Name: Building adaptable teams in the AI era
Uploaded: 2026-04-21T14:16:04.159Z
Duration: 41 min 36 s
Description: Building adaptable teams in the AI era

Transcript for "Building adaptable teams in the AI era": Welcome back, everyone. So in our first panel, we talked about building trust through AI transformation. Now let's talk about building capability. So skills based hiring was already a thing before AI, but it has been amplified a whole lot more in recent months. AI is changing what work is faster than job descriptions can keep up. A recruiting professional now needs to understand AI powered sourcing. A finance analyst needs to know when to trust AI recommendations and when to override them, and an HR business partner needs skills that didn't have names two years ago. All familiar? The organization's adapting to this future are mapping the skills that actually drive performance, building role expectations that adapt as AI evolves and recruiting people who can learn and pivot rather than people who've done the job exactly the same as they have done before. We'll start with hiring, but we're also gonna get into the details of what happens afterwards. How you define role expectations, keep teams adaptable, and keep them learning along the way as well. That's what we're unpacking today. How do you move from the right job descriptions to dynamic skills based models, and what does that actually look like in practice? I am delighted to be joined by this in this session by Dominic Joyce and by Teresa Rose. Unfortunately, Deborah Gallo is unwell and can no longer make it, but we have a great panel to run the show. So thanks, Emil, for joining us today, Dominic and Teresa. I'm gonna hand over to you just to give me a very quick one liner on who you are and what you do. And, Dominic, maybe we start with yourself. Amazing. Thank you, Susie. Hey, everyone. I'm Dominic Joyce. I run Matt Ricotta. Spend most of my time helping companies rethink how they hire as work keeps changing. So so that's AI, transformation, or just roles involving past perspective. Great. Teresa? Hi, everyone. Delighted to be here. My name's Teresa Rose. As you can see, I am an organizational development practitioner, and it's important that I say practitioner because I get involved in the in the doing. And for the last few years, I've been working with a range of enterprise clients and small businesses to become, skills based organization or skills informed, whatever connotation you'd like to use for it. And I do everything from job architecture, MVP, tech implementation through to sustainment within talent processes, governance, and, job architecture, all of those different things. I'm delighted to be here. We are delighted to have you. So let's jump straight into it. So let's start with the problem. Historically, we have hired based on job titles and descriptions. And so, again, as I mentioned earlier, we need a senior analyst. We're hiring a project manager. They must be able to do x y zed, but AI is dissolving those boundaries and at speeds. And it is within that changing skills we need to focus on when building a future ready workforce. Dominic, if we're not hiring for static job descriptions anymore, what are we hiring for, and how do you assess candidates without relying on credentials alone? Great question. I'd say that, you know, we've spent twenty years hiring people what people have done. Right? AI just made that the least reliable predictor of what we'll do next. So, you know, we've optimized hiring for certainty in a world that no longer got opposite. So, you know, in terms of how I see most hiring today is optimized to avoid mistakes, not to find adaptable people. So and and that works great when jobs were stable. But let's face it. Look at the current economy now, and, sadly, that's not the case. So this, completely breaks from job changes happen every six months. So I think, you know, the shifts isn't what we hire for. It's how we define a good hire in the first place, and that's what we're here to discuss today. Right? Yeah. Absolutely. What's the one change I suppose teams can make within that next week? Again, we're trying to make this as practical as practical as possible to start hiring for these skills more reliably. I think first is reframe the problem. So, you know, we're trying to hire the jobs that change faster than our hiring processes. Right? So the question shouldn't be or isn't who fits the role. It's who adapts when that role endeavors to be shifts. Right? So, you know, I think we spoke about job descriptions. They're already out of date by the time they're approved. So we seem to have this overarching pedestal of, you know, years experience measures exposure, right, not capability. And we seem so enamored by that whole thing around x amount of years means again that you're a credible candidate. And actually, we've been rewarding familiarity over adaptability, which doesn't make sense in the current context of the landscape and why we're here today. Right? So I think, you know, the hiring starting point is being honest about something that's really uncomfortable. Most of the hiring today is built around these proxies. Right? So years experience, job titles, specific company backgrounds, they were never perfect. Right? But they were works well enough when jobs were relatively stable. So AI kind of breaks that trend in that mold because now the job you hire for today won't be the same as six to twelve months time. So the ship isn't again what what we're gonna hire for. It's redefining what a good hire actually is, and that comes down to I kind of broke it down into, you know, what we're hiring for instead is more about adaptability. And it kinda comes to four things. Right? Load of velocity. How quickly someone