17506: On Hiring At White Healthcare Agencies In The AI Era.

PharmaLive published a perspective on how AI impacts hiring at White healthcare agencies.

 

The opinion piece is questionable on a few levels.

 

First, the authors are HR executives. Sorry, but HR does not make hiring decisions at White healthcare agencies—or any White advertising agencies or firms in Adland. The viewpoints on the topic, therefore, lack credibility, authority, and professional expertise.

 

Next, the article feels like it was crafted via AI, which sorta makes sense given HR executives are not writers, typically only capable of drafting descriptions of basic benefits and simple policies. Using AI to write about AI, however, is lazy, shameful, and hackneyed.

 

Of course, the nearly 1000-word exposition on hiring makes no references to DEIBA+ considerations.

 

Finally, the content is illustrated with an AI-generated image (depicted above) featuring a hand with six fingers. That PharmaLive editors and designers approved the graphic underscores a simple reality: pharmaceutical advertising sucks.

 

The AI-era interview: What healthcare agencies are really hiring for

 

By Beth Bogacz and Lexi Abbagnaro, AbelsonTaylor Group

 

AI has quickly become part of the hiring process on both sides of the table. Candidates are using it to write resumes, polish portfolios, rehearse and answer interview questions, and generate writing samples. Agencies are simultaneously exploring how AI can improve recruiting efficiency, support onboarding, and accelerate workflows across departments.

 

But as AI becomes more embedded in the hiring experience, it is also exposing something important about healthcare marketing talent: The abilities agencies value most are increasingly the skills AI and automation struggle to replicate.

 

That tension is especially visible in medical advertising, where the work depends on a combination of strategic thinking, scientific understanding, collaboration, and communication. Candidates may arrive with increasingly refined materials, but polished documents alone do not tell recruiters whether someone can navigate a difficult client conversation, synthesize conflicting feedback, or contribute meaningfully to a brand team operating under pressure.

 

When every resume looks impressive

 

The interview itself has become more revealing than ever. Over the last year, we have seen a noticeable shift in how candidates present themselves during the application process. AI tools now make it easy to create resumes and writing samples that appear highly sophisticated, regardless of experience level. In many ways, that is the new baseline. Candidates are encouraged to submit professional, well-organized materials, and most people will use available technology to help accomplish that.

 

The challenge is determining where AI assistance ends and authentic capability begins. That distinction usually becomes clearer in conversation. In interviews, candidates have to think in real time. They have to explain how they approached a problem, describe why a campaign worked or failed, and demonstrate how they collaborate with others. Those moments reveal far more than a perfectly formatted resume ever could.

 

The interview as the new litmus test

 

We have also encountered situations where candidates appeared to be actively relying on AI during interviews themselves. Sometimes the signs are subtle: delayed responses, eyes moving to another screen before answering the question, polished answers that contrast with hesitant or less articulate opening remarks. These inconsistencies in the interview rhythm can disrupt the flow of conversation and make it difficult to assess how the candidate actually thinks.

 

That does not mean candidates should avoid AI altogether. In fact, many are using it productively, preparing for interviews through mock questions, role-playing scenarios, or refining how they communicate their experience. The issue is not whether candidates use AI. The issue is whether they can function independently without the technology.

 

Why human judgment still matters

 

Within healthcare communication agencies specifically, that distinction matters because so much of the work depends on judgment. Teams are constantly balancing scientific accuracy, client expectations, regulatory considerations, and audience needs. There is rarely one perfect answer. People have to navigate ambiguity, make decisions with available information, and communicate clearly across disciplines. Those are deeply human skills.

 

Emotional intelligence remains one of the clearest differentiators in hiring conversations today. So does curiosity. Candidates who ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and engage in genuine discussion tend to stand out quickly. Creativity also continues to matter, particularly the ability to challenge assumptions or generate unexpected ideas within highly regulated environments.

 

AI can accelerate execution. It can summarize information, organize thoughts, and improve efficiency. But it still cannot replicate the instinct behind a strong strategic insight or the interpersonal awareness required to build trust with clients and colleagues.

 

New expectations for emerging talent

 

There are changing expectations for junior talent as well. Increasingly, entry-level candidates are expected to arrive with at least baseline familiarity with AI tools and an openness to experimenting with new technologies. In many cases, early career professionals are introducing workflows or tools that more established teams may not yet be using. What matters most is adaptability.

