Recruitment should be done the right way. That’s what Lou Adler discusses in this episode so that you could hire outstanding talents for business growth and success. Lou left his work in a manufacturing company and decided to become a recruiter. This was not really in his plans, but he realized that this could be an interesting career. Today, he is the CEO and founder of The Adler Group, a consulting and training firm helping companies implement “Win-Win Hiring” programs using his Performance-based Hiring system for finding and hiring exceptional talent. He highlights most of the mistakes companies are making and how to avoid them. Tune in to equip yourself with the strategies to make the hiring process smooth and successful!

—

Listen to the podcast here:

Recruit The Right Way: How To Hire Outstanding Talents With Lou Adler

Welcome to the show. I’m looking to help you focus on what matters in your business to find the most important levers and drivers that are going to make a difference for you to drive your business forward faster. In this episode, I’m excited to have Lou Adler with me. He is the CEO and Founder of The Adler Group, a consulting and training company that helps to implement win-win hiring. He has a performance-based hiring system for finding and hiring exceptional talent.

That’s why you guys have to read carefully and take notes because this is the biggest challenge that many companies are talking about. It’s about how to find and hire great people. More than 40,000 recruiters and hiring managers have attended his ground-breaking workshops over the years. He has a number of amazing, top Amazon bestseller books, including Hire With Your Head and The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired. He has been featured on Fox News and his articles can be found in Inc Magazine, Business Insider, Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal.

—

Welcome to the show.

Thank you very much for inviting me. I look forward to chatting with you.

You’ve been in this business for a long time. Tell me why you got into this business.

Getting into, that’s a long story, but I’ll make it short. I was running a manufacturing company when I was 32 years old. I hated the group president, I started using his recruiters and realized that I could become a recruiter, so I quit and became a recruiter. It was stupid. I was going to use it to find another job, but as I started doing recruiting, I realized if you do it the right way, you can create a business process that works. Over the years, that eventually became performance-based hiring. The quick reason is it wasn’t a planned, thought out and insightful move to become a recruiter. It was like, “I hate my boss. I’ll quit.” I gave him six months’ notice, did it and then realized, “This is a pretty interesting career if you do it the right way.”

The best things happen out of so-called accidents that weren’t planned that way, so it sounds like you built an amazing business from that. It was meant to be.

I graduated many years ago from college and I somehow reconnected with an old fraternity brother. He said, “How did you get to become a recruiter?” I said, “The Rush Chairman for a couple of years.” If you’re not familiar with that, as you go out and hire people or you recruit candidates or kids for your fraternity. It must’ve been genetic there somewhere.

You’ve seen a lot of changes over the years, probably in the business. What I’d love to hear is what’s changed in recruitment and what’s the same because there are still some things that need to be done the same even though the people are changing or the culture of recruitment is changing? Let’s start with what stayed the same.

Let me say that sadly, everything has stayed the same and nothing has changed, but when I wrote the first edition of Hire With Your Head in 1997, I had been a recruiter for twenty years. At that time, applicant tracking systems were coming into play and job boards were coming out. Every book company created a new job board, recruiters were being hired in-house and companies were going to bring in-house recruiters. McKinsey had a study, The War for Talent, and how critical hiring people was. They scientifically proved that and improved company ROI. Then, there were all these new tools that allow companies to win the war for talent.

At that time, I had a cartoon drawn that said, “I don’t think this is going to happen.” The cartoon was a bucket showing advertising dollars going into the bucket, wasted dollars on bad interviewing and candidates who couldn’t find jobs. They were never responded to, boring postings, managers who couldn’t interview and recruiters who couldn’t screen out candidates or couldn’t attract candidates.

You could find another job quickly with the technology. Share on X

It was all this money being poured out wasted. In the last couple of years, since then, tens of billions, probably close to $400 billion to $500 billion, have been spent on all of this HR technology and I’m going to say nothing’s changed. What’s changed is everybody can now find a job in minutes when they get aggravated.

That’s a big change. There’s more possibility and opportunity for them to leave if they’re unhappy, and we’re seeing that now in droves with this Great Resignation. That is a big change.

Even before that, you could find another job quickly with the technology. That means that all these companies were getting all these new candidates applying to jobs, but only 1% of people who apply for a job, get it. Ninety-nine percent of all of this application is an overhead. You asked what changed and I’m saying nothing’s changed. We still got all of these inefficiencies. We’ve designed the AI technology for the wrong reasons. I don’t even call it AI, which is Artificial Intelligence. I call it artificial stupidity. There’s no reason you could do this stuff at scale. Why would you hire people the bad way? Why be more efficient doing something wrong?

