In Conversation with John Younger, JobElephant Talent Acquisition Team
Thank you for joining us, John! HR has been through the wringer lately. From being the ‘bad guys’ during layoffs to the ‘fun police’ during RTO, a lot’s been happening. If you could clear the air right now, what is the one thing you wish every employee understood about your job?
John Younger:
I wish employees understood that HR is only as strong as the operational systems behind it. In my role working with PEOs, HROs and HRIS platforms, we sit in the infrastructure layer that supports payroll, benefits administration and workforce data. Most decisions are not personal or arbitrary. They are the result of how those processes are designed to function and what systems they require to stay accurate and compliant.
HR requires a weird mix of skills. You have to be part lawyer, part therapist, and part data analyst. If we stripped away the job title, what is the one “superpower” you rely on most when the office is on fire?
John Younger:
Pattern recognition through people.
Not policy. Not process. Not even data. People.
When things start going sideways, most organizations immediately reach for rules, workflows and dashboards. Sometimes that helps. Often, it just creates more noise. The better approach is usually figuring out what is actually happening underneath the surface.
What is the person really worried about?
What are they not saying?
What problem are they trying to solve that nobody has named yet?
That’s where emotional intelligence matters. Not as some soft HR buzzword, but as the ability to quickly read a situation, lower the temperature, and help people think clearly again.
The irony is that I spend a huge amount of time around recruiting technology and AI. AI can rank resumes, score candidates, predict behavior and automate massive parts of the hiring process. But in the moments that actually matter — the difficult conversations, the trust issues, the judgment calls, the “something feels off here” moments — human intuition still wins.
Curiosity is a huge part of that. The people who ask better questions usually solve problems faster than the people with the strongest opinions.
When the office is on fire, the superpower is not panic management. It’s helping other people become calm enough to make good decisions again.
If you could describe the current mood of the workforce in 2026 using just one word, what would it be? Why?
John Younger:
“Recalibrating.”
I do not think workers are disengaged or lazy or checked out the way some headlines suggest. I think people are trying to figure out where they fit in while AI changes the rules underneath them in real time.
The questions candidates ask today are very different than they were even two years ago.
Will this job still exist in three years?
What skills actually matter now?
Is this company investing in people, or quietly trying to automate them away?
That uncertainty changes everything.
On paper, the labor market looks more stable because people are moving around less. But I think a lot of that is caution, not loyalty. Many workers are staying put because the market feels unpredictable and because they are still trying to understand what the future of work actually looks like for them personally.
That creates a huge opportunity for employers and recruiters who can communicate clearly.
The companies winning right now are usually not the ones offering the highest compensation. They are the ones telling the clearest and most believable story about where the organization is headed, why the role matters, and how the employee grows along with the business.
People can handle change. What they struggle with is uncertainty without context.
We talk a lot about “gut feeling” in hiring. How are you using data to challenge your own biases, or the biases of hiring managers, when it comes to hiring, retaining, or promoting underrepresented talent?
John Younger:
“Gut feeling” is often just pattern recognition with confidence attached to it.
The problem is that people tend to define “qualified” as “looks like the last person who succeeded here.” That is where bias quietly enters the process.
Honestly, I think the resume itself creates a huge amount of bias before a conversation even starts. Names, schools, job titles, employment gaps, formatting — humans react to all of it instantly, whether they realize it or not.
That is one place where structured AI tools can actually help if they are designed correctly.
Instead of screening people based primarily on resumes, we see much better results when candidates answer role-specific questions tied directly to the actual work. The system can evaluate responses against predefined criteria instead of superficial signals that may have nothing to do with performance.
But the important part is that AI should support human judgment, not replace it.
One technique I use a lot is intentionally testing my own first impression. If I immediately think a candidate is exceptional, I look for contrary evidence. If I initially think they may not be a fit, I force myself to look for signals that I may be wrong. Most hiring managers do not naturally do that.
The goal is not removing humans from hiring. The goal is reducing the noise so humans can focus on the things that still matter most — curiosity, adaptability, self-awareness, resilience and the ability to grow.
Those qualities rarely show up cleanly on a resume, and most algorithms still struggle to measure them well.
It is a common notion that an HR team is called upon by the leadership only during times of crisis. Have you ever felt that pressure to be the ‘fixer’ in a broken system?
John Younger:
“Culture fit.”
I think it has probably done more damage to hiring than almost any phrase in recruiting.
The problem is that “culture fit” sounds objective when it usually is not. In practice, it often becomes a vague veto that nobody has to explain. A candidate can clear every measurable hurdle and still get rejected because someone says, “I’m not sure they’re a fit.”
That is where bias hides.
Usually what people actually mean is one of three things:
- This person communicates differently than we do
- This person challenges the status quo
- This person does not remind me of the last successful employee
None of those automatically predict poor performance.
The better approach is defining what success in the role actually requires. What behaviors matter? What working style matters? What values matter? Then ask every candidate the same questions and evaluate the answers consistently.
That is a hiring process.
“Culture fit” is often just a vibe check pretending to be a business strategy.
If you could change one legacy process that currently causes the most friction for employees, what would it be?
John Younger:
The job application process.
It is still one of the most broken experiences in business, and somehow everyone has accepted it as normal.
We ask candidates to upload a resume and then spend the next 20 minutes manually re-entering the exact same information into disconnected fields. From the candidate perspective, it immediately signals that the company values process over people.
And that is before the real technical problems even start.
Most recruiting systems still do a terrible job sharing data cleanly between job boards, career sites and applicant tracking systems. Information gets lost, recruiters duplicate work, reporting becomes unreliable and qualified candidates disappear somewhere in the gaps.
What is amazing is that none of this is actually a hard technology problem anymore. It is mostly an integration and prioritization problem.
The companies creating the best candidate experiences are usually the ones treating recruiting like a connected system instead of a collection of disconnected vendors.
The goal should be simple: one clean flow from first click to hire.
Every unnecessary step costs candidates, recruiter time and ultimately good hires.
What is your formula for handling “brilliant jerks,” people who hit their numbers but damage team morale?
John Younger:
Most “brilliant jerk” problems actually start as hiring problems.
Organizations usually overvalue measurable output and undervalue the hidden cost of team damage. The spreadsheet says the person is performing. Meanwhile, everyone around them is exhausted, disengaged or quietly looking for another job.
That math eventually catches up with you.
The best way to handle brilliant jerks is to avoid hiring them in the first place. But that only works if you evaluate behavior with the same seriousness as technical skill or revenue performance.
Too many interview teams treat collaboration, humility and communication as “soft skills” and then act surprised when the team culture deteriorates.
I prefer defining behavioral expectations in observable ways:
- Can this person disagree without becoming destructive?
- Do they share credit?
- Do they create clarity or chaos?
- Do people actually work better around them?
One thing that also helps is collecting interview feedback individually before group discussion starts. Otherwise the loudest person in the room often shapes everyone else’s opinion.
And if the person is already inside the company, the answer is still fairly simple:
Name the behavior.
Define the expectation.
Set a timeline.
Hold the line.
High performance should never become immunity from accountability.
John Younger serves on JobElephant’s Talent Acquisition Team and blends deep technical expertise with hands-on recruiting leadership. John Younger earned a math and computer science degree from the University of Notre Dame and completed MIT’s AI program. John Younger founded six companies, holds multiple patents and has built AI-driven hiring solutions that speed up screening while preserving the human connection candidates expect. John Younger focuses on objective evaluation, structured interviews and candidate experience, helping teams hire faster with better signal and less bias across the full recruiting cycle.
Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?
Individual Contributors:
Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight
Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle
PR Representatives:
Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions
Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions
Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital



