Recruitment & HR

LinkedIn just responded to the bias claims. They think they refuted my research. I believe they just confirmed it. Following the recent discussions on whether the algorithm suppresses women's voices, LinkedIn's Head of Responsible AI and AI Governance, Sakshi Jain, posted a new Engineering Blog post to "clarify" how the feed works (link in comments). I’ve analysed the post. Far from debunking the issue, it inadvertently confirms the exact mechanism of Proxy Bias I identified in my report (link in comments). Here is the breakdown: 1. The blog spends most of its time denying that the algorithm uses "gender" as a variable. And I agree. My report never claimed the code contained if gender == female. That would be Direct Discrimination. I have always argued this is about Indirect Discrimination via proxies. 2. Crucially, the blog explicitly lists the signals they do optimise for: "position," "industry," and "activity." These are the exact proxies my report flagged. -> Industry/Position: Men are historically overrepresented in high-visibility industries (Tech/Finance) and senior roles. Optimising for these signals without a fairness constraint systematically amplifies men. -> Activity: The (now-viral) trend of women rewriting profiles in "male-coded" language (and seeing 3-figure percentage lift) proves that the algorithm’s "activity" signal favours male linguistic patterns ("agentic" vs. "communal"). 3. The blog confirms the algorithm is neutral in intent (it doesn't see gender) but discriminatory in outcome (because it optimises for biased proxies). In the UK, this is the textbook definition of Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In the EU, this is a Systemic Risk under the Digital Services Act (DSA). LinkedIn has proven that they can fix this. Their Recruiter product uses "fairness-aware ranking" to mitigate these exact proxies (likely for AI Act compliance). The question remains: Why is that same fairness framework not being applied to the public feed? 👉 What We Are Doing About It Analysis is important, but action is essential. I am proud to support the new petition, "Calling for Fair Visibility for All on LinkedIn". This isn't just a complaint; it’s a demand for transparency. We are calling for an independent equity audit of the algorithm and a clear mechanism to report unexplained visibility collapse. If you are tired of guessing which "proxy" you tripped over today, join us and sign the petition (link in the comments).

Louder for the people at the back 🎤 Many organisations today seem to have shifted from being institutions that develop great talent to those that primarily seek ready-made talent. This trend overlooks the immense value of individuals who, despite lacking experience, possess a great attitude, commitment, and a team-oriented mindset. These qualities often outweigh the drawbacks of hiring experienced individuals with a fixed and toxic mindset. The best organisations attract talent with their best years ahead of them, focusing on potential rather than past achievements. Let’s be clear this is more about mindset and willingness to learn and unlearn as apposed to age. To realise the incredible potential return, organisations must commit to creating an environment where continuous development is possible. This requires a multi-faceted approach: 1. Robust Training Programmes: Employers should invest in comprehensive training programmes that equip employees with the necessary skills for their roles. This includes on-the-job training, mentorship programmes, online courses, and workshops. 2. Redefining Hiring Criteria: Organisations should revise their hiring criteria to focus more on candidates’ potential and willingness to learn rather than solely on prior experience or formal qualifications. Behavioural interviews, aptitude tests, and probationary periods can help assess a candidate's ability to learn and adapt. 3. Partnerships with Educational Institutions: Companies can collaborate with educational institutions to design curricula that align with industry needs. Apprenticeship programmes, internships, and cooperative education can bridge the gap between academic learning and practical job skills. 4. Lifelong Learning Culture: Encouraging a culture of lifelong learning within organisations is crucial. Employers should provide ongoing education opportunities and support for professional development. This includes continuous skills assessment and access to resources for upskilling and reskilling. 5. Inclusive Recruitment Practices: Employers should implement inclusive recruitment practices that remove biases and barriers. Blind recruitment, diversity quotas, and targeted outreach programmes can help ensure that diverse candidates are given a fair chance. By implementing these measures, organisations can develop a workforce that is adaptable, innovative, and resilient, ensuring sustainable success and growth.