My whole focus is to spend more time with fewer people as long as they’re the right people. Give them better career moves and hire them for the long-term, not just for day one. Most candidates and companies hire for what they get on a start date. They’re like, “What’s my comp? What’s the salary? What’s the title? What’s the location? What are the benefits? Fine. I’ll take that job.” There’s this real short-term thinking on both sides of the desk. My cynical approach, I’m sorry to say, is pretty simple.

Keep going. I like cynical thinking.

I don’t think much is going to change until the candidates themselves say, “No, I’m going to hire for the long-term. I’m not just going to be lured by the dollars. I’m going to be lured by the best career move.” There’s a group of candidates, the top 25%, who think that way. There’s a group of hiring managers who hire that way, but by and large, in most cases, it doesn’t go that way.

The public job market is inefficient and is focused on all the wrong criteria. The candidates who apply to that complain that they get aggravated and they justify it, but it continues to go on and they put Band-Aid and solutions on it to try to improve it. In the hidden job market, with referrals and good hiring managers, it is done the right way. Unfortunately, I don’t see that moving into the public job market.

I want to unpack some of the things that you said and maybe challenge some of those things. People are leaving because they’re unhappy, but they’re unhappy because the companies aren’t living their values, they’re not being flexible and meeting where they’re at. There’s some real purpose behind why people are leaving and that they’re looking for companies that are a fit for the long-term. It just happens to be that people are throwing money at them and if I can work in a company that meets my needs and pays me twice as much or these premiums that are being put on, then I’m going to do that. To back up, what I hear you saying is that all of these extra technology systems only add to more money out the door for paying these fees and then have to review more candidates. There’s a lot of overhead. That’s the one thing.

 

I support what you’re saying that candidates are frustrated and they should leave. Unfortunately, they accept jobs for the same reasons they accepted that first one.

How do you know that?

How I know it is over the years, I’ve interviewed 10,000 candidates, and in that interview and in my book, Hire with Your Head, I give the interview. I asked candidates 100% of the time, “Why did you leave your last job?” They all say, “It wasn’t a good job. It wasn’t a good fit. I took this new job for a career move,” and I said, “When you went from job A to job B, did you get what you want?”

They said, “No, because they didn’t deliver the promise. It wasn’t as good a job as I thought. I didn’t do this and that.” I said, “Why did you go from job C to job D?” It’s exactly the same reasons every single candidate in the world says, “I’m leaving for a better career opportunity,” but when you ask them why it didn’t happen, it always is they focus on what they get on the start date and not the work they’re doing.

Not one candidate that’s not true. Very few candidates say, “Tell me the work I’m doing. I’d like to give you some examples of work that I’m doing,” and they’ll say, “I don’t want to take that job because of that work that I’m doing,” and no candidate takes that. The reason they say they’re doing it is to get a better career, but they make the superficial judgment on what the company tells them and what the comp package is. I agree 100% they are leaving for the wrong reasons, but they’re accepting jobs for the wrong reasons too.

What I’m understanding is that they’re leaving because they’re not getting developed. They’re not moving in the career position and I’ve seen that a lot too in the companies that I’ve worked with and talked to. It’s one of these aspects of they don’t have the time. They focus on all these other things that are less important and they’re not developing their people in the right way. They’re even hiring in people to where they could be taking it from internally as opposed to seeing and giving their people the opportunity to take those additional positions.

A lot of promises are made and I fault both companies and candidates. They don’t do the due diligence needed to determine if that job’s a good fit. They don’t ask, “Tell me what kind of projects I’m going to work on.” Companies have tried to throw money at people to get them to accept. This is very short-term thinking. When candidates want to leave a bad situation, leaving a situation is painful, so to avoid the pain, be like, “I’ll take a better job, better pay, closer to home and a better title.”

The superficialities of that drive the decision-making, a couple or a few years later, they have the same problem. That’s called job hunting syndrome and you can see it time after time. They take jobs for short-term reasons and realize that the long-term never get there, but in my mind, it’s the candidate’s fault for not asking the right questions.

You mentioned one question. What are some other questions that the candidates should be asking? Then, I want to switch over to the employer side.