 

Healthcare marketing has always evolved alongside changes in media, technology, and consumer behavior, but the pace of change is different now. Candidates who thrive tend to be the ones comfortable learning continuously, working across functions, and wearing multiple hats when needed. That is especially true at small and midsize agencies, where collaboration across departments is often essential to how work gets done.

 

The rise of ‘power skills’

 

The industry is also placing greater value on what many organizations now call “power skills”: cross-functional thinking, communication, adaptability, and strategic leadership. Those qualities consistently surface in recruiting conversations across levels and disciplines. While leadership expectations naturally increase with seniority, even junior employees are expected to collaborate across teams and contribute beyond defined responsibilities.

 

At the same time, hiring teams have become more intentional about how they assess authenticity during interviews. Behavioral and situational questions have become more and more important because they help reveal how candidates think, process challenges, approach decisions, and communicate under pressure. It is not the specific answer that matters most but it is how someone arrives there.

 

AI fluency vs. AI dependence

 

So far, AI has not fundamentally changed the structure of many hiring exercises within healthcare agencies. Case studies, writing assignments and role-specific exercises were already common practice long before AI became prevalent. What has changed is the conversation surrounding them. In some cases, candidates may even be encouraged to use AI tools as part of the exercise, depending on the role. Familiarity with AI is becoming part of professional fluency. But fluency is not the same as dependence.

 

The candidates who stand out today are usually the ones who understand how to use AI as an enhancement rather than a substitute. They know how to leverage technology to improve efficiency while still bringing original thinking, strong communication, and independent judgment to the table. That balance is becoming one of the defining hiring questions for healthcare agencies.

 

The future workforce will almost certainly be more AI-capable than the one before it. The agencies that succeed will not be the ones trying to avoid that reality. They will be the ones that learn how to identify talent capable of combining AI technology with the human skills healthcare marketing still depends on most.

16716: SHRM SMH SH*T.

Digiday Media’s Worklife and Fast Company reported on the decision by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) to delete the E from its DEI strategy, and even reorder the remaining letters to I&D—emphasizing inclusion ahead of diversity.

 

According to Fast Company, the SHRM CEO explained the decision as follows: “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”

 

Worklife also quoted the SHRM CEO as follows: “I’ve concluded that I think what happened is the full definition of inclusion must encompass equity. Fairness, equity, decency, civility, and belonging are inherently virtues of inclusivity.”

 

Adland will undoubtedly embrace the opportunity to further diminish racial and ethnic equity. Indeed, the systemically racist industry has in recent years prioritized equity, extending it—in descending order—to other groups including White women, White LGBTQIA+, White people with disabilities, White neurodiverse individuals, Old White Guys and Gals, White conservatives, White people without degrees, and White house pets.

 

Yes, the ruling majority at White advertising agencies will declare the full definition of inclusion encompasses equity. But equity will be awarded in unequal portions—and the exclusive will define inclusivity.

 

:::::

 

Worklife Content

 

‘A deeply unequal act:’ HR execs alarmed by SHRM’s decision to drop the ‘E’ from ‘DE&I’

 

By Cloey Callahan

 

HR professionals have reacted in horror at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)’s decision to drop the word “equity” from its diversity, equity, and inclusion strategy.

 

The decision, announced by the primary national trade group for PR professionals on Jul. 10., follows a widespread rollback of DE&I programs across corporate organizations, in the last year or so.

 

The SHRM claimed the change was prompted by numerous surveys with employers and staff which showed that the word equity caused more confusion than diversity and inclusion. But the move has caused uproar in the HR community, with people turning to social platforms to air their disappointment. Some HR execs have canceled their SHRM memberships, while others withdrew speaker proposals from SHRM’s Inclusion Conference in November. A petition opposing SHRM’s decision was also signed by hundreds.

 

“By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities, SHRM is sidestepping the uncomfortable but necessary work,” said Amira K.S.Barger, executive vp, health communications and head of DE&I communications and advisory at Edelman. Others have called it a “glaring betrayal” which will weaken DEI initiatives and stunt progress.

 

WorkLife recently compiled a state of DE&I by the numbers, helping show just how uncertain businesses are about how to approach the topic. For example, more than a third of business executives said their organization is facing uncertainty regarding how to move ahead with their DEI programming in the wake of increased challenges to corporate diversity programs, according to Littler.

 

But the SHRM news felt like a nail in the coffin for most HR executives, especially ones who have been approaching their roles progressively. SHRM is the leading society for HR professionals, and after that organization made a clear statement, HR leaders were left wondering what to do next.