Most companies think they need AI experts. What they actually need is a data pit crew. Data Scientists, Engineers, Analysts, these roles are exploding, with data science jobs projected to 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰 𝟑𝟔% 𝐛𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟑𝟏, according to BLS, one of the fastest-growing professions. Meanwhile, according to Gartner 𝟔𝟏% 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧��𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 are evolving their data strategies to keep up with AI-driven disruption. Job titles don’t tell the full story. Here’s what these roles actually do: • 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 They design the structure that makes everything else possible: data lakes, warehouses, and pipelines that ensure information moves efficiently and securely. Without them, data would be a tangled mess. • 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐀𝐥𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬  They don’t just analyze data; they extract value from it. Using machine learning, statistical modeling, and predictive analytics, they turn raw data into business-changing insights. • 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 They specialize in uncovering trends, correlations, and anomalies. Whether it’s identifying fraud, optimizing operations, or finding revenue opportunities, their job is to make sense of the noise. • 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐫𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐈 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬  They prepare data for AI, ensuring it’s clean, structured, and optimized for machine learning models. Because feeding bad data into AI is like training a GPS with a 10-year-old map. • 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐎𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬  They predict what’s coming next: market trends, customer behavior, risk factors. Using historical data and predictive models, they help businesses make proactive decisions. • 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧-𝐔𝐩 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐰  They fix bad data, remove errors, and ensure consistency. Because even the best algorithms are useless if they’re working with garbage. • 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬 & 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬  They ask the big questions: Should we use this data? Is it biased? Does it comply with privacy laws? They ensure data-driven decisions are also responsible ones. With Chief Data Officers now overseeing AI strategy at 58% of organizations, the importance of these roles is only growing. So, which one best describes what you do? Or do you have a better title for your role? Drop it in the comments! 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞: https://lnkd.in/eawvf8Rx ******************************************* • Visit www.jeffwinterinsights.com for access to all my content and to stay current on Industry 4.0 and other cool tech trends • Ring the 🔔 for notifications!

🌑 Aria spent 8 months building the strategy. Daniel spent ten minutes repeating it, and walked out with the credit, the mandate, and the promotion. Wed. 10 am, 14 executives sat around a polished oak table at ABC Inc. for a High-stakes quarterly review. 👩💻 Aria, Director of Strategy, had been up since 3 a.m., rehearsing her pitch for the firm’s new client retention model. 8 months of research, and the weight of knowing this idea could define her career. She presented it flawlessly: “By shifting from acquisition to lifetime value, we can double retention and cut churn by 18% in the next two quarters.” Silence. Nods. Paper shuffling. The CEO glanced at his phone. The agenda moved on. 🧑💼 10 min. later, Daniel, VP of Sales, leaned back in his chair. “So what if we pivoted to focus on lifetime value instead of acquisition?” He said. The room lit up. “Brilliant!” “Exactly what we need!” “Daniel, can you lead a task force on this?” Aria sat frozen. Heart pounding. Words caught in her throat. Did no one realize? Did no one care? By 12:12pm, Daniel was walking out with a new mandate, and Aria was walking back to her desk, wondering if she’d imagined the entire thing. .... ❌ Women’s contributions are routinely undervalued in meetings. Studies show men are interrupted 33% less, their ideas are credited faster, and they’re more likely to be perceived as “thought leaders” for the same points women already made. As a result: • The women doing the work aren’t the ones remembered for it. • The men remembered for it aren’t the ones who built it. • And why companies keep losing the very women who could transform them.    💡Here’s 3 ways to make sure your ideas stick to your name and no one else’s. 𝟭. 𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 • Send a pre-read to key stakeholders: “Looking forward to sharing my proposal on shifting retention strategy to lifetime value metrics in today’s review.” • It creates a paper trail and primes the room to connect the idea to you before anyone else repeats it.    𝟮. 𝗖𝗼-𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 • If someone repeats your idea, bridge back to yourself w/o confrontation: “Yes, building on what I shared earlier about lifetime value…” • Subtle, but it reframes the narrative: you introduced it, they added color.    𝟯. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀 • Brief allies in advance and agree to amplify each other’s points: “As Aria mentioned earlier, her retention model could cut churn by 18%.” • This doubles down your voice so it’s impossible to steal 👇 If you want to stop being the ghostwriter of other people’s success stories and start being recognized as the architect of your own, join the waitlist of our next cohort of ⭐ From Hidden Talent to Visible Leaders ⭐ https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because being the smartest person in the room means nothing if nobody remembers you said it first.