can get up to speed on something new? Sounds worth thinking. Right? Can they apply what they know now to other million problems? You then got problem framing. Right? So do they find what actually needs solving? And then AI collaboration, can they use AI to not harness how they work, not to avoid it? And that combination is far more predictive at a change in environment than five years doing x or at company y, I find. Yeah. Absolutely. And I was at a an event last week where they were talking about something similar, and the call to action there was to do exactly what you're talking about, which is starting to do a skills mapping exercise for what the business is going to need in the next twelve, you know, twelve, eighteen, thirty six months. And it's just about reframing, I think, the traditional job description and and looking for what what we've needed. So we've talked about how to start thinking about skills based hiring, how you find people who could adapt and what skills to look out for, but, of course, hiring is just one step. And once those people are in the door, the question becomes, how do we deploy those skills effectively across teams? Teresa, you spoke about this brilliantly in Personio 2025 workforce calls report. Could you give us the framework or even some guidance on how to skills across teams and projects? Yeah. I would I would say one one thing I probably a bit contentious is the jobs aren't disappearing, and it's it's really important to state that to the audience because there's there's a aspects around legalities that you need to have job descriptions, terms of contracts, and that's the same whether you're a small or a a larger business. But it's having that balance between stability and flexibility. And one way that I do, working with clients is and a lot of a lot of organizations are starting to talk about this on LinkedIn, etcetera, as well as as well as skills is starting with the work and the tasks, and looking at from a portfolio lens what's more stable, what's likely to be more dynamic, and categorizing those skills, into those blocks so that you can manage them and know what's likely to change. But it's going to be context driven as well for you. There's a lot of change going on, and we heard in the previous session, about the impact of artificial intelligence on work. Not everything is changing. Not as much as changing as, World Economic Forum, etcetera, might have us, believe. So it's mapping that that con your context out and the work that you do because business strategy largely stays stable. Operating models might change, but having something like, I know people talk about job architectures being dead, but you can still build those with the flexibility with the skills attached to them as as Dominic said and start to map those out. But I also look at how those skills operate in a combined way within the tasks, and that's really important as well because you might be interchanging a skill then within a task. This that task is a bit that gets augmented, or you might rebundle the work based on augmentation and AI, and that shifts the job then. All the tasks become quite different in terms of quality assurance and checks and things like that, and the work changes. So it's managing, as I said, from a portfolio point of view. That's really important. And, notice that and having that data around what skills gaps you've got, what critical gaps you've got, planning ahead six to twelve months. Right. So if we're looking beyond credentials and traditional markers of capability in our hiring and we're deploying those skills really well within our teams, how do we upscale our existing pool of talent to ensure removing with AI developments rather than reacting retrospectively? And maybe a question to either of you there. Yeah. I think Yeah. Using AI to I I said, like, I chat the other day with, a table that I ran in Dublin, London. Utilizing AI is a great tool to almost automate the mundane humanized experience, but also as well give people back time in their diaries. That doesn't then mean to them upskill and to upload with more tasks. Yet you want to kind of, again, alleviate a lot of their workload using automation AI then go right. We've now got a workforce who have time in their hands now. How can we leverage AI to upskill them to then make them, you know, cross cross functional in business? And look at actually it's because we're now using this technology to improve performance. What you don't wanna do is then basically give people time back because of the automation and then say, well, you've now got two hours for a week. Here's more tasks. It's actually right. How can we I've always said, if you're gonna take back time from people, use to upscale them. Certain companies, you know, like OpenAI, make their staff do AI trading once a week in a fixed block as well. I think, firstly, the goal is here. If you're gonna use it to do that, you then want to give people time back in their diaries so they think about using the skills taxonomy. Or it's good luck. Like, how can we weaponize our colleagues to be that desirable, that future proof that actually people want to hire them, but it comes back to the monikers as a HR function. How How do we treat them well enough to actually don't want to leave? So it's almost a case of disinvesting them, upscale them, treat them as if they are this desirable commodity and pour into them. But actually, that comes down to it. You've now given them all these skills to make them a commodity elsewhere. Now it's down to around, you know, the EVP as to how we drive that, how we make fulfill on Monday morning or Sunday night as to why they wanna stay here as well. And there is a real opportunity within that, Dominic, for HR in helping teams pivot to