 

“SHRM knew there would be disagreement with our decision to lead with inclusion and diversity,” said SHRM president and CHRO Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. in a statement to WorkLife. “We welcome differing points of view and we value diversity of opinion. We are encouraged that we’ve received significant interest from HR and other business professionals who have become SHRM members and have registered for Inclusion24 in Denver this past week because they understand our steadfast commitment to equity principles while we lead with inclusion and diversity.”

 

WorkLife spoke with Taylor last week following the announcement. “The fact that we are not using the full array of letters in the various acronyms that have evolved over time does not mean we don’t think belonging and accessibility matter, we do,” said Taylor in that interview. “I’ve concluded that I think what happened is the full definition of inclusion must encompass equity. Fairness, equity, decency, civility, and belonging are inherently virtues of inclusivity.”

 

We asked a range of people leaders to share their perspectives.

 

Answers were edited for clarity and flow.

 

“I find SHRM’s decision to remove ‘equity’ from DE&I troubling. Given the organization’s influence across the HR community, their decision could have ripple effects across the business world.” – Jennifer Risi, founder and president of The Sway Effect.

 

“SHRM’s decision to remove equity from its approach to DE&I sends the wrong signal to companies and leaders. Equity is essential to the success, productivity, and DNA of a successful modern workplace. By taking it out of the equation, SHRM is essentially telling companies that equity doesn’t matter; it’s communicating that we should focus on hiring diverse people, but not treating them fairly or addressing the imbalances that they are experiencing. We need to do better for our people, and HR organizations need to lead the charge in making sure we are celebrating and investing in diversity and inclusion, but making sure that equity is never pushed to the side.” – Sarah Reynolds, CMO of HiBob.

 

“SHRM’s efforts to acquiesce exemplify what I coined the ‘Red Rover Effect’ – a common pattern where initial solidarity from well-intentioned institutions and individuals turns to apathy when they encounter discomfort and the daunting magnitude of the task ahead. By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities, SHRM is sidestepping the uncomfortable but necessary work. This move not only weakens DEI initiatives but also hinders genuine progress.” – Amira K.S. Barger, executive vp, health communications and head of DE&I communications and advisory at Edelman.

 

“SHRM’s decision to remove ‘equity’ from DEI initiatives is concerning. It undermines the need to address underlying disparities and will risk the progress being made in workplace inclusion efforts. It is time for HR professionals to look at more progressive human resources organizations that take a bold approach towards HR’s role in building an equitable world.” – Rashim Mogha, CEO of eWOW.

 

“SHRM’s claim of ‘Better Workplaces. Better World’ seems questionable in light of this move. I have decided to withdraw my SHRM Inclusion Conference speaker proposal due to this decision, which I find misaligned with my values. It’s heartening to witness many individuals with SHRM credentials distancing themselves from the organization. If equity and justice are not the end goal in your DEI framework, I don’t see the relevance.” – Nika White, CEO and founder of Nika White Consulting.

 

“It is profoundly disheartening to witness the SHRM actively downplaying, and possibly plotting to scrap, their commitment to equity. As a staunch advocate for truly inclusive, diverse, and equitable workplaces, I view SHRM’s recent pivot not just as misguided, but as a glaring betrayal of everything human resources stands for the comfort of those whose organizations who wield power, privilege, and choose performative measures over systemic change. SHRM’s shift appears to be a political maneuver, a capitulation to external pressures that have no place in the realm of human-centered advocacy. By sidelining equity, SHRM is effectively choosing to minimize advocacy for those who are marginalized the most. This is not just disappointing; it’s unacceptable. As such, I am canceling my SHRM membership. We need human resource organizations that fight for the equity of humans with vigor, not ones that withdraw in times of challenge.” – Rocki Howard, HR advisor to Textio.

 

“I’m a little wary of how much a name change can realistically bring about SHRM’s stated objective of addressing ‘the current shortcomings of DE&I programs.’ To my mind, the mention of ‘societal backlash and increasing polarization’ suggests that this is just a re-branding to make it more digestible and less provocative to those who oppose the concept of equity — which won’t address any actual problems of implementation. I see this move as potentially being a distraction.” – Caroline Fox, global DE&I strategy lead at Tenth Revolution Group.

 

“Despite SHRM’s best intentions, this sends the wrong message as removing the emphasis on equity only perpetuates the structural and institutional biases against underrepresented groups.” – Neil Costa, founder and CEO of HireClix.

