It is not my intention to talk about this issue without aggravating many of the those in the targeted role. Alas, the only way to improve our profession is to identify the barriers that get in the way of clear thinking, decisive action, and a bold future state.
There is no doubt that one of the most polarizing and important advancements in business is the one that has taken up most of the space inside the heads of not only P&L-minded company leaders but also heads of Talent Acquisition. While AI is unequivocally important to the long-term viability of most all organizations, when it comes to doing the jobs of functional leaders, success ultimately comes down to two things – and two things only: Leadership and Character.
Let’s start with “Character”; for me, it’s the single most important quality of a human – and a bit mind-boggling that my words still hold up 20 years later. While it’s taken a bit for this to crystallize as a foundation element, great TA is all about character. Yet it’s instructive to note how lack of character manifests itself; this is where leadership becomes vital.
Please listen to the final soliloquy – video and text – from “An American President – and read the next line before you:
[around the 3:15 mark]: “…I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job.”
In today’s ranks of Talent Acquisition leaders, this might be an unfortunate reality.
“Life is like a dogsled team. If you ain’t the lead dog, the scenery never changes.” ~Lewis Grizzard, writer and humorist
The TA Leadership Crisis
Risk Avoidance is the Real KPI. The incentive structure is simple: Don’t screw up, don’t rock the boat, don’t second guess higher-ups, don’t get noticed for the wrong reasons. Solving systemic talent problems by speaking the hard truths, by forcing hiring managers to confront and fix their bad habits, or by pushing back on growth plans built on speculative thinking is risky.
So instead of leading to win, too many TA leaders play not to lose.
TA is Still Treated Like an Admin Function. Despite all the CEOs who clasp their hands in their public forums while asserting that our “people are our greatest asset,” TA is still seen in most companies as a vendor rather than a strategic lever.
You don’t build strategic nor political capital when you’re treated like a catering service.
Heads of TA figure this out fast by spending more time managing expectations than challenging the business to think differently about workforce design, TA tech systems that don’t drive people away, or why DEI cannot be a victim of the political climate
Most TA Leaders Were Never Trained for This. Let’s me be blunt: Far too many Heads of TA were promoted because they were good at filling roles – not because they were great at advising businesses.
Running a req-load is not the same skill set as workforce modeling, labor market forecasting, or organizational change leadership.
When the business asks for strategic help, most TA leaders quietly freak out, scramble to find some Gartner graph, and retreat into process and optics.
Responsibility Without Authority is a Setup. Heads of TA are blamed for bad hiring outcomes they don’t control.
They can’t force hiring managers to move faster, can’t fix broken compensation bands, can’t redesign awful job specs.
When you own the results but don’t own the levers, your focus shifts real fast from “change the system” to “cover your ass-ets.”
CEOs and CHROs Want Quick Wins, Not Structural Change. Most executives aren’t looking for a TA revolution; they’re looking for seats filled. Yesterday.
Trying to build a real workforce capability plan that stretches across years? You’ll get about 6 minutes before you’re dragged back into the quarterly fill report.
TA leaders adapt by giving leadership what they want even when they know it’s tactical nonsense.
Personal Branding is the New Survival Skill. Today’s TA leader knows the game isn’t just winning inside the company it’s looking good outside it.
Post about some new AI tool you piloted. Re-share an article about “rethinking DEI.” Launch a shiny EVP project.
Actual hiring outcomes? Future workforce readiness? Cultural alignment? Meh. If your LinkedIn profile looks progressive and your CHRO feels like you’re “innovating,” you’re safe.
We Measure the Wrong Things. Time-to-fill, cost-per-hire, source-of-hire attribution – none of these tell you if the business hired the right people. None of them tell you if the company will be more competitive in 3 years because of who you brought in.
But these are the metrics TA leaders are graded on, so they build their strategy and their survival around looking good on a scorecard that barely matters.
Keeping or Doing?
Perhaps it’s human nature to circle the wagons and protect what one has when one is under attack – yes, TA has been under attack for as long as I’ve been in the profession – but the past few years have seen epic escalations.
It’s certainly understandable; however, can you truly call yourself a “strategic business partner” if you aren’t embracing the duties and responsibilities of a Talent Advisor – the apogee of roles where your voice is not only heard but heeded? Right, John Vlastelica?
There is unequivocally a tactical path to excellence for each of the areas below; some of these paths are covered towards the end of this missive.
TA is Seen as Tactical, Not Strategic. Even in companies that claim, “people are our greatest asset,” TA is often viewed as an order-taker AKA a fulfillment center – “We have jobs, you fill them.”