You're in a job interview, you get the offer—but the salary? Way lower than expected. The worst move? Accepting on the spot. The second worst? Declining outright. Here's how you can take the 'ick' out of negotiating: 1. Start with Gratitude →“Thank you for the offer.” 2. Share Excitement →“I’m really excited about the role and joining the company.” 3. Address the Salary →“Before I accept, I’d like to discuss the salary. It’s below what I believe reflects the market value for my experience.” 4. Reinforce Your Value →“I’m confident my expertise in A and B, and my contributions to C and D will drive success here.” 5. Reiterate Market Value →“Based on my research and track record, I believe a salary range of X to Y would be more in line with the industry.” Where to do research? Check salary data on sites like Glassdoor, Payscale, and LinkedIn, or ask industry peers and recruiters for real-world insights. Pro tip: Use multiple sources to get a well-rounded view and always adjust for location and years of experience. P.S. Have you ever accepted a salary because you didn't know how to negotiation? I'll go first: Yes, I have...

You don’t just marry a person. You marry a potential career advantage. A Washington University study tracked 4,500+ couples for 5 years—and found your spouse’s personality can influence your job satisfaction, income, and promotions. 🧵 1. The Big Idea: Disciplined and dependable partners don’t just make good spouses. They quietly help their partner succeed at work. And the effect holds for both men and women. 2. The study tracked: ✅ Job satisfaction ✅ Income ✅ Likelihood of promotion ...and matched it against each spouse’s personality traits. One trait consistently stood out. 3. The secret sauce? Being disciplined and dependable. Partners with these qualities predicted: -Higher income -Greater job satisfaction -More frequent promotions Even after controlling for the worker’s own personality traits. 4. How does it work? The researchers found 3 key ways this plays out: -Outsourcing – They take on more of the home load, freeing up mental space. -Emulation – You start mimicking their good habits. -Stability – A calm, organized home improves your focus at work. 5. What about other traits? Being nice (agreeable) or emotionally stable had less impact on career outcomes. It wasn’t about charm—it was about consistency. 6. And this wasn’t just for traditional households. Dual-income couples showed the same benefits. Even when both partners worked full-time, having a steady, structured spouse made a difference. 7. Bottom line: You bring yourself to work. But your partner shapes how well you show up. If you’ve got someone who’s steady, reliable, and disciplined—thank them. They’re helping you win behind the scenes.

Guide to starting a US company as an international founder. Here are ALL your options: —O-1A /EB-1A visa —International Entrepreneur Rule —H-4, dependent on your spouse —US citizen cofounder with transition timeline —E-2 Treaty investor (not Indian / Chinese) —EB-5 investor O-1A/EB-1A visa - For founders with "extraordinary ability" - Need press, awards, high salary, patents - Can own & operate your company - Start building evidence NOW - EB-1A = permanent version (green card) International Entrepreneur Rule (IER) - Need $264K+ from qualified US investors - OR $105K+ in govt grants - Must own 10%+ of startup - 2.5 years + 2.5 year extension https://lnkd.in/ghcGkyEk H-4 EAD (Dependent Work Authorization) - For spouses of H-1B holders with green card process - Full work authorization - Can operate company - BUT depends on spouse maintaining status US Citizen Co-founder Path 1. They operate initially (51%+) 2. You maintain minority stake + advisor role 3. Transition control as you get work auth 4. Can be on H-1B or keep concurrent cap-exempt H-1B for safety Critical: Clear agreements + control docs E-2 Treaty Investor - Must be from treaty country (not India/China) - "Substantial" investment ($100K+ typical) - Must own 50%+ of company - Renewable indefinitely - Faster processing than most options EB-5 ($800K-$1.05M investment) - Direct path to green card - Full business control - Create 10+ US jobs - Faster option if capital available - No country caps except China Key Tips for all paths: - Start gathering evidence early - Document EVERYTHING - Get immigration counsel first - Build network/advisory board - Consider future transition plans Many billion-dollar companies were started by immigrant founders who navigated these exact paths. Complex but doable with planning. This is not legal advice. Always consult an immigration attorney.