 

“SHRM, understandably, wants to focus on inclusion because it’s the most actionable part of DEI. Equity is hard to define, hard to deliver. It’s also expensive. For all those reasons, few organizations know how to make it more than a word. But not knowing isn’t reason enough for not doing it. And taking the word out of the work takes accountability and awareness with it. Equity is how organizations get ROI on I&D. Equity is how they sustain all those efforts they’re standing and expending resources for, equity is not fair people, but fair systems. How can an organization prioritize systemic change if it doesn’t even name the thing it’s trying to change?” – Janet M. Stovall, global head of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the NeuroLeadership Institute.

 

“SHRM’s decision ultimately shows us that DEI as an acronym isn’t working. In the organization’s eyes, it’s too complex and needs to be simplified; in my mind, it’s too simple for people to understand what DEI initiatives seek to achieve. However, making this statement in the current climate feels like a misstep, considering the incendiary language being used by DEI critics like Elon Musk and those trying to introduce ‘MEI’ as a replacement. By HR professionals dropping the term DEI, it somewhat endorses the semantics of that group, which is growing ever louder. Changing an acronym is not going to make the noise go away.” – Emma Obanye, CEO of OneTech.

 

“Ultimately, the goal should be to create meaningful change rather than simply adhering to acronyms. Our experience of delivering company-wide initiatives has taught us that it’s about bringing people with you and good implementation. Whether we call it DEI, I&D, or something else, the focus should remain on tangible actions that result in inclusive environments, celebrate diversity, and promote fairness in opportunities and outcomes.” – Tim Mart, co-founder of Know You More.

 

“I think the push-back against DE&I could be an indicator of people being generally overwhelmed with the volume and level of detail of information they’re constantly confronted with. And given it’s difficult to tie to ROI, it’s understandable that brands then pull the plug on their DE&I programs because they just see it as cost rather than creating value. But that’s not true. It’s more that brands just need to do the right thing AND do it right.” – Ralf Waterfield, director of sustainability, Pearlfisher.

 

“The effectiveness of this new direction will depend on how SHRM communicates and implements it and whether employee engagement and experience are kept at the forefront. There is significant potential for more nuanced and effective HR practices, but there must be strong frameworks and goals in place. Without these, there could be confusion and inconsistency in how organizations achieve diversity and inclusion.” – Dan Buckley, CEO of Cognexo.

 

“I believe it’s a bad philosophy under the guise of good business. Many enterprise organizations have been walking back their commitments to DEI, which were often performative, since 2021 and have been loud about it since 2022. I have no doubt this pivot is about retaining corporate relationships/revenue and as a hedge to the upcoming election. I think SHRM taking the position as a more palatable partner ‘for all,’ as opposed to being a steadfast advocate of the work itself, is a valid consideration for most businesses, but not for one that’s historically been entrusted to be the industry’s leader and voice. SHRM’s place amongst HR professionals has been eroding for a decade. Corporate revenue aside, they’re still a member-based organization and I’m hopeful they have a strong enough strategy to withstand and repair the fractures they’ve caused amongst their members with this change.” – Chris Hagood, CEO at AstutEdge.

 

“The irony is SHRM taking equity out of its semantics is a move to make DE&I more palatable to those who are offended by the idea of making work fairer. That is a deeply unequal act, which shows that they were never practicing equity in the first place. Not every voice can carry the same weight, when it’s been unequal for some for so long. You can’t pander to the ones who have been privileged and still achieve equity. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. SHRM is an HR lobby, not an DE&I lobby. HR’s role is to support companies, not the humans. And who runs the companies, by and large? It’s successful branding that coined the term Human Resources.” – Marisa Thomas, CMO, Good-Loop.

 

:::::

 

Fast Company Content

 

SHRM, a leading HR organization, is no longer focusing on ‘equity’ in its DEI approach

 

The group’s switch to the acronym ‘I&D’—which stands for inclusion and diversity, but no longer equity—has sparked strong pushback from some HR and DEI experts.

 

By Pavithra Mohan

 

This week, SHRM, a leading organization for HR professionals, announced that it would no longer be using the term “equity.” In a LinkedIn post, the organization—formerly known as the Society for Human Resource Management—shared that it would now use the acronym “I&D,” which stands for inclusion and diversity, stripping away the “equity” portion of “IE&D.”

 

SHRM noted that while its “commitment to advancing equity remains steadfast,” the organization believed that leading with inclusion would catalyze “holistic change” in the workplace and beyond. On LinkedIn, SHRM also quoted president and CEO Johnny Taylor, who had introduced the change during the organization’s recent annual conference: “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”

 

To outside observers, this might seem like a minor distinction, just a matter of semantics. But the decision was met with immediate criticism from HR professionals and DEI experts across social media—many of whom said it was a mistake—and a step backwards, for SHRM to distance itself from the language of equity.