developing higher value skills in this new context. Right? Work that will drive huge impact that previously, you know, unthinkable for a human being to accomplish. So let's tackle that head on. Like, a lot of employees, and we talked about this a little bit in the last session, a lot of employees are in a very different place right now. Some are championing championing AI, and some are waiting for direction and some are just keeping their heads down and, you know, hoping that it won't affect them. Teresa, coming to you for a moment, if you were coaching managers, what are two to three practical things they can do in developing conversations to support all three groups of people, especially when roles and professional identity feel like they're shifting and so quickly as well? I think it it it links to some of the previous session is in creating psychological safety, but that's also for the managers themselves because they're also impacted. I mean, they might be as well getting to a stage where they're managing human and AI labor at the same time, and they're orchestrating work in that way. So I think it's having open and honest conversations, but creating methodologies that enable that as well. And, and it's making me think back to the digital transformation work that I did back in, what, ten years ago at EON. And that was a a global project. And at the time, I was lucky that we had a social intranet, and I was able to use that to leverage things like reverse mentoring, as opposed to, you know, directly coaching where, more experienced managers could get coached by more junior employees, because they were more digitally native. And it's similar probably with artificial intelligence is finding those people. So not necessarily always leaning on the managers, but finding people in the organization that are maybe doing that in their spare time. They're taking courses, etcetera, in their spare time, which, again, a skills based organization can help surface if people can register the skills that they have. So that would be one way. It's like reverse mentoring and finding people in the organization that can have those skills and not relying totally on on the manager. And another, aspect is working out loud circles, which managers could run with as a peer support network with their grooms, to to think about how it what it what matters to their work and bringing that into their staff meetings and things like that as opposed to it purely being on necessarily a one to one coaching basis. It's how you bring that into the the usual cadence of, of how you operate and work and bringing those discussions to meetings and ways of working. It's such an important point that you say there that, you know, managers were relying on them an awful lot in organizations to drive the change when actually we can easily forget that they as individuals are navigating this themselves as well. Yeah. And managers, as we all know, are multipliers of engagement and culture and productivity and everything that comes with it. So actually starting with that group and enabling them in some way or freeing up this time for development like we heard in the last session, allowing some time for experimentation. It's an interesting sort of thought provoking point that maybe actually focusing on that group so that they feel empowered to then support their teams with some of these other examples that that you're giving. Would you agree with that, Teresa? Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. I think they're they're often trapped in the middle and sick that your second line managers as well if you've got a larger organization. They become the it's it's it's been all you know, in the past with change any change project management projects. And, again, the first session was talking about how you how you would, operationalize change management around this. And and no one's the expert, which is another thing that came up in the in the previous session. You have very few few experts, but there will be some in your organization that are out there finding this stuff out because they know, to Dominic Dominic's point, employability is key. And, I'm bringing bringing I'm making, you know, recognizing people for that as well, for that knowledge and sharing that knowledge is also important. So it's making sure that your culture encourages that, because often people might retain that knowledge and to them knowledge is power. Yeah. Definitely. And that culture of learning, I think we heard this from Jess as well, has never been more important. And we have the obligation as HR leaders to make sure that we're facilitating an environment that that allows for that. So before we look at expectation framework and the the case study that we have, I wanna see where everyone is on the room on this journey. So have you started mapping skills in your organization? And we're just gonna get you to answer the poll for us there. Great. So we're seeing a real mix. Some are well underway, already using competency frameworks. Others are just starting, piloting with specific teams. And overwhelmingly, about 50% of the poll, not yet, still using static job descriptions. So that's really, really interesting just to see where everyone is at. Dominic, I suppose for you, what's your advice for those in that cohort, which is what looks like, you know, half of the room here who haven't started yet, a blocker can sometimes be securing the budget or buy in. Do you have any quick tips or, as I say, advice for how to get leadership on board with building a robust skills based hiring and talent development strategy? Yeah. Definitely. There's, I'm not shocked by those stats, if I'm honest. It's, you know, from from a hiring lens. But I think the fastest way to get buy in, this might sound controversial here, is to stop talking about skills altogether and start talking about talk about risk. Right? So because leadership teams don't make up thinking we can need a skills based hiring strategy. Right? You know, they're thinking, why is hiring taking so long? Why are we missing strong candidates? What a new hire struggle to adapt. Right? But you've got to translate this into their language. Right? And that's where you have to kind of go there with data stats and face you in hearts and minds. So I think you have to always kind of reframe it commercially. So instead of we wanna move to, like, a skills based hiring approach, say, we're currently hiring from outdated versions of roles, and that's creating three risks for us. Right? That's creating, you know and, of course, outline clearly And say, you know, for example, point one, we're filtering out that's what talent, which is the the crux of why we're here. Right? You know, because we don't they don't tick these solution boxes. We're slowing down the hiring because we're chasing perfect profiles that don't really exist. And then we're increasing mishires because we're hiring for stability in unstable roles, which, you know, is kind of a you know, so when when teams, like, look for that kind of next level of what we're gonna do, I think in on where teams go wrong with patient is is a full transformation. That's where leadership as well kinda hear cost. They'll hear time. They'll hear disruption, which, of course, is all, you know, is all red flags and triggers. Instead, say, we're not redesigning everything. You know, we're testing this on one role. Right? And it's one role, one hiring manager, one adjusted process. And then to kind of get the buyer for it, define what success looks like upfront. Right? So the key with buying is don't make it abstract. Say, if it works, we should see. You know, say things around faster shortlisting all the talent polls, better quality reviews. Now leadership kinda has a tangible to measure up against this. I think this how it land is, this isn't a transformation project. It seems very, you know, elongated money, budgets. It's a way to avoid making the same hiring state mistakes at scale. Right? Well That's how you that's how you phrase it. I think as well, you know, attach it to something you really care about, you know, in a serious context there. If there's a role they're struggling to fill, if the the team's underperforming, you know, a transformation that's already happening and just, you know, because I think skills based hiring on its own is interested. Skills based hiring tied to a business problem gets funded. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And I suppose, hey, on the reverse of that, what's the cost to organizations if they're not doing this? Right? So you talked about creating that value for kind of your CFO or your your leadership team, but what's the cost of organizations who shy away from from this altogether in your opinion? I think, again, it's the very narrow minded mindset of, you know, I've sat in countless briefing calls around hiring the same person from the same background. I think what you can almost want as a future employee is someone who is, you know, coachable, the growth mindset, critical thinking. And even now in hiring, we're so geared towards historical background experience. Right? No one's looking at the bigger picture long term. I think that you run you run the risk of then for us having, respectfully, a retirement home or, you know, for your your employees because you're hiring people that are helping doing the doing and but have no insights or thoughts as to what does the future look like for me as an employee, as a business. I think also as well, let's face it. Right? Upskilling your employees is such an underrated trait for any company. Right? Yeah. If ever, ever cries on the wall of talent, oh, we can't find the right people, the lucky person sat there in your business right now probably want to move across or up, but but you've not created the skills taxonomy to understand who sits where, who's done what. You've not had, you know, apart from your general touch points around, hey. Let's do our, you know, our our review. You have no idea what the goals are because they're scared to tell you their goals because they've assumed there's no way to gain new skills and new new avenues in the business. And that's why people leave. So I think the run you run the risk of not adopting this approach to skills based time by one, adding fresh blood into your business that people don't want to come in, bring new skills, sets a growth mindset, and learn, but on the flip side of it as well. What you don't wanna have is this new workforce of fresh ideas, new thinking, and hire them based on that. And then think, well, what about our current incumbents? Are they just gonna stay where they are? I would then energize and engage with them as well. So it's it's almost like a double lens where you have to look at it from a traction point of view in terms of actually when we go and hire people, bring them in. But then they're seeing this new one hiring come as a business. It's like, well, but what about me? I've been here for two or three years. How do I fit into this scheme as well? You have to kind of approach it with both lenses instead of the attraction piece, also the retention obstacle piece as well. That's where the kind of if you get that right, you know, you're gonna find, you know, your increased retention on there, you know, a lot more referrals. It's almost like this catalyst. If you get it right, you always reduce a lot of your hiring costs too as well. And I hate saying that as being part of TA, but you need to go out and hire and invest in TA teams. But if you