#CfD & #PPA - both buzz words used a lot recently. And both clearly favoured by EU Commission to boost #renewable electricity. But how do they interact?! This isn’t analysed and understood well yet. I discussed this with government representatives from across the EU in the 9th Plenary Session of the Concerted Action on the Renewable Energy Directive (CA-RES4, https://www.ca-res.eu/) in Sophia/hybrid last week. In my talk (slide extract below), I pointed out that… 🔷 … a government Contract for Difference (CfD) constitutes state-aid to de-risk and support the penetration of renewable energy. Accordingly, a MWh of renewable electricity eligible for a CfD cannot be sold under a renewable merchant Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), with which customers such as data centres or steel factories would fulfil their sustainability targets. That would be "double-counting" in a state-aid law sense. 🔷 … PPAs and CfDs can co-exist on a market level, though: competitive projects enter into bilateral "green" PPAs with customers, while those projects/techs where costs exceed customers' willingness to pay (but that governments still want to materialise) can bid for a CfD. Which is what has happened in practice in many countries. With market conditions tightening, though, there is widespread concern that merchant PPAs get crowded-out by government support CfDs, reducing market liquidity and increasing support needs. 🔷 … there is increasing thinking into how a single renewable plant (e.g. a wind or solar park) can benefit from the de-risking of a CfD while still providing an offering for customers in the PPA market. One option is to not let the CfD start before X (e.g. 5) years after Commercial Operation Date (COD), incentivising the operator to secure revenues for the first X years on the market, e.g. via a PPA. Another option is to let the operator split its park into one part receiving a CfD and one merchant part selling PPAs. Both come with pros & cons and challenging implementation questions... 🙏 Thank you very much for a vivid discussion, it was super interesting to hear how different EU Member States think about this! And many thanks to Leonardo Barreto and the team of Austrian Energy Agency for the invite & organisation, and my Frontier Economics colleagues Lyuba Ilieva & Stephan Schmitt for their prep support!

They asked me to present my "diversity strategy" to the board. I brought a mirror. Set it right in the middle of their mahogany table. Watched them shift in their leather chairs as they stared at their own reflection. "This is your diversity problem," I said. Twelve faces. Same color. Same gender. Same golf club. They wanted me to solve what they refused to see: You can't fix diversity from the outside when the rot starts at the top. I'd spent six months building a framework that would've transformed their pipeline. Created pathways for Black talent they claimed they "couldn't find." Designed retention strategies for the ones who kept leaving. My research showed they'd lost 47 Black employees in 18 months. Exit interviews all said the same thing: "No path to leadership." Hard to see a path when every road leads to a room that looks like a country club board meeting from 1952. The CFO cleared his throat. "This feels... aggressive." Aggressive? Showing you a mirror is aggressive? But excluding us from every decision isn't? Paying us 63 cents to your dollar isn't? Having our faces on your website but not in your C-suite isn't? I picked up my mirror. My $75K framework. My 200-slide deck. "You don't need a diversity strategy. You need diverse leadership. And that starts with looking at why this mirror makes you so uncomfortable." They hired a different consultant. Someone who wouldn't hold up mirrors. Someone who'd make them feel good about their 2% improvement metrics. That company? Still bleeding Black talent. Stock down 30%. Getting roasted on Glassdoor. Me? I only work with boards ready to shatter their mirrors and rebuild their tables. With seats for people who don't look like them. With budgets that match their press releases. With leadership that leads by example, not excuses. Your diversity strategy isn't about finding us. We're right here. It's about finding the courage to look in the mirror and admit why we're not in your boardroom. Some reflections are meant to be broken. Thank You; It's True.™ #ExecutivePresence #BlackWomenInBusiness #ThankYouItsTrue

Men expect to be praised when they conform to the male stereotype (to be confident, assertive, ambitious, competitive, leaders, to take risks, negotiate, and self-promote) and they expect to be criticized when they do not. In that sense, they face a 'restricted path'. Women face a mission impossible: "there is no behavior for women that is expected to be praised and not criticized. Women conforming to the male stereotype are expected to be praised but also criticized. Women not conforming the male stereotype are expected to avoid criticism but not be praised." Interesting new paper by Joshua Dean, Christine Exley, David Klinowski, Muriel Niederle, and Heather Sarsons (2025), Gender Views: A Restricted Path for Men and A Mission Impossible for Women: https://lnkd.in/erNvFJD3 (open access)