One of the topics I get asked to cover frequently is the growth of the corporate executive recruiting function. So with that in mind, I’ve partnered with ESIX, The Executive Search Information Exchange, to bring you a series of three interviews exploring the key trends and issues in corporate executive recruiting.
In episode 363, we talked about the evolution of corporate executive recruiting; in this episode, I want to explore diversity at the executive level and how employers can do better. My guest is Elizabeth Wallace, Head of Portfolio Talent at HG, and she has some valuable insights and advice to share.
In the interview, we discuss:
▪ How the pandemic is changing executive recruiting
▪ Opening up diverse talent pools with flexible working
▪ Diversity, Equity and Equality
▪ Assessment for development, not selection
▪ Social Mobility
▪ Challenging recruiting norms
▪ The value of talent to organisations and talent as a business function
▪ Transparent, human leadership
▪ Hopes for the next 12 to 18 months
Listen to this podcast in Apple Podcasts.
Transcript:
Matt Alder [00:00:00]:
Support for this podcast comes from E6. For 25 years, E6 has been the preeminent peer networking and independent information source for corporate executive recruiting leaders worldwide. Featuring members from around 100 of the leading employers in the world, it is the one stop shop for trusted networking with peers, for benchmarking and for team development. Find out more about membership@www.e6.org, that’s ww.e6.org and e6 is spelled e S I X Or buy their book Leadership Recruiting on Amazon.
Matt Alder [00:00:58]:
Hi everyone, this is Matt Alder. Welcome to episode 364 of the Recruiting Future podcast. One of the topics I get asked to cover frequently is the growth of the corporate executive recruiting function. So with that in mind, I’ve partnered with e6, the executive search information Exchange to bring you a series of three interviews exploring the key trends and issues in corporate executive recruiting. In episode 363 we spoke about the evolution of corporate executive recruiting. In this episode I want to explore diversity at the executive level and how employers can be doing better. My guest is Elizabeth Wallace, head of portfolio talent at HG and she has some very valuable insights and advice to share. Hi Elizabeth and welcome to the podcast.
Elizabeth Wallace [00:01:49]:
Thank you Matt. Glad to be here.
Matt Alder [00:01:52]:
An absolute pleasure to have you on the show. Could you just introduce yourself and tell us?
Elizabeth Wallace [00:01:56]:
Sure. So my name is Elizabeth Wallace. I am the head of portfolio talent for a company called hg. We’re a private equity firm. We are mainly investing in software companies. So that’s really the backbone of everything that we do. We’ve got a small number of tech services companies within our portfolio. We’ve got about 40 portfolio companies across Europe and the US EV of circa $70 billion, 50,000 employees across them. But HG itself is about 230 employees about funds under management of about $30 billion. I was hired just over two years ago actually to build out a new function for HG which is the portfolio talent function. And essentially myself and my team are responsible for all of the C level. So that’s kind of any direct reports into the CEO, the CEO and board and we’re responsible for all of that talent acqu we do directly mainly as well as any of the kind of talent management and development pieces that need to happen, plus assessments. So that’s broadly a very quick snapshot of me and what I do.
Matt Alder [00:03:05]:
Fantastic stuff. And I want to sort of Dig into some of that later because I think there’s some really fascinating things there. Before we do, though, let’s just talk a little bit more generally about exec recruitment and really the effect that the pandemic’s had on it over the last 18 months. What have you been seeing? What has it been like?