 

“I find SHRM’s decision to remove ‘Equity’ from DEI deeply troubling,” one HR executive and SHRM member wrote on LinkedIn. “Incorporating equity into HR processes is not just important; it’s essential. Without it, can we genuinely claim to be advancing DEI(B) work?” An HR consultant said she would likely distance herself from the organization going forward, despite years of being a “card-carrying member.”

 

Others claimed that the move was disappointing but not much of a surprise, citing the costs associated with SHRM’s certification program—which is often a requirement or preference for HR positions—and arguing many of its resources were not particularly helpful or up-to-date.

 

In an interview with Fast Company, Taylor claimed the change to I&D was part of a broader evolution and had grown out of conversations with workers and HR experts who expressed confusion over what the “E” in DEI terminology represented. “We started hearing this noise about the E that had become a big deal,” he said. “It wasn’t that people were anti-equity. There was confusion around: What did it mean? We couldn’t get agreement even amongst DEI professionals. We would hear this from HR professionals and frankly employees, who would say: Is it equal opportunity, or is it equal outcome?” It had become a “divisive issue” in trainings, according to Taylor. “Ultimately, our efforts are intended to unify people and not divide them,” he added. When it comes to inclusion and diversity, however, he believes there is “universal or near universal agreement” on what those terms mean.

 

Taylor expressed surprised at the vociferous pushback on LinkedIn, though he argued the response had been somewhat split. He also claimed nobody in the SHRM network had canceled their membership yet, though he noted that could change in the coming months. “There’s a chance that people will not join [or renew], but there’s also a chance that we will increase memberships,” he said. (He added that SHRM’s membership and certification fees were on par with market rates, and that the majority of member dues were footed by companies.)

 

Many critics also saw SHRM’s decision as yet another instance of an organization walking back its commitment to the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion amid a wave of anti-DEI sentiment. SHRM acknowledged that backdrop in its LinkedIn post, albeit without pointing the blame at politicians and business leaders who have helped stoke it. “By emphasizing inclusion-first, we aim to address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization,” the post read.

 

Taylor told Fast Company that if SHRM was in fact capitulating to anti-DEI crusaders, the organization would have scrapped those initiatives altogether. “I think some of the comments suggested that we were under pressure on politics or from groups who were anti-DEI,” he said. “If that were the motivator here, we would have killed this whole thing. Like, why talk about it at all?”

 

Still, the outcry over SHRM’s decision seems to underscore the precarity of DEI efforts in the workplace. Since the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in 2023, corporate DEI initiatives have faced lawsuits and legal attacks from conservative activists. As Fast Company has previously reported, companies had already quietly disinvested from DEI work prior to the ruling. Over the last year, however, major corporate players have dropped language like “anti-racist” from their regulatory filings and altered policies that tied compensation to DEI metrics.

 

Meanwhile, anti-DEI business leaders like Elon Musk have embraced a new acronym—MEI, which stands for merit, excellence, and intelligence—in an effort to undermine DEI principles. Given its influence in the HR industry—and the fact that DEI roles are often situated within the HR department—SHRM’s decision could have ripple effects across the business world.

16246: Invisible CDOs On The Horizon In Adland?

 

SHRM published a report on how DE&I roles—and associated heat shield initiatives—are disappearing. The decline seems pronounced in technology companies, where budget cuts and mass layoffs have fueled the abandonment of entire DE&I departments.

 

As Adland has emulated and partnered with technology enterprises, it will be interesting to see when and if the advertising industry follows suit.

 

It could be a double whammy for Black women—who have assumed many DE&I positions for White advertising agencies—as they are already significantly underrepresented in the field.

 

Why Are DEI Roles Disappearing?

 

By Matt Gonzales

 

After seeing record gains in diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) roles in recent years, those positions are now drying up.

 

A new report by LinkedIn assessing more than 500,000 C-suite hirings between 2019 and 2022 revealed that the hiring of chief diversity officers (CDOs) declined in 2022 after experiencing significant growth in 2020 and 2021. CDOs were the only C-suite position to experience hiring declines in 2022.

 

“This statistic is alarming and disappointing,” said Kara Yarnot, vice president of strategic consulting services at recruitment agency HireClix in Gloucester, Mass. “When some companies need to find places to be cut, unfortunately they tend to cut areas like DE&I and talent acquisition.”

