jobs, especially in this economy. A stockbroker (“financial consultant”) friend of mine explains it like this:

“The stock market doesn’t like uncertainty. Feckless economic policies spawn uncertainty. And when companies can’t plan for the future confidently, their spending slows way down.”

Companies start firing and stop hiring, almost haphazardly. A company that was thrilled to hire you doesn’t flinch when it fires you to reduce its risks.

Laid off: Too many all at once

Look around. Jobs and employment data are suddenly suspect if they’re available at all. Taxes and tariffs are on a seesaw. The federal government has by itself laid off hundreds of thousands of workers and thrown them into the unemployment pool. Consumer costs have spiked. There is a pervasive if almost silent panic that has descended on the economy.

No, you can’t fix the economy. But you can control how you deal with it.

Between the highly political changes being inflicted on our economy on the one hand, and the stunning changes in tech itself (A.I. being possibly the most obvious — more uncertainty!), job security has all but disappeared.

Coping

There’s no way to avoid job uncertainty. But you can learn to cope with it. I think the best career strategy today has two components: Be ready to move quickly, and be the best expert in your line of work. And I think if you look closely, this applies not just to tech jobs — though your world is probably more volatile by nature — but to most jobs.

You must be to be ready to change employers at the drop of a hat. Don’t let yourself be taken by surprise. Frederic Amiel said it well: “To be always ready, [you] must be able to cut a knot, for everything cannot be untied.”

There’s no way to “untangle” the layoff trend, or to reliably pick “the next big thing.”  Put another way, forget about what’s going to be “hot” next. Instead focus on being hot yourself! Decide what kind of work you’re prepared to give your all to. Then be (or become) the best expert at that. If your employer (or any employer you’re considering) isn’t the best in its category, cut the knot.

Laid off

For example, last summer Microsoft downsized, most notably in its Xbox group. That doesn’t mean Microsoft will stop producing new Xbox products and technologies, nor does it mean its competitors will go away. It means Microsoft will be able to employ fewer Xbox folks. What to realize is, since it will have to live with fewer Xbox workers, Microsoft will need the very best, most expert techies (and product and sales people) in the gaming space.

If that’s not you, then I can’t help you. There is no question that the least prepared workers will be hurt the most.

The best will survive, even if it means changing employers. Other companies will also want to hire only the very best. Be among those most likely to survive.

Be with and among the best

So the short version of that is, invest in being the very best at what you do or want to do, and – whether you get laid off or not – always be pursuing the best companies in your work sector or in the sector you want to jump to. Always be looking at the best place to land next – because the layoffs are not likely to stop until the international economic and political uncertainty is quelled to acceptable levels. (I believe the only real power you and I have over our economy is at election time. Don’t sit out the next election. Vote!)

Likewise, make sure the movers and shakers in your chosen field can see you. Participate in your professional community. You don’t need to be a star, but others in your field should know who you are. Of course, you must earn such visibility. (No one said this was easy, but nor is any good job you want!)

Here’s my tip: If you need to change employers, whether because you’ve been laid off or because you’ve “fired” your employer, the best way to do it is to always be hanging out with people who do the work you want to do. And don’t ask for job leads. Talk shop. That’s how you become part of the circle of friends that leads to new jobs — and that protects you from the inevitable lay-off cycle.

Here are a couple of ATH columns that dive into the “how to” of this career strategy:

In-Your-Face Audio Q&A: How to get a job

Stand Out: How to be the profitable hire

There’s no sure way to protect yourself from being laid off. But you can be ready to cope with losing your job. What obligations or responsibilities do employers have? How would you advise this victim of repeated layoffs?

: :