Elizabeth Wallace [00:03:23]:
You know, it’s a bit of a tale of two cities, and I think it really depends who you ask, you know, what I have seen. I’ve been in recruitment or talent space for almost 20 years. So when I graduated, I really haven’t done anything since I fell into it, and I haven’t really had the skills to do anything else. But I love it. I absolutely love this space. And it has really developed and changed in that time. And what Covid really brought, I think, was a couple of different things. So some of the really good stuff around flexibility, you know, we all know that working from home, it has worked because it had to work. You know, technology, you know, being a technology investing company, technology really was at the heart of that, right? It facilitated it. But you know, to be honest, this has been going back many years, the flexible working piece. You know, the banks have been. They’ve allowed flexible working for many different reasons, not least to reduce the real estate expense in various expensive cities. So working from home has always kind of been there. But now candidates are saying to us, I’m not really too interested in taking on a position where I’m five days a week in an office for a variety of reasons, that’s one thing. But what that really means is the candidate pools are opening up. You know, the idea of working from home isn’t as taboo as it was before, if I’m going to be frank, because everybody knows it works because they’ve had to work from home. And I think what that means is, you know, lower cost locations for candidates. You know, candidates completely working from home or being more flexible or those that haven’t, you know, they’re returning to work, you know, that’s open all of that up. And what that then opens up is the diversity piece, which for us is really important, you know, that. That diverse candidate pool, and I mean diversity across all of the different pools and strands of diversity that’s really opened, at least opened up the opportunity and the conversation, you know, from where it was kind of a year, year and a half ago. I think also, you know, people’s minds have changed around, you know, the ability to be able to talk about mental health. You know, what that really means, what it means to People. And again, for some people, that was quite taboo to talk about. But, you know, for a lot of people during COVID you know, we really got to see the insides of their homes. We got to get to know them better and more. And so that conversation again has opened back up. So the world of work and talent, which is at the top of that, that has changed. And, boy, it’s for the better. But it’s been a rocky road of getting there, and I don’t think it’s perfect yet. I think we’re just at the start of a change in the way that we’re working, the talent we’re bringing in and how we work. These kind of big collaboration spaces that organizations have put together, rather than you sit at your DES all day, is that let’s collaborate, let’s brainstorm, let’s share ideas, let’s be in the office for a reason and make it productive. So I think that’s what Covid has probably brought us. And then I think things are different across different geographics. Right. If you look at the States, you know, look, it’s a similar situation in many ways, but then, you know, you had a huge outpouring with, you know, blm. You know, all of what. What that’s brought now has it here. Here in Europe, you know, it. We tend to lag behind the US in a lot of the trends around people and a lot of the, you know, a lot of the really great stuff that’s happening around diversity there. So, you know, that is. That’s coming here more and more. That’s what I’m really seeing as I don’t think it’s even a trend. I think it’s a change and a much needed one. So Covid, what’s been terrible for many people, and it’s affected lots of people’s lives, If I think about talent in the world of work, I think it’s opened the conversation, I think it’s changed the dialogue. And I think the flexibility piece in lots of different ways is a great thing. And I don’t think we’ll be going back from there.
Matt Alder [00:07:35]:
Absolutely. And I think you’re totally right in terms of we’re really at the kind of the beginning of this journey to the next stage of work and whatever that is going to look like. Just to dig a little bit deeper into the diversity strategy, you have to tell us a little bit more about what you do to make sure you have a diverse pool of candidates at the level that you recruit at.
Elizabeth Wallace [00:07:57]:
So diversity is a really interesting one. So we have to ask what do we mean by diversity and what’s important to our organizations and why are we doing this? So there’s a whole bunch of questions that we ask ourselves beforehand. I will talk about the industry in general. Private equity is still somewhat nascent in this area and again, very different in the States versus Europe. I think diversity means different things in different geographics. Right. So you think about Asia, again, it’ll be slightly different there versus here. So with all of that backdrop, just in general, if we talk about private equities and industry and private equity backed companies, it’s a tough gig because I think it hasn’t been top of the agenda for long. Private equity isn’t a particularly old industry. It’s a few decades old essentially and essentially born out of investment banking. If I look at my old industry where I used to work, I worked in asset management. That’s hundreds of years old. So a long time to really think about what makes a good organization, what the power of diversity brings in investing. Why would you not do it and make lots of really big mistakes in getting to the right answer? Then I came into private equity and it was a bit of a shock, but I understood that there’s a real desire in private equity and especially driven by investors, if I’m going to be frank. And that’s generally where these things come from. Investors saying to us and saying to many of our private equity peers, if your organizations don’t reflect our communities, we’re not going to invest in you. Your boards need to reflect our communities. But this is taking a while. This is going to take a little while. This is not a quick fix, silver bullet situation. So the awareness and the education around it comes first. And I would say in terms of diversity, what I really feel strongly about is it can’t just be talking about I need to hire more women. Right, look, that’s a start. But you’ve got to have an equitable workplace where there’s equity, equality and diversity together. This no longer we’re talking about IND or DI as we were many years ago. This is all about is this an equal workplace where people have their voices heard. It doesn’t matter where you come from, you know what your ethnicity is, you know what you identify as sexually. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Martian, a female, a male, non binary, you know, it doesn’t matter. You have an equal platform, equal opportunities within that organization and then you can start to bring the diversity in. Because nothing worse than an organization where it’s dominated by the in group and then you bring in some folks from the out group, whatever that might look like, and land them into an organization where it hasn’t gone through that equality journey. So we talk about equality first. Is this an inclusive environment? Are there equal opportunities here for folks? Are people educated in terms of what this means? Are they educated and are they aware of what’s happening in the world around them in different geographics? What can they learn from that? And why are we bringing these folks in? This isn’t a HR driven exercise. This makes good business sense. It is the right thing to do. And the world has changed and this is the future. This is the world of work as we stand right now. And if we don’t get on that page, we’re going to be sorely behind in many different ways. But the right thing to do is really the crux of all of this. And so when we think about hiring at the C level, so the CEO and his or her direct reports and the board, we always find the best candidate, right? We always do. But we have a super strong lens on if it’s in the States. We look at all forms of diversity, but really we have to start somewhere. So we start with what we can measure there, which is, you know, gender diversity and ethnicity. And in Europe, you know, depending on which region it is, will focus on gender diversity, but actually still have our lens on other forms of diversity where people have. But they have to self disclose, right? So you know, us being able to measure that is a bit of a tricky one. But you know, our lens is always on that. But really we also think about how different, what is it we need to get to in the end? What’s the end goal here and who’s going to get us there and what’s the makeup of the team, not just the individual, but what are we lacking in that team? Are we lacking a diverse background? Are we lacking somebody who, you know, has a specific skill set? And then how do we find that within the candidate pool out there? We also want to be very clear, I think a narrative around, you know, this, this line that is out there that I think is really unfair. This male pale stale narrative. I think that’s really wrong. I think there are, I think everybody should be included, right? Inclusive environment, Inclusive everybody, no matter what, what you identify as. And you know, we have in tech, right? It’s tech and it’s private equity. There are a lot of males in our organizations and I don’t like that narrative. It makes people feel like then they’re shoved into an out group. And that’s really wrong. What we say is who are the best candidates? We map it all out who are the best from that list. And really, if we feel in that team they’re really missing diversity in whatever strand, we really, really focus on that. But we still always make sure we’re the best candidate. And then our view is we’ve got to bring those folks in and set them up for success. Because you’re really only looking at half the journey. When you say hire, you’ve then got onboarding, which is generally done really poorly in organizations. You’ve got to have a differentiated onboarding process and then you’ve got to have a buddy process, a mentor process around that as well, where folks who might come from a different background might be coming into an out group dominated environment. Sorry, an in group dominated environment. So they might be part of an out group. How is that going to land in there? How are folks educated around how to onboard that person properly set them up for success, promote those folks, make sure they’re retained, paid fairly, etc. So hiring is just the part and the start of the journey, really. I think, if that makes sense.
Matt Alder [00:14:30]:
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I was going to ask you a little bit about assessment because you obviously mentioned that that’s a key part of your role. Tell us a little bit more about that, Matt.
Elizabeth Wallace [00:14:40]:
That is a really big one. It is something very close to my heart in many ways because I think, as I mentioned before, I came from an industry, I came from asset management, which is just that bit more developed. It’s an older industry, it’s a bit more developed than this particular industry and much you wouldn’t do in this industry from that one. But much you’d learn from what we did over there to not do here and then some stuff to do here. An assessment was really interesting to me. So when I joined, assessment was used for selection. So when I came on board, we’d interview people and there was no sense of using an assessment tool, clearing the title as a tool. It was a sense of that. If that tool says yes, then great. If that tool says no, then no, we’re not hiring. I said, right, you’ve gone through all of this. Why are we using this tool in particular? It’s full of holes. There’s no science behind it that makes any sense. It’s not a great tool to use and that should be part of your decision making if you want to use it for selection. But there was just this sense of the whole industry. Does it so we’ve got to do it. And I found that really fascinating. I think these tools can be helpful to build the picture of the person you’re hiring. But the science has moved away from that individual piece, moved away from the selection piece and it’s moved on to teams. What is the team that you have here? What’s the makeup of that team? What are the collective strengths and the collective developmental areas for these individuals