Your talent strategy is wrong when it's designed to weed out the weak as opposed to attract the best. Share on X

I do both. Over the years, I’ve prepped thousands of candidates. If you do 100 a year or 200 a year after 20 or 40 years, it’s a lot of people. In The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired, I described how to hire people and also what candidates can do to make sure that they’re getting the right information. That’s the answer to your question.

For the people who are reading, what are concretely two questions they can ask?

Here’s how I prep my candidates. I tell a candidate, “If you feel you’re being judged improperly on first impressions and they’re going in some direction that you know is bad,” you say, “Interviewer, could you please give me a quick overview of the job and some of the challenges involved in the job? I’d like to give you some examples of work that I’ve done that’s most comparable to that.”

That forces the company to define the work and gives the candidate an opportunity to answer questions about his or her background related to that work. If you do that over the course of an interview, number one, the interviewer will say, “This person’s pretty gutsy to ask that question,” and number two, you’ll have a chance to see if this is a job you want or not want.

You’re able to put your best foot forward as well because you’re matching the expectations of, “This is the role. Here’s how I can serve that role.” That’s a great tip. Is there one more from that side?

I can give you 100 of them, but the one I would also say is that at the end of the interview, if it’s not clear that you’re being invited back and they don’t say, “We’d like to have you come back in a week or so. What’s your interest in this job?” First, you got to say, “What are the next steps?” Then, you say, “Is there anything in my background that you don’t feel is a good fit for the job?” That person has to answer, but if you understand, the beginning is you got to describe performance objectives in the job and you’ve got to make sure you’re doing it.

Also, as you’re sitting there as a candidate, you got to say, “My biggest strength is managing a group of people,” so then, the candidate’s got to say, “We didn’t even talk about that.” At the end of the interview, they’re keeping track of what they did. The candidate is like, “Hiring manager or interviewer, is managing a group of people to accomplish a project like such and such important to the job?”

That’s forcing the question. They’re like, “Of course, it is. Let me tell you about something I’ve done related to that.” It’s a way to get the interviewer to ask a question about your greatest strengths. You say, “Is this important?” You got to make sure it is important and then give an example of where it is important. It’s this slam dunk approach to answering questions.

What I’m hearing is your preparation is critical so that you’re ready for those types of things. You have the opportunity because I think people feel like that’s not the opportunity for them to take control if it’s not going in the direction that they had hoped. I love that you’re making people aware like, “You can do that. You can ask a question that’s going to shift the dynamics so you can put your best foot forward.”

 

Also, you have to have the guts to do that. Not only is the question itself meaningful and interchanged, but the ability to ask the question also shows you have enough confidence. That’s as important as answering your question properly. If you can’t answer the question, you’re not a strong enough person for that job.

I love how you unpack that a little bit because, with everything that we do, there are those ancillary types of meanings and impressions that they make. It’s not just about the question. It’s all those things that question also represents.

That’s how you’re going to ask when you’re on the job. If you’re looking for a county job, you’re going to have guts enough to ask somebody in manufacturing why they’ve got a cost problem or a sales rep ask a customer to get into their needs. This is normal communication back and forth, but you’re converting that interview to dialogue back and forth to demonstrate your true personality.

Let’s shift to the employer side because many people who might be reading may be running their own companies, maybe the head of HR or their department and they’re struggling with A) Finding good people, and B) Struggling with getting those people hired and getting them on board. What focus do you think matters most for that group of people?

I’ve written a couple of books in my years of training around that and it’s a critical question. The big one is strategic. There’s a video on YouTube. It’s called Lou Adler Catch 22. If you’ll find that video, it was done with LinkedIn several years ago, but I’ve looked at it in the last couple of months and it’s still relevant. Everyone’s got all these hiring problems. They’re not seeing enough people and not interviewing properly.

The people aren’t responding to their job postings. These are all legitimate problems, but the reality is down deep, you’ve got the wrong talent strategy. Your talent strategy is designed to weed out the weak as opposed to attract the best, so my focus is if you don’t want to attract the best, you’re not going to hire anybody. You’re just going to hire the desperate and needy.

Attracting the best requires good jobs. What do the best people want? They want a good job that puts them on a better career path, and they want a competitive comp. If you don’t have a competitive comp, then you’re out of the game, but as long as you’re competitive in the top 1/3 of your peer group for that job, then all these other variables, the work, the culture, the environment, and the learning opportunities become more important but then you have to attract people. You’ve got to say, “How am I going attract people?”

