Lars Schmidt is one of the most forward-thinking HR leaders out there. Big minds like Laszlo Bock and Dave Ulrich learn from him. He’s been part of big and small organizations, built his own business, and has remained a true practitioner throughout his career.
I love that Lars humors me when I try to play “HR lady” and throw out opinions, even though I haven’t worked in HR in a long time. But more than that, he loves me like a sister, and I’m so grateful. You don’t get many people like that in life. Lars is one of the good ones.
Recently, he posed a question that has stuck with me:
If you had an opportunity to build a tech stack from the ground up to support a global business with a mix of tech/corp/GTM and field (hourly) employees, what would you build if you had a completely blank space to work from? Bonus points for process automation (scheduling interviews/preboarding-onboarding, lightweight/efficient, reporting/analytics).
It’s an important question, but my immediate response was this: If we could build a tech stack from the ground up, would we? Should we?
The post and all the other thoughtful comments have stayed with me because hiring—whether for hourly roles or executive placements—is a nightmare. It always has been. I know this firsthand because I started fishing resumes from a PO box and fax machine as a recruiter. And yet, the same problems that made recruiting painful back in 1995 still exist in 2025.
So I keep asking: Why are we solving the same problems repeatedly?
One person’s dream tech stack is another person’s disaster. Center the candidate experience, use automation, or buy the fanciest analytics—none of it addresses the fundamental issues we’ve been facing for decades:
- Poor candidate pipelines
- Broken, redundant application processes
- Overpromised and underdelivered employee referral programs
- Managers too busy to prioritize hiring or review resumes
- Candidates ghosting because of unclear or slow communication
- Too many interviews with no apparent purpose or follow-up
- Bad interview practices where interviewers are unprepared
- Low pay, unclear reporting lines, and terrible job descriptions
- Inflated job titles that don’t match responsibilities
- Outdated or non-competitive benefits
- Ugly, unsafe, or otherwise unappealing physical work environments
- Weak employer brands that make candidates drop out early
- Poor articulation of the employee value proposition (or none at all)
- A failure to respect candidates’ time and effort during the process
- Cognitive biases, racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and prejudice against veterans or older workers baked into hiring decisions
- Inconsistent or nonexistent feedback for candidates post-interview
- Overcomplicated preboarding and onboarding processes that start candidates off on the wrong foot
- A lack of coordination between sourcers, recruiters, HR, and hiring managers
- No clear ownership of the hiring process—who’s accountable when it goes wrong?
- Misalignment between recruiting goals and actual business needs (hiring for headcount instead of outcomes)
- Unrealistic expectations about the “perfect candidate”
- Overreliance on credentials instead of evaluating potential and transferable skills
That list could’ve been written when Bill Clinton was president!
So, yes, TA tech is useful. It’s essential for compliance and keeping things organized. But if the real problem is more profound. Why do we focus on systems instead of strategy if the process is broken?
Rethinking the Problem with AI
I am a fan of the show Skeleton Crew on Disney. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from Star Wars, it’s that droids are dopey.
AI can help with recruiting, but only if we don’t fall into the early trap of thinking that any technology can create miracles. Tools like generative AI, predictive analytics, and conversational AI might be able to challenge us to ask better questions:
- What work actually needs to get done?
- Does this role even need to exist—or does it need to exist full-time?
- Are we hiring for the right skills and outcomes or just filling a vacancy?
- Who (or what bot) should the position report to?
- What are the immediate metrics to demonstrate whether or not the hire was a good one?
While AI’s implications for the workforce might not be pleasant, they would at least force companies to be honest about what they need.
Let’s Stop Solving the Same Problems
The next time someone complains about their hiring tech or dreams of a new approach to hiring, take a moment. Ask yourself: What’s broken here?
Because the reality is this: Hiring sucks. It’s complicated, messy, and full of human issues that no tech stack can fix. Sure, I want a system that can get everybody’s calendars in alignment or spit out an accurate pay range. However, the only way forward is to stop patching symptoms and start addressing the root causes.
Let’s make 2025 the year we stop spinning our wheels and start solving real problems. The hiring process and the people you’re trying to hire deserve better.