 

According to additional reports:

 

• A Glassdoor survey revealed that 27 percent of companies reviewed on the site indicated an investment in DE&I programs in 2017. Access to DE&I programs increased to 39 percent in 2020 before peaking at 43 percent in 2021. However, that number fell to 41 percent in 2022.

 

• Revelio Labs, a New York City-based company that uses data to analyze workforce trends, released a report showing that DE&I roles began diminishing at a faster rate than non-DE&I positions in 2021 and this trend continued to accelerate during layoffs in 2022.

 

The Revelio report noted that the median DE&I team among 600 companies of various sizes surveyed comprised three members. More than 300 DE&I professionals have left from these companies in the last six months. Amazon, Twitter and Nike have shed between five and 16 DE&I professionals each.

 

In some instances, DE&I departments have folded altogether—particularly in the technology industry—due to budget cuts and mass layoffs, which has led to worries about the sustainability of workplace diversity and inclusion efforts.

 

Amazon spokesman Brad Glasser told the Daily Mail that the firm’s “DEI priorities have not changed” despite the layoffs and that the company intends to hire more Black, Latino and veteran workers in the coming months.

 

However, Octavia Goredema, a Los Angeles-based career coach and author of Prep, Push, Pivot: Essential Career Strategies for Underrepresented Women (2022, Wiley) called DE&I declines due to layoffs “incredibly concerning.”

 

She asked, “As an organization, how can you demonstrate you’re invested in advancing the careers of underrepresented professionals when you can't retain your DE&I team?”

 

Too Much Lip Service?

 

From June to August 2020, openings for DE&I roles skyrocketed by 55 percent following a widespread demand for broader racial equity and justice after George Floyd's murder.

 

However, Amy Hull, director and head of DE&I at Paycor, a global leader in human capital management, said the Linkedin and Revelio data shows that the pledge to impact change was not followed by genuine effort.

 

Organizations that had a “reactive” approach to the events of 2020 or are tied to political interests are mostly the businesses that are quietly divesting from DE&I programs and eliminating these positions, she noted.

 

“If they weren’t invested for the right reasons to start when they created these positions and hiring, and it was more for optics, it’s of no surprise that they are removing these positions when no one is apparently watching,” Hull said.

 

Jamie Adasi, head of inclusion, diversity, equity and allyship for software company Greenhouse in New York City, said many companies were engaging in “diversity theater”—a term used to describe an attempt by employers to make others think they care about DE&I issues despite not investing resources into them.

 

“[DE&I] programs are cross-functional operational programs that require the same level of structure and rigor as other operational programs impacting the business,” she said.

 

Why DE&I Still Matters

 

Hull said DE&I remains vital to business success—even during an economic downturn.

 

“It is vital to a company’s success because it’s the right thing to do and our world is becoming [increasingly] diverse,” she said. “Making it a priority will likely lift the economy based on data and evidence of success in businesses that prioritize it.”

 

Studies have shown that DE&I can increase an organization’s revenue, customer base and ultimately profits. Many companies that fail to take proactive steps to prioritize DE&I may find themselves behind their competition and struggle to meet business goals.

 

DE&I has also helped attract and retain employees: A 2022 survey revealed that 92 percent of 3,000 full-time workers said company culture, a key characteristic of DE&I, impacts their intent to stay with their employer. Millennials and Generation Z employees were more likely than Baby Boomers to value DE&I.

 

Companies with DE&I teams tend to have a higher representation of Asian, Black and Hispanic hires than companies without DE&I teams, per the Revelio report. Employers that sacrifice DE&I programs to meet budget demands could feel the effects of this decision in the future, Yarnot noted.

 

“Three years from now, these organizations might ask why their diversity numbers are plummeting,” she said. “Well, look what you did a few years ago. You didn’t prioritize DE&I.”

14991: Havas Human Resources Lacks Humanity And Resourcefulness.

Campaign published a perspective from Havas Media Senior Talent Acquisition Partner Josh Fialky that presented pathetic pointers for interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The piece underscored how the average HR recruiter—and Fialky is likely well below the average—tends to be a stupid sack of shit.

First of all, did Fialky consider how his editorial might affect Havas drones facing furloughs, layoffs, pay cuts and worse during the COVID-19 pandemic? It’s not exactly a morale booster to see coworkers canned while an HR wonk is offering generic interview tips and sharing about the candidates he’s currently recruiting.