My big theme is telling compelling stories. At this position, you’ll be able to use your X and Y talents to accomplish these big things. Make it attractive. Tell a story. Don’t put this list of must-haves in skills and be demeaning. Attract people by offering true career moves and don’t try to do it in a transaction. The best people can’t make a job decision in 24 hours. They have to study it.

Spend more time talking with the right people and fewer people. Share on X

They have to understand it. They have to have it as back and forth dialogue, so I always say spend more time with fewer people but just make sure that they’re the right people. It’s using attract in strategy rather than a weed out the weak talent strategy, then at least you’re in the game. It’s a host of tactics to support that strategy, but telling stories and offering compelling jobs is one of the key ones.

If you think about sales, storytelling strategies are critical in sales as well because some people may not get what you’re saying. You’re just saying that they’re their ladders on the wrong wall and they need to shift their focus. Once they shift their focus, everything will fall into place and they’ll focus on the right thing. I always say that too that when we focus on the transaction, then that’s the wrong place we need to focus on the relationship, and that relationship is going to be developed through stories and showing people that.

In sales, they’re telling those stories. They’re attracting people. They’re building that emotional connection for people to see themselves in it through the stories. They can talk about the features and benefits, but they want to know what’s the end result, like, “How is this going to grow me?” That’s why they’re making development.

I love that you’re in line with my whole idea of shifting people’s focus. I call myself a focusologist. You too are a focusologist because we help people see where they’re focused in the wrong area and what a huge difference it makes to shift that. I love telling compelling stories and I love that example that you gave. If people went away and put that into practice, they would see some big differences in attracting the right people.

You talked about everybody wants a better career opportunity, but that’s not a transaction. Understanding a job and understanding why it’s a good career move for a candidate takes more than an hour interview. From the client’s standpoint, if you want to hire for the long-term, you got to spend more than an hour interviewing candidates. It makes a good first impression. They’re like, “He’s got the right skills and nice personality. Let’s hire the person.” It does take due diligence on both sides to make the right long-term decision, but then they say, “We don’t have enough time.”

The big thing is people make decisions too quickly because they’re like, “We need to get a butt in the seat.” It’s costing them so much more, in the long run, to put that butt in that seat just to put a warm butt in the seat.

The point is from a company standpoint, they know they have to hire 100 people next quarter, but they start thinking about it next quarter as opposed to this quarter. I always say, “Spend more time talking with the right people and fewer people.” It’s like in sales with your analogy there. Sales reps don’t talk to everybody in the world. They pre-qualify the people before they talk to them. They got to be a buyer. They got to be ready to buy. They have to have that product need. Also, they do a lot of prequalification work.

 

Companies need to do this same prequalification work. They’re like, “Let’s find people who have clearly been recognized for doing that work well and would see our job as a career move.” Reach out to that small group of people rather than everybody by posting a boring job that’s nothing more than an ill-defined lateral transfer and hoping a good person applies.

What you’ve given us is gold. What didn’t I ask you that you wish that I would have asked you so that you could share that with the audience?

Let’s say this. I was going to mention it anyway because I’m still a recruiter and a closer. I would say that the thing you didn’t ask is from a recruiter standpoint. This is the question that I, as a recruiter, always ask my hiring managers. This is a good way to summarize it and this is the heart and soul of a performance-based hire. When I take a search assignment and I’ve done thousands, I still take them but I don’t do the search anymore. That’s in my retired state. I just help companies define the work.

When I went into a company, I did this on my first assignment many years ago. When I look at a job description, in most cases, it’s nothing more than a list of skills, experience and competencies. One hundred percent of the time, when I see it, I tell the hiring manager, “This is not a job description.” A job doesn’t have skills. A job doesn’t have competencies, academics or experience. That’s a person’s description. Let’s put the person’s description in the parking lot. “What do you want this person to do in order for this person to be considered successful?”

It’s always a series of 5 or 6 key performance objectives. It’s defining the task, the work and the action required, building a team of accountants to launch a new project like, “I’ll launch this new project within six months that penetrates and gets 10% market share.” Build a sales team, design a circuit technique to accomplish A, B, and C and have them produce in eighteen months. It’s always working.