Speaking candidly can be perceived as “not understanding the business” or worse, being viewed as not a team player (the “nanny-nanny-poo-poo” of executives and many an HR leader) even when TA leaders actually do. When TA leaders voice concerns about misaligned headcount planning, bad forecasting, or employer brand decay, they are often seen as stepping outside their “lane.”
Unless TA has previously been framed internally as a strategic business enabler and not just a service function, C-levels and E-levels may interpret candid feedback as “not getting it” even if TA is spot-on. Unfortunately, the systemic, pervasive bias is “Hiring is ‘easy,’ and if it’s not easy, you’re the problem.”
Fear of Being Scapegoated. When a company misses its growth goals, undergoes layoffs, or faces high attrition, who gets interrogated? TA and HR.
Even if recruiting wasn’t the cause, it’s still the “first stop” for blame because it’s highly visible and emotionally charged (“we don’t have enough people” / “we’re hiring the wrong people”). If you speak too openly like pointing out hiring freezes during hypergrowth or unrealistic candidate profiles (“you want a purple aardvark with rainbow toes $50K?”), leadership can quickly scapegoat TA as being “negative” or “not solutions oriented.”
Unfortunately, many TA leaders have learned that speaking up = painting a bullseye on their backs.
Limited “Political Capital.” TA leaders usually do not control revenue streams, budget allocations, or legal compliance, 3 of the C-suite’s biggest priorities. And?
It limits our leverage; when a TA leader speaks out about systemic issues (e.g., “you’re asking for 2x the hires but cut our sourcing budget in half”), they risk being tuned out, ruled out, or worse, punished because they can’t apply real power pressure.
Without enough political capital, saying something that ruffles feathers risks marginalization or career damage; without alliances with CFOs, COOs, and business line leaders, TA voices are often silenced whereas the very best TA leaders spend time building cross-functional relationships before they speak hard truths.
The “Good Soldier” Expectation. CHROs and CPOs who oversee TA, are themselves expected to be corporate loyalists; in turn, TA leaders, are expected to “make it work”, to fill roles even when reqs are absurd, when processes are broken, or when candidate experience is tanking. They expect their TA leaders to execute, not challenge; challenging assumptions about hiring plans, budget, EVP, DEI strategy, etc., can be interpreted as being “difficult” rather than “thoughtful.”
If a TA leader challenges a headcount plan (“This hiring goal is based on Spongebob SquarePants fantasy, not capacity”), they can be seen as insubordinate, even if they’re undeniably correct.
It’s a cultural expectation: Deliver. Don’t question. Alas, this expectation is even stronger in founder-led companies or PE-owned companies where loyalty is valued over critical thinking.
Incentives Misalignment. Far too many TA performance dashboards and scorecards are built on transactional metrics (TtF, CpH, number of hires) rather than objective performance outcomes like goals achieved, revenue impact, or long-term quality. Some objective performance metrics are easier to obtain (e.g., JIRA project tracking, FP&A reports) whereas it’s 2025 and we’re still debating QoH/Quality of Slate.
Nonetheless, when TA leaders pull the alarm (“These hires are fast but terrible fits and we’re hurting long-term growth”), executives often turn to short-term numbers that may dismiss it. Speaking the truth about quality often contradicts short-term KPIs.
C-suite Bias Toward External Validation. Executives are more likely to listen to McKinsey, Gartner, a “celebrity” external speaker or a LinkedIn pay-to-say Guru than to their own Head of TA. Speaking out internally can feel pointless or risky without a third-party stamp of approval.
It’s partially a status game: “If some berson says it, it must be true.”
Thus, even if a TA leader brings identical insights like market mapping, employer brand diagnostics, predictive hiring analytics, they get less credibility simply because they’re inside. Speaking candidly without an outside “proof stamp” can make you sound like you’re just giving your opinion, rather than sharing market truth.
Executives often prioritize external over internal intelligence until you flip the dynamic by positioning yourself as an advisor with an “insider + external lens.”
Trauma and Memory. TA leaders who have been “punished” for speaking out tend to remember it vividly: Getting undermined, blamed, thrown under the bus, or quietly offboarded leaves scars, sometimes unspoken but always felt. The result?
Learned Cautiousness.
Leaders who once spoke up boldly become careful, deferential, or even worse, cryptic when raising issues. They may sandwich the truth between layers of compliments and softening language (“We’re doing really great here, and also maybe, possibly, hypothetically, if you have time, we could look at…”); this survival instinct can quietly paralyze TA’s ability to advocate for structural improvements.
The memory of corporate retaliation is longer than people admit.
Many experienced TA leaders have spoken up at some point in the past and been ignored, gaslit, sidelined, or even fired. That stays with you.