Gee, it’s such a terrible burden that pitiful Fialky is forced “to change how we meet with and interview candidates.” Now he’ll be virtually ignoring and disrespecting candidates—he can literally zoom through the process.

It must also be noted that even in a dismal job market, candidates should think twice before applying at any enterprise in the hackneyed Havas network. And the smart ones will opt against submitting their résumés.

Oh, and Fialky forgot to mention the top piece of advice that will dramatically improve one’s chances of landing a position at Havas: blood ties to key executives.

Some advice on interviewing in the time of COVID-19

“Recruiting has taken a turn as well, prompting us to change how we meet with and interview candidates.”

A view from Josh Fialky

At Havas, our global mission is to make a meaningful difference to the brands, business, and people we work. That got me thinking, how do you create a connection with a potential employer and demonstrate your qualifications and excitement to join an organization when you can’t meet in person?

In recent weeks, the world has adjusted to doing everything – from meetings to birthday parties to happy hours to pitches – over Zoom. Recruiting has taken a turn as well, prompting us to change how we meet with and interview candidates. While we can hardly call video interviews new, what once operated as the exception has become the rule.

While so much has changed, recruiting goals remain the same: attract the best possible talent, learn more about them, create the best candidate experience, and share a view of what the role and company culture look like. Candidates’ goals also remain unchanged: find a new role that allows them to do great things with people they enjoy working with at a company whose values they share.

I speak to a lot of candidates every week. The stress that has come through in recent conversations focuses on interviewing, switching, and starting jobs in this uncertain climate. It got me thinking about some of the best practices around video interviews.

Treat It Like a Normal Interview

Prepare — research the company and interview panel. Then, dress for the interview….at least from the waist up and show up to the video interview a few minutes early. Use the restroom before the call and have a glass of water next to you. Above all, be yourself and be authentic!

Find a Quiet, Distraction-Free Place

Check your lighting. Don’t sit in front of a window…you’ll look like a shadow. Practice screen interviewing with friends or family, including making “eye contact.” That said, it’s okay to be human. These are crazy times and the unexpected happens. Kids! Pets! Roommates!

Email an Immediate Thank You Note

Customize each note, referencing what you discussed. If possible, have someone review before you send to check for typos and grammatical errors.

Set Realistic Expectations with Yourself about Hiring Timelines

It’s not you, it’s us. Companies cannot move as quickly as they used to in the hiring process. Follow up with your recruiter, but not too much. Everything is a moving target these days. Recruiters and hiring managers are currently managing so much with their own WFH situations; hiring only comprises a small piece of it all.

Now what? You’ve completed your interview and sent thank you notes. You’re thinking you want the job but have concerns about not having seen the office. Or perhaps you’re worried that you’ve only met a handful of people. What do you do next?

Take a virtual tour of the office through companies’ social pages, website, or ask your recruiter if they have any video that highlights the workspace. Ask to set up virtual coffee with other members of the team, thinking of the discussion as a casual conversation to understand culture and people.

If you have questions or concerns about how the company is handling the COVID-19 crisis, don’t be afraid to ask your recruiter to set up a discussion with another recent hire who can answer any questions about getting onboarded remotely amidst COVID-19.

There is so much uncertainty out there and it’s not easy for anyone. We’re all in this together.

Stay safe, stay sane, and most importantly, stay home!

Josh Fialky is a senior talent acquisition partner at Havas Media.

14965: Hiring Service Logo Has A Hire-On.

The iHire logo could get itself in HR trouble for sexual harassment…

14324: Havas’ Fucking Bullshit.

Advertising Age reported on the latest publicity stunt from Havas Chicago, a White advertising agency that seems to generate more press from self-promotion than client promotion. Apparently, agency leadership doesn’t appreciate anonymous online criticism from staffers, inspiring a campaign declaring, “All of us work here some of us fucking love it.” Oddly enough, the campaign references members of the HR department, who likely approved offensive language that could warrant a legitimate complaint to HR. Contrary to anything Havas leaders might say about encouraging constructive companywide dialogue, the campaign appears to tell haters to fuck off and find another job. It’s fighting bullying with bullying—and bullshit. According to Adweek, the campaign collateral “also lists contacts for recruiters from Chicago agencies like FCB, Digitas, Upshot and mcgarrybowen.” You know, the shitty agencies that don’t compete with Havas. The shitty agencies, incidentally, generate more press from paying clients than pissy coworkers. Oh, and Havas honchos are cordially invited to read this 2007 post on the global topic.

Havas Chicago confronts anonymous employee bullying with art installation

By Megan Graham

Havas Chicago is responding to negative comments made about the agency and its employees on anonymous industry app Fishbowl with an anti-bullying-themed art installation and a brochure that encourages disgruntled employees to look elsewhere.

The installation, which opened on Friday, was showcased on Chief Creative Officer and Chairman Jason Peterson’s Instagram account. His posts show a photo of a wall with the words “All of us work here some of us fucking love it,” and another of a wall with the words “Employee of the month” above a collection of framed anonymous Fishbowl comments saying things like “The laughing stock in charge is obssesed (sic) with his 1M fake followers” or “I’m embarrassed to work at havas (sic) as well.” (Peterson has 1.1 million followers on Instagram.)

There is also Instagram video of the wall on his Instagram captioned, “Your hate is my anthem.”

Peterson’s posts from Friday evening also include images from a brochure, available in the agency, with the same “All of us work here some of us fucking love it” message. The inside has a section introduced as “Conscious Uncoupling.”

The brochure reads: “We assume you love working at Havas but if you are not happy in your role, you don’t have to continue feeling that way. Conversely, if we see that this is not your jam, we are going to raise this with you. We want you to be happy. We won’t hold this against you, we’ve got your back … Talk to your Manager or your Talent Management Partner to get the conversation started.”

That document lists three HR people at the company. It also lists contacts for recruiters from Chicago agencies like FCB, Digitas, Upshot and McGarryBowen.

Tatia Torrey, president and chief client officer at Havas Chicago, said in a statement that “A group of our employees brought this idea to us, they wanted to address some of the hateful online commentary and bullying that exists around some of our employees and our greater industry and expose the damage that it does to people who love their work and this business.” Her statement noted that the agency uses its office as an installation space to express what’s happening culturally, and has addressed “tough, but real” topics like suicide awareness, immigration, gender equality and racism in the workplace.

“We took it a step further and sent out material that encouraged our staff to talk to us openly if they have real issues, and quite frankly, to consider their choices in their work,” she said. “Bullying is something that we simply won’t tolerate. If there are issues amongst our business, we would rather address them openly, ultimately with the goal of making this the best possible place to work for our amazing staff that work so hard.”

The shop said multiple people in the agency, including Peterson, stepped forward to share comments made about them personally.

The Peterson posts come a month and a half after an internal video popped up on Fishbowl and prompted some negative industry commentary. In the video, which featured Peterson and Havas Creative North America CEO and Chairman Paul Marobella, Peterson said shops like Leo Burnett, FCB and BBDO or other “shitty agencies” aren’t Havas’ competition, but instead its competition is “kids with iPhones and millions of YouTube followers.”

Asked at the time to respond to criticisms that he had called other agencies “shitty,” Peterson said the video was internal, so if any Havas employees “want to go work at these other agencies please by all means go and do it.”

In a statement regarding the art installation, Peterson said, “Havas Chicago is a unique creative company that requires unique creative people with the right level of commitment, courage and contribution to what that means. In the case where there is not a mutual fit, we’d rather know and address it now and encourage those employees to pursue what’s best for them in their careers, while we maintain an amazing creative team here who share a vision and point of view. Constructive discussion and criticism is just that—constructive,” his statement reads. “What we simply will not tolerate is hate or bullying while hiding behind anonymous sources within our business.”

The agency says since Peterson posted about the installation on his Instagram, he has received more than 350 direct messages from people interested in working for Havas (many of which he posted on his personal Instagram account stories).

In an emailed message to employees, Torrey said the agency is “not a typical agency.”

“We are loud and proud and we are not for everyone,” she wrote in part. “...We value and promote social media. Yet, the anonymity with some platforms allows for pointed and painful comments at times. Recently many of those comments have been directed at our agency, our environment and the people who work here. We are not O.K. with that. In a manner that is truly Havas CHI, we are bringing this to the forefront. We created a lobby installation to address it head on. We want to talk about it.”

The agency says the installation coincided with the launch of Monica Lewinsky’s anti-bullying campaign and will likely last until mid-month when it will make way for a breast cancer awareness installation.

When asked for comment, Fishbowl chief operating officer and co-founder Loren Appin said in a statement that the app’s community guidelines are thorough and are “not only explicitly against bullying, but also against unconstructive, excessive negativity.”

“We have no opinion on how [Havas has] chosen to interact with their own employees, but do believe the representation of Fishbowl as a place for professionals to bully one another is entirely false,” he said.