I always tell the hiring manager, “Would you see someone who can do this work who has a different mix of skills, experience, and competencies but has been recognized for doing this work extremely well?” Managers say, “Of course, I would,” and that’s how you open the pool to everybody. These can be non-traditional candidates, diverse talent, people who have a different mix of skills and experience and different academic backgrounds.

What I tell managers is don’t compromise on the ability to do the work. Compromise on the mix of skills needed to do that work because everybody’s different. High potential people can do that work more quickly. People in different industries can do that work. They bring a different skill. If you ask me what’s foundational, it’s how you define work as a series of key performance objectives and not a list of skills, experience and competencies. You do that on both sides of the desk. When I suggest what a candidate should do, it’s asking, “What does work needs to be done?” It takes away from the candidate’s personality and background to focus on that candidate’s ability to do that work. To me, that’s the difference-maker.

Also, when they know the objective, they’re not going to resist it when they answer the organization. They’re not going to be like, “I’ve got to increase the department by 10%.” They’re crystal clear on what the objective is. I love that.

That’s what you said earlier. When we started, you pushed back on the idea that everybody wants career growth. How do you know that if you haven’t asked what the career growth opportunities are? You insure this tool.

They use it from a position and not the objective. They usually use titles. This is the way you move through the titles. You’ve been doing this for a long time, so you get right to the juice. I wasn’t thinking about it, but from an objective perspective, it’s much more defined or much clearer as to how they’re going to develop that.

Being more efficient is one way to be more productive. Share on X

Even if I was talking to a candidate in that way, I would say to the candidate, “To be a senior account executive, here’s what you’re going to have to do. You have to put a territory plan together. You have to start targeting major accounts. We’re going to give you a chance to do that. We’ll walk you along. We’ll train you how to do it.” Now, I’m showing that junior sales executive for dealing with mid-level accounts to handle major enterprise accounts and the sequence of steps needed to get there. That becomes pretty appealing to a person, whether it’s an engineer, accountant, marketing person or a sales rep that understanding that track record and the steps needed to achieve it is critical to get to the top.

I ask most of my guests this because it’s so interesting with the variety of answers. What’s your definition of productivity and why?

I take it from a couple of different directions. Being productive is an output and being able to accomplish X in a certain period of time is fine. If you can accomplish X plus 20% in that same period of time, you’re better. That’s productive. Is that appropriate? I don’t know. I think what’s more important is being able to make X to 2X and do it in a different way. Being more efficient is one way to be more productive. Being more effective in my mind is a better way to be more productive.

As a manager, I’m going to try to hire people and I’m going to train them not to necessarily be more efficient and show them how to be more effective. The definition of productivity is a term that has so many different definitions. You just got to understand the components of how it all gets put together. I don’t know if that was a very good answer, but if I had to answer it again, I’d probably come up with a pithier response.

As you said, it’s a little ambiguous. Everybody has a different definition. We hear people saying, “We want our people to be more productive.” Nobody sees that as the same thing. Not a single person that has been on the show has given me the same answer. There have been various variations, so I was curious. When we look at someone’s mindset and how you’ve presented your experience and how you think about things, I like to see how do you define certain terms.

Do you have any more terms? This is fun.

You can do that about a lot of terms because where we come from, the state of mind that we’re in and the way that we think determines, in many cases, these touchy-feely types of words like happiness. What’s happiness? Let’s ask that since you wanted some more words.

I remember when I was an intern at some job many years ago. It was a very technical project and I was trying to solve a very difficult mathematical problem. It was a ten-week project. This was when I was 20 or 21 years old. I realized, “That was pretty cool.” I felt internally satisfied that I had achieved progress for that day. I left and the boss said, “You left?” I said, “Yeah.” He couldn’t believe it. I said, “Here’s why,” and he said, “You should have left.” I don’t know if that’s a definition of happiness, but it’s a definition of what I call satisfaction.

When I look at every single day, I say, “Did I make something happen in relationship to work that was personally satisfying and motivated?” That’s how I would look at it. Once you get my age, happiness is having fewer doctor’s appointments in a given week, so it does change with age, but if I’d done more work that I feel is satisfying and motivating to me and I progressed along with the goals that I want, but then I go back to the question I ask about goals, and we might want to leave it with this. I don’t think the question of where do you want to be in five years is a good question. I think it’s a stupid question. On the other hand, what I would say is a good question is, “What’s the biggest goal you’ve ever had that you’ve already achieved?”

Then say, “What’s your next goal?” Now, all of a sudden, I can say, “Making a goal for five years, what a waste of time.” It’s what’s the biggest goal you’ve established for yourself and have you already achieved it. “Tell me a new goal for you and I want to see if you’re going to get there.” You relate the two. Now, suddenly, you’ve got a track record of goal-setting and achievement versus some bunch of words that are glib and you’ve responded for some book you’ve read by Adam Grant, which is a great guy, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good answer to the right question.

I love that question and I ask myself that question. It’s not exactly like that, but when I’m setting goals and I’ve reached that big goal that I set for myself, it’s like, “What’s that next big goal?” I do believe in setting big goals to help you to challenge yourself and become the best person that you can be. I’m a big fan of Jim Collins and the Big Hairy Audacious Goal because it makes us think differently.

You get that because I can hear from the shift in focus of bringing people to understand that it’s about the performance over the definition of the person that would be something that drives you too. It’s looking at what’s that next thing that you can accomplish, even if It’s lifestyle or whatever it is. Maybe leave the question with, “What’s next for you?”

Is that also rhetorical?

No. It is for everybody who’s reading. I can ask that next, but what’s next for you, Lou? Also, tell people where they can find you as well.

I am at a certain age where you have a different outlook on life and what’s important. Certainly, health is one of those, but from a work perspective, I wouldn’t be doing it if I didn’t enjoy understanding the concept of working those relationships. The goal that I have and I’m talking to my book agent about this, there’s another book there that focuses on work from a bunch of different perspectives. It’s all of those questions you’ve talked about and also, it’s why haven’t we gotten better. I’m pretty cynical about this. I bring this cartoon out and it’s in the new book, Hire with Your Head.

I start with that cartoon and I have the goal, the win-win hiring, where the hiring manager is excited that the person stayed there on the anniversary date and the candidate says, “I’m so glad I took this job on the anniversary date. I’m glad to stay here.” Achieving that win-win hiring outcome is very challenging, and I’m trying to understand why it hasn’t happened and if it’s possible to happen. My goal is to figure that out. Hopefully, I will achieve it, but even trying to achieve it is what drives me every single day.

I love it. It sounds like you’re very passionate about it, so that’s the next step. Thank you for being here. Where’s the best website for them to go to?

There’s one that I don’t love, but it’s LouAdlerGroup.com. You can also find it at PerformanceBasedHiring.com. That’s probably the one I would connect. That’s why I say Lou Adler Group is one we’ve hidden, but that’s the one. Those websites will get you to where we are.

Thank you so much for being here. I enjoyed picking your brain.

It has been delightful. Thank you very much for inviting me.

Thank you all for being here because you’re an important part of this show. I know that you’re going to get a lot out of this. I hope you took notes and I hope you put an action plan together of how you’re going to put this into practice because that’s the key. It’s not just reading this, but then putting down an action that you’re going to take immediately following so that it doesn’t become something that was a great idea but you didn’t put into practice. Put it into practice. Also, you can decide for yourself, what’s that next big goal for you. Since we posed that at the end, that’s a great question for all of us to think about. I’ll see you in the next episode.

Important Links:

• The Adler Group
• Hire With Your Head
• The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired
• Lou Adler Catch 22 – YouTube
• PerformanceBasedHiring.com
• https://Amzn.to/35fY02l
• https://www.WinWinHiring.com/

About Lou Adler

Lou is the CEO and founder of The Adler Group – a consulting and training firm helping companies implement “Win-Win Hiring” programs using his Performance-based Hiring℠ system for finding and hiring exceptional talent. More than 40 thousand recruiters and hiring managers have attended his ground-breaking workshops over the past 20 years.

You’ll be able to follow Lou on his “Almost Daily Recruiting Show” focused on addressing the challenges involved in “Diversity Hiring Without Compromise” with his all-star list of guests.

Lou is the author of the Amazon top-10 best-seller, Hire With Your Head (John Wiley & Sons, 3rd Edition, 2007) and The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired (Workbench Media, 2013). Lou has been featured on Fox News and his articles and posts can be found on Inc. Magazine, BusinessInsider, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal.

Prior to his executive search experience. Lou held senior operations and financial management positions at the Allen Group and at Rockwell International’s automotive and consumer electronics groups. He holds an MBA from UCLA and a BS in Engineering from Clarkson University.