energize your internal resources or ability with these skills matrix as a skill based hiring, after all, you hire externally, could have been hired internally. Yeah. Yeah. And it's so easy to forget about that cohort, isn't it? Like, we're so focused on what are the skills that we now need to bring in to the organization, but, actually, it's such an important point. There has to be that balance between attracting new skills in, but also, developing and nurturing those that that we have internally. Teresa, before I move into a more practical case study, is there anything you wanted to add on there just in in response to what Dominic had mentioned? Yeah. I totally agree from the risk point of view. Particularly in in smaller organizations, you might have one one person that's a a value point because they're the only person that's got that knowledge, got that skill. And, a a provocative, if that's the right word, being provocative, if that's the right word, is to so if you're not doing this, what else are you doing instead? Because you you would just be like firefighting, as Dominic said. If you haven't if you're not gathering this data or thinking from a workforce planning point of view, and, as a as a final, response, it would be, yes. Skills are a business problem. It might mean you lose a client, you you lose a customer. It's about revenue, bottom line at the end of the day. Absolutely. So next, I wanna talk us through a practical tool for ensuring employees have clear expectations even as AI changes how we all work. And this is where an expectation comes in handy. And it's one of those powerful tools for landing a skills first strategy inside your organization. So I have a real example here from Personio, which I'll show you on the screen and explain a little bit about how we use it. So here's the big picture just to make sure we're all on the same page. An expectation framework maps out the levels within a job family. So that's everything from the entry level role right up to the senior leadership role within that job family. And in this mock up framework for a people ops job family, you'll see a snapshot of three of the levels in this framework. So we have our people ops coordinator, we have our people ops manager, and we have our senior people ops partner. At Personio, we define what's expected at each stage in terms of three dimensions. So the first one being impact. So the scope of work, how their work contributes to company objectives, quality expectations, and the achievement of business outcomes. The second dimension is just around the functional mastery. So think those domain specific skills required for excellence. So this is just a mock up general examples, but the specifics might, you know, include how we use AI, prompt engineering workflow, and integration. And then the third dimension is just how AI is woven amongst all of that. So let's zoom in then on how we're codifying expectations when it comes to AI. So here you'll see the first three proficiency levels in our framework along with a few bullets for what we expect at each level. So, of course, following company guidelines about protecting sensitive information is an expectation of all employees no matter the level, but you'll see how sophistication increases with seniority. And we're indexing on building scalable processes that save measurable time and ensuring verification and human in the loop guardrails are clear for all of our people. An expectation framework like this really helps keep expectations clear and visible while giving managers a shared language for consistent performance conversations. And I suppose the last thing I'll say on this is it's not just used for performance conversations. A solid expectation framework will be embedded at various points of the employee life cycle to ensure that it is consistently used, not only when managers are building a job description to what TA is hiring for in Dominic's world and then right through to how we're using it for performance and how we think about the shape of the organization overall. So, Dominic, just coming back to you, we've talked about how job descriptions have shifted as AI came on the scene. Assuming we'll see work itself, I suppose, continue to evolve alongside AI capabilities, how do you make sure a framework like this is flexible enough to move with the times, and not just reflect the current job as it exists today? Yes. Great question. I think the biggest mistake that companies make with frameworks is treat them like something you finish. Because the moment you complete a framework in a world where AI is evolving monthly, it's already aging. So the goal isn't to make it perfect. Right? The goal is to make it adaptable by design. So I guess, the simplest way to think about it is lock the outcomes, flex the execution side of it. So what stays relatively stable would be things around what success looks like, the level of impact expected, the skill of responsibility. Right? They kind of all stay where they are. What should then be fluid would be, you know, how the work gets done, what tools are used, especially AI, what specific skills are needed. Right? So when frameworks usually go wrong is they over index. Right? Tools, processes, specific technical skills. So you end up with things like, must be efficient in x platform, which becomes outdated almost immediately. Right? Instead shifted to can leverage available tools, you know, including AI to achieve x outcome. That's kind of the differentiation we're looking for there. Because now what you've done is you future proofed expectation about deemed to rewrite it every quarter, and that's kind of the key here. I think the second thing you need to look at really is, you know, modularity. So rather than one big rigid