Fear is rational, but it can be transcended.
Yes, the very best TA leaders, the ones who truly help their companies win long-term, learn how to speak their minds. Not recklessly. Not emotionally. Not adversarially. But through clear, data-driven, financially oriented, business-savvy conversations that frame TA as critical infrastructure, not just service delivery.
The never cower or slink away; the ones who succeed in speaking truth build credibility first, align their case to business goals, and frame tough truths as opportunities to win, not criticisms of leadership.
The real pros don’t shout – they illuminate.
How?
The TA Leader’s Speak-Up Playbook
My take on the real-world guide to speaking your mind strategically, bravely, and effectively inside an organization where fear is very real but impact matters. How do I know this works?
Simple – in the past, I’ve made the mistakes of not taking these to heart and practice. Of course, I’m still learning – always will…I’m thankful I have Gerry Crispin, my TA community, and my Recruiter Therapy gang ( Shannon Pritchett, 👋 Angie Verros, Nichole Foley, Brandon Jeffs, Brian Fink, Daniel Harten) to keep me honest and speak openly with.
To overcome limited influence – build your political capital before you need it. Spend consistent time outside of your direct TA responsibilities building relationships with Finance, Legal, Ops, and BU leaders to position yourself as a business peer who happens to own TA, not just a recruiter-in-chief.
Offer help: “Your group is growing fast; I’ve pulled together market insights that are likely to impact your growth.” You’re not asking for permission, but you are delivering value. This is how you become a trusted operator, not “that recruiter person.” When you speak truth later, it’s coming from a peer, not an outsider.
To avoid being seen as “complaining” – speak the language of money and risk, not feelings. Frame everything in financial or operational terms. For example, instead of, “The hiring plan is unrealistic”, say, “Based on our current capacity and market conditions, we are at a 60% probability of missing delivery, which could delay $23M in planned revenue. I have a mitigation strategy if you’d like to hear it.”
CFOs, COOs, and CEOs respond to risk mitigation and financial outcomes not HR language or vague warnings. Sorry my CHRO friends, it’s true…
To counter C-suite external validation bias – anchor yourself to external data then add internal insights. [looking at Toby Culshaw and the Talent Intelligence Collective community] When making a case, cite an credible external credible source (Lighcast, Gartner, labor market studies) then layer internal TA data on top.
“According to Gartner, time-to-productivity for engineering hires is up 18% YoY. Our internal data matches this; our new engineers are taking 19% longer to ramp. Here’s how it’s impacting project velocity.”
You tap into the C-suite bias toward external validation but elevate yourself as the internal expert who connects it to what’s happening inside.
To survive the “Good Soldier” expectation – make it their idea. Instead of bluntly opposing bad strategies, frame challenges as refinements to their goals.
“To help us hit the aggressive Q3 hiring target, we may want to rethink the level of experience we’re requiring; we can likely improve speed by 30% without sacrificing quality.”
You sound like a loyal strategist, not a dissenter. Leaders feel empowered, not attacked.
To not be scapegoated – bring solutions, not just problems. Always pair any risk or issue you surface with two or three pre-refined solutions or mitigation plans. The formula?
“Here’s the risk…”
“Here are 3 ways to address it…”
“Here’s my recommended path…”
Executives don’t want complainers; they want operators who diagnose then prescribe without the need for an endless litany of tests.
To account for trauma/memory and maximize reception – time your truth bombs. Don’t deliver hard truths during chaotic executive meetings, public forums, or moments of stress; instead, request calm, 1:1, private convos framed around helping them win.
“Would you be open to a 20-minute session where I walk you through some talent-market risks and performance wins for the next quarter?”
Humans are way more open to hearing hard news when it’s framed as confidential, helpful, and proactive, rather than public or political.
To overcome tactical perception bias – frame TA as infrastructure not service. Use metaphors that reframe TA’s role [Channeling my inner Brian Fink]…
“Talent Acquisition isn’t a delivery service – it’s the power grid. If the grid isn’t strong, nothing else runs efficiently.”
Then immediately tie it to business performance metrics (revenue per employee, speed-to-market, innovation cycle time).
You rebrand TA as business-critical infrastructure not as an optional support service. That earns you the right to speak more freely.
Levy’s Last Words
Speaking your mind as a TA leader is a learned art, not an innate gift. You don’t have to be fearless – but you must be prepared, politically smart, and relentlessly performance-framed.
But you do have to live with the “character” you outwardly present as your “true self” – and if it’s not really you, then how much can you truly accomplish?
With authentic character and the leadership behaviors presented here, you can not only survive but you can become one of the most indispensable, respected leaders in your company.
The Recruiting Inferno 