within the team? So we started using a tool that’s based, it’s for teams and it’s new. It came from Estonia by a bunch of really smart guys over there. And we use it in the selection process in the sense of using it as a tool to say, here’s some additional information. Private equity is a data rich, hungry environment and industry. And the more data you give, the bigger and better the picture becomes. And so we said we’re going to use it for that, but we are absolutely not using it for selection. To say yes or no, that just does not work for us. There’s no basis for it. Just because it’s always been done that way doesn’t make sense. And a lot of tools create social inequalities. And interesting enough, I’m doing a master’s in organizational psychology and my thesis is on this because I feel so strongly about it. I’ve looked into hundreds of these tools. I’ve taken hundreds of them myself. I’ve looked at the results, I’ve looked at the science behind them. I’ve spoken to 30 of my peers in private equity and said, why do you use that tool? Why are you all using the same thing? It’s this big business piece. So there’s a bit of a push against these tools at the moment and a shift to say, why are we using them? Why does this make sense? And actually why isn’t it just used for development? So for us, we use it a little in selection, but not, it’s just literally as a tool. But as we come along to the developmental stage, we say everybody has a developmental area, two or three, and we should be using these in conjunction with the individual to say, does this reflect you? And how can we help you more? How can we work together on this? How can we all work as a team on our collective areas of development, but use our strengths to mitigate those and to help each other understand our derailers under stress, right? We get under stress. These are high growth organizations. You know, there’s going to be a lot of stress, there’s going to be a lot of strain. You know, how do I understand and talk to you and ensure that my message lands better with you when you are under stress and you know, and that I recognize the signs and vice versa. So working as a team rather than this individual approach. And of course, look, you can work with individuals on individual developmental plans, but it creates trust. You know, there’s a better environment. The science shows that when you do that and you move down that path, you get better results at the end of the day, and that hits your bottom line in a positive way. The social inequalities piece for me is really interesting because many private equity firms, there are a lot of industries that use these, but these psychometric tools that are used again for selection, if you don’t pass the tool, it’s a pass or fail situation. And as you talked about earlier, you said to me, let’s talk about diversity. Well, this is a key thing, right? The industry needs more diverse folks 100%. We all know that. It’s very clear. This isn’t specific to hg. This is the whole of the industry. But as we think about the folks that we’re trying to bring in, those folks may not have had the opportunities that other folks had. Right? So you may have gone to, you may be in a lower socioeconomic group, have gone to a less well established school, but you’re bright, you have many different areas of strengths. They might not be in mathematics, they might not be. You may have never seen a psychometric tool before, whereas some of your peers who have had a different environment that they’ve grown up on, might have gone to a different school, different socioeconomic background, ethnic background, etc. And had different opportunities. Communities will be well versed in this stuff generally. Right. And so how is that a level playing field to come in and say you need to do all do the same tests? Because we’re saying we want the same things from you, so we all want the same, you know, kind of cognitive ability, numerical, et cetera. So generally we’re talking about IQ tests or intelligence tests. We’re saying that that equals intelligence. We’re not giving enough room to say, well, hold on, not everybody had the same level playing field. And actually, what about creativity? Why is that not a form of intelligence? What does intelligence really mean in 2021? And so I think a lot of this is outdated. It creates these social inequalities. I’ve seen it in organizations, spoken to peers, where they’ve said, there are some brilliant interns we wanted to bring in who are ethnically diverse, but didn’t Pass that tool. But the big banks have hired them because the big banks are like, they’re saying this and we get it now, right? We need to think about IQ in a very different way. We need to be thinking about eq, what that brings into an organization, not have a homogenous group of people working within the organization. And so I feel very strongly that these tools, many of them, can create social inequalities and not give folks the hand up and get them into a level playing field and change our organizations because these will be the leaders of the future. So that’s that. For me, tools is. It’s a very, very big area and it’s one that really needs to be looked at and thought about because this is not straightforward. But the. It’s a big business, it’s profitable. It is, there’s a lot behind it. There’s lots of people who’ve got these tools and they’ve run these tools for many years and they created them and they’re making a lot of money from them. But actually lots of organizations are not thinking about, well, why am I using that? Does that make sense anymore? It’s quite expensive. Should we do away from altogether? So that’s really how I feel about the tool situation.
Matt Alder [00:21:59]:
I think that’s very interesting and I think there’s a really interesting broader point there about challenging recruiting norms, challenging the kind of received wisdom that’s been passed down and the way, the way things have always been done and now just seems the perfect time to do that. Definitely. So just thinking sort of slightly more broadly about talent as a whole. Obviously you’ve got quite an interesting and unique role in terms of what you do and what your organization does. Tools talk about how the value of talent is perceived in terms of its relationship to sort of driving and growing business.
Elizabeth Wallace [00:22:33]:
So, you know, I always say the same phrase, which is again very true and it’s very true for this industry, but many others where they’re all at different, all the industries are different stages, right. Of kind of the talent journey and how mature they are in terms of how they view talent in organizations. So for me, I would say this talent is always at the top of the agenda for me. Right. You’ve got to, you can have the best product. But you know, what would Apple have been without someone like a Steve Jobs, you know, a charisma? You know, some people would have found a charismatic leader, somebody who had a vision. Lots of pros and cons to all of that, but brilliant product, but without the people, what are you and to me, talent always has to be the greatest value creation lever you can pull. And it’s got to be top of the agenda. But when I would, I’d look through investment committee decks and I would see talent would be kind of page 69 of a 70 page deck. And it always fascinated me because I thought, why? But that should be really at the front of the deck. It’s right, who are people? What have we got here? And then everything else flows from that. And to me, if you have the right people, if you have a brilliant management team in an ideal world of diverse folks who challenge each other, non homogenous group, you are going to see fantastic value created from that group that will hit your bottom line over the period, the whole period, in terms of how long you hold onto the company for and then exit it. And generally you get about five years or so. And so to me, that is versus homogenous group of folks that are, you know, good enough for the role. Some who, who might not be able to make the journey, but they’re still there. You know, a what about the charismatic, thoughtful leader at the top? You know, if you’re missing that, if that’s shaky, if that doesn’t make sense, then I’ve seen it time and time again as I look at the company’s results. The lack of development and the lack of awareness in these folks really means at the end of the day that the organization that could be brilliant and the profit at the end that could be stellar just isn’t there. Whereas if you put together amazing teams of people and they don’t all have to be a stars, right? This is the magic bullet here, is that you don’t have to have a on the scorecard for everybody because that just doesn’t work either. Right? You’ve got to have a mix of folks that understand there’s a clear strategy, clear objectives, and you get that from the top. I always look at the top, at leadership and say if there are fundamental issues in the business, leadership is responsible for that. They must know what’s going on. They must have a clear agenda for employees, clear objectives, and they must state that they must be transparent, they must be human. And that’s what Covid has definitely taught us. For us to be able to get to a very positive bottom line, to be able to scale our organizations, we’ve got to think about the folks we have now. How do we develop those folks, how do we retain those folks? What are their intrinsic motivations? Do you really know your people? Because I’ll be Asked a lot about this and we’ll just pay them more. I said, how do you know that their intrinsic motivation is money? How do you know it might be yours, might not be theirs? I’ll tell you an example of a really amazing company. You know, won’t name names, but there was a company that was set up, and it was set up by a bunch of guys that were at university together, and they employed folks from that town they were from. So the folks from the university they went to, they had a lot of folks through that they employed, they gave back a lot of business to the. To the local community. Great business. And if you had done an assessment of them when they were younger, it was all about, how are we going to make money? So money was an intrinsic motivator and that if you pay them more, you get the great value at the end. By the time we came to invest in them, we did a management assessment just to see, okay, here’s the tool. Let’s just see what we have. And we were very open, transparent. We sat down, we went through all of the details that came back from the tool. And our guys are a little worried because they said, well, commerce is really low, but they are philanthropic. Philanthropy is a really big thing for them. And what does this mean? That they’re not going to be too interested in making money for us? I said, no, we’ve just paid them a lot of money for that company. And so that that motivation’s now changed. So to get the best out of these guys sitting there talking about making them more money, that doesn’t motivate them. Talking about how this is going to give back further to the community, that philanthropic piece, altruistic piece, that for them matters, you know, and so really understanding our folks and being able to take them on a journey and to be able to say, we know what makes you tick, and it’s not a presumption, it’s a known fact, then we can kind of start to scale our organizations. We compound and scale them then from there, you know, with the right development, with the right understanding of folks. I think that’s how you scale organizations with talent. You scale them up, you develop your folks. You realize that some people won’t make that journey. Some people will always be, you know, a scaler from 50 to 100, but they’re not going to be the 100 to 200 person. And they know it themselves. Right? There might be another job for them in the organization, or it may actually be that the organization outgrows them. But as long as you keep your folks developed, you keep them, you know, motivated, but you understand what those motivations really mean. That, to me, is a beautiful model of being able to compound up and scale. Keep scaling those organizations, keep them growing, keep them developing, keep your folks engaged, educated, awareness. And I think that, to me, is where I’ve seen brilliant examples. And when we don’t go down that route, you get a result at the end of the day that the environment, the market will tick on. They’ll still do a nice job, you’ll still get a good end result, but will it be good or brilliant? And that’s, I think, the difference.