framework, I think of it think of it in, components. Right? So, you know, core capabilities, more stable. Then looking at emerging skills, as you mentioned earlier, but the ever change in market and AI's influence. So these are more, I'd say, reviewed regularly. So instead of rewriting everything, you're just updating parts of it. Right? And I think you need to update it constantly, you know, not the whole thing. Right? So you need to do this whole, like, rhythm review. So light touch light light light touch chickens regularly, quarterly, people reviews annually. I guess the key question isn't is the framework correct. It's more around it is still helping us make better decisions, you know, around hiring, promotion, development. If it's not, it needs to adjust it. Right? I think, you know, I'd say, don't let the framework itself sit in isolation. Right? So it's not connected to hiring processes, not connected to the forms of views, instability. It becomes stacked by default. Mhmm. Yeah. Absolutely. I suppose the other thing you didn't mention there, but I'm curious to get your thoughts on it while we have you, is also education around how it's used. And I think, you know, helping people understand both managers and ICs what it is and what it isn't. Because often I think people see it as, you know, a bit of a checkbox exercise when they think about, you know, their progression or development to the next level, whatever the case may be. But how important is the enablement of how to use expectation frameworks in organizations? Yeah. It's a great question. I think, you know, I think in terms of, obviously, like, how best to use the framework itself there, I think it's for hiring itself, it gives you kind of a clear definition of what good looks like before you even open the wrong way. So instead of reinventing criteria every time you hire against it, you kinda have these persistent capabilities, observable behaviors, aligned expectations across interviewers. I think it then turns hiring from being opinion based into evidence based, which is why it's good. I think also runs the relevant side of it. It shows people what's expected at the next level, what skills they need to build, how they can grow, not just vertically, but laterally. I think this is obviously where it becomes very valuable in AI context because roles are changing. Right? But capability building still needs that direction, and input. So and then to the point around mobility as well from a higher lens, this is the, you know, this is the unlock the kind of most orgs miss. If you've defined skills properly, you can start to see things around where those skills exist across the business. Right? In terms of reaching earlier, where they're needed, but also how to move people between teams because that's how you stop talent being trapped in job titles. Right? I think none of it works without enablement. This is the highest part. Right? Because frameworks don't fail because they're wrong. They fail because no one else changes around them. That's kind of what I'd say as well. It comes down to three things. Right? In element, embed it into decisions, make it usable, not perfect, and then incentivize it. Because managers need a reason to engage. Right? Better hiring outcomes, their performance conversations, easier internal moves. Right? A skills framework and is isn't valuable because it exists. It's valuable when it changes how decisions get made at scale, and that's what I probably say is is needed right now. Absolutely. And, Teresa, I suppose from your perspective, how does an expectation framework like this help when trying to make skills and talent mobile across the the business? This this connects to a current project where it's completely new, to quite a lot of the organization and to subject matter experts that I'm working with and really established quite a a knowledge gap. So I've come up with this, analogy of the the expectation framework would be your passport. So that gives you your identity, your belonging, which I alluded to earlier with your with your job role description. And then what you might be to ever to ever you're working with, whether it's internally, externally on your LinkedIn profiles, like your business card. That is your identity to the outside world. And then collecting skills, developing your skills, or going on, assignments, projects, working with different teams, that's your Visa. So you're collecting different stamps on your Visa as you, as you develop the skills and develop the experiences within your work. And, and that seems to have landed quite well because there was that misconception that the work that I was doing around, job architecture skills framework, expectation framework was a a restructure, and it's not the same thing. It's just about that belonging in your password. So I think that's a a good way to to make it, come to life. I absolutely love that framing. I think that will resonate with so many people on the call here. And so thank you both for that. Just to recap, why do expectation frameworks like this matter in the age of AI? And there's really three reasons. So the first one being transparency. Everyone knows what good looks like and what it takes to progress. Agility, you can update competencies as AI shifts the work without rewriting every role. And third, strategic planning. So people business partners can map skills gaps, plan reskilling, and budget more proactively in partnership with leaders across the business and finance teams. The takeaway here is really, really simple. If you want to become a skills based organization, you need a system that shows what skills and competencies matter, how they grow, and where they're going. An expectation framework is a significant element of that system. And once you build it, it works for hiring, development, planning, and retention all at once. And don't forget to what Dominic talked about. Enablement of all of this is incredibly important as well. So, hopefully, that case study was helpful, again, just to to bring things to life for people. So we've talked a lot about the various aspects of building a skills based strategy. And as we just saw, I've seen a real example of how expectation frameworks are a critical part of that. Before we go to the break, I wanna get some specific takeaways from both of you, or sorry, from from each of you. So for those listening who are thinking, this sounds great, but I don't have the bandwidth to do this. And this was a concern we heard about AI adoption and people finding time for this in the previous panel. What's the first small step that you would recommend and what can actually move the needle even with time constraints? And I think, Teresa, we will go to you first. Hi. I think it's, linking again to what Dominic said is is not and and what was said on the early session is don't don't try to eat the elephant all at once or the common phrases like don't boil the ocean. It is to it is to start with something that that matters and, to not only think around, the people metrics, which we tend to do. We tend to focus on the people metrics metrics, is to have a balance between the business metrics and to develop a a solid use case around that and to see where you can link it into something that's happened. Often if there's, like, a new product line, an AI is a real a real great use case for this because if you're developing new product lines, new service lines with AI, that's an ideal place to to to start it from a a greenfield rather than working backwards from something that's already in existence. So I'd say that would be an ideal place to start where you have a blank sheet of paper, and you can develop this as a as an upper as one mini operating model to sell it elsewhere with the benefits. And I'd say that really is critical that you don't start thinking, oh, we'll build we'll build a a skills tax on me. We'll get the technology, and that's where people tend to fail is to do it, you know, lo fi. Don't be starting with the tech and and developing a a skill suit skills framework that's got way too much in it. It's it's to it's less is actually more, and and identify those those critical friction points, critical skills gaps that are really if you took those skills away for a particular part of the business, what would happen? And that's, and that works. So if that if that work failed and you didn't have the people to deliver it, that's the great place to start. Fantastic. And the less is more is such an important takeaway amongst lots of the other things that you just said there, Theresa, because I think I have seen them be overcomplicated Mhmm. With lots of words, but it's actually telling you nothing or it's telling the employee nothing. So that's where I suppose they they begin to die on the vine. And, Dominic, same question to you. What's the first small step that you would recommend, and what can actually move the needle even with those time constraints that we spoke with? I've got, a great point by Theresa there. Really good points there. I think, you know, regarding the bandwidth side of it, you know, that's the reality for most teams. Right? No one's sitting there. I don't have to spare time thinking Mhmm. Let's redesign let's redesign hiring, baby. Like, let's do it. So the key is, like, don't start strategy, start test because that's the first small step. Right? Let's take one of the role. Ideally, one you're actually hiring for and completely should be back. Right? Literally remove years experience on there. I'm tired of seeing that on every job. It doesn't no. Saying it doesn't guarantee experience. Right? Facts. Remove must have worked in x industry. Right? Again, what's the direction behind that? It's gonna be proof that that's actually benefit any hires that you've made. And then remove anything that's a proxy. Right? So do all that and then ask what does someone actually need to be able to do to succeed in six months. Right? Usually, it lands on four or five real capabilities roughly, give or take. And then make one upgrade to your interview as well off the back of that. Right? So Allison question, like I mentioned earlier. Tell me about a time you have had a source that you've never done before. What you do first? But also look at things around critical thinking, the growth mindset rather than looking respectively. Right? And then she's like a basic scorecard, right, for for hiring. So how they think, how they act, how they learn, how they use tools. These no one's doing it right now, and it's so crucial as part of that adoptions and skills based approach. Right? You know, no new system, no, you know, no overhaul, no budget. So, again, it's stakeholder friendly. Right? And I guess why this works is because it immediately changes who gets through screening. What are you evaluating in interviews? How consistent your decisions are, right, without slowing down anything at all? I think this is the bit that I probably emphasize. Most companies don't fall or fail at this because it's too hard. They fail because they try and do too much at once. So they map the whole org out, build a massive framework. Nothing actually changes the hiring. So I think you change one role, you change one decision. If you change enough decisions, you change the whole strategy. Right? Absolutely. What a great point to finish on. Teresa, Dominic, thank you for all of the fantastic insights that you've shared today and the great discussion. I think you've given me and everyone who is watching a lot to to think about. So thank you for that.