Matt Alder [00:29:06]:
So as a final question, we’ve talked a lot about how things are changing and how they’re sort of going to move forward in the future. What do you hope to see in terms of the evolution of talent acquisition, particularly at the executive level, over the next sort of 18 months to 2 years? What would you really hope would happen?
Elizabeth Wallace [00:29:25]:
So slightly controversial. I don’t see talent as a function of hr, so I see talent as a business function. I think at that level. When I think about executive level, I see it as seat at the table, giving business leaders, you know, CEOs advice and the board advice on hiring in and retaining and developing executives as a business, a business line, you know, this is making decisions about your business through people. So leadership creating value, that’s really the line here. Leadership creating value. And that to me, is a business line that is not. It’s got to be seen as important. It’s got to be seen as separate to, you know, kind of more of the lateral recruitment programs, the graduate programs. They’re all different in their own rights and they all have a place. But I think everything is lobbed in together in lots of organizations, in house, into one and not differentiated enough. And actually, in my years in doing this, I really see it as a different thing, really different, different offering. And even more so in coming into private equity. I just see it as different. We actually don’t sit as part of hr. It’s a separate function. And I’ve always believed that that makes sense because you’re working for the business, with the business, really. And I think when you’re trying to drive, and I hate the word initiative, so I don’t tend to use them like diversity initiatives. Sound like something for a little while, but it doesn’t sound like this is. This is a business objective and goal and something that’s here to stay. And so for me, that has to be driven with the business in partnership it can’t be. I’ve got to hire lots more women into this organization because I see that as a HR telling me to do it. And it’s hard for HR because they’re trying to drive all of these things, and at times it just doesn’t happen. And so I see it as a shift away from that. If you want to really focus on your top talent, it’s got to be in conjunction with the business. I definitely want to see more around diversity, and I want us to really stop seeing diversity. I think the short list of candidates, we’ve got to widen out those pools. We’ve got to stop talking about hiring 20% women every year or 30% women every year. It just gets slightly ridiculous. And I think it’s starting. The pendulum swung one way and it’s swung completely the opposite way. And I think we need to get to an equilibrium here where there’s not this sense that, oh, we’re hiring in diverse folks because we have to. Actually. These are stellar candidates with brilliant ideas, all brilliant in their own rights, with their own developmental needs. And everybody should have a voice at the table. It doesn’t matter whether you’re pink or green, whether you’re female, whether you’re male, any of those types of things. Everybody gets to have a say because they bring their own unique brilliance to work. And to me, that will take a long time, but I’m so hopeful. And we’re going to drive that here. We are driving it already. But that talk of, as I said to you earlier, male, pale, stale, I really just want to see that go. I think that’s really wrong. It makes people feel marginalized. As I said, there’s no equilibrium here. The pendulum’s got to go back into the middle, but different. And I definitely love the idea of people say the future of work. We’ve been talking about that for a long time. The management consultancies have talked about that for a very long time as well. Where it’s, what’s the future of work? But we’re in already, right? And I think Covid has just brought a lot of issues to the surface that needed to be aired out, that needed to be talked about, that have to now you can’t avoid these topics. And it’s brilliant. I think it’s fantastic. If you can take anything from a crisis, you should. And I think from COVID we have got to take this world of work. New way of being taboo’s kind of, you know, gone. I think we need to take that and we need to ride on that real quick to get to where we need to get to and then everything else kind of falls into place. So they’re kind of some of the things that I would see for talent and definitely not page 69 of a 70 page deck.
Matt Alder [00:33:42]:
Elizabeth, thank you very much for talking to me.
Elizabeth Wallace [00:33:45]:
Thank you Matt. Really enjoyed it. Thank you very much.
Matt Alder [00:33:47]:
My thanks to Elizabeth Wallace. If you want to find out more about E6 membership, then you can email their CEO Simon Mullins directly and his email address is Simon6.org you can subscribe to this podcast in Apple Podcasts on Spotify or via your podcasting app of choice. Please also follow the show on Instag. You can find us by searching for Recruiting Future. You can search all the past episodes@recruiting future.com on that site. You can also subscribe to the mailing list to get the inside track about everything that’s coming up on the show. Thanks very much for listening. I’ll be back next time and I hope you’ll join me.
