What 48 national squads, months of preparation, and decades of sports science can teach every organisation about building a team that truly performs.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off this week – the first edition to feature 48 teams, spread across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It is the largest football tournament in history. As with every previous World Cup, the team that lifts the trophy will almost certainly not be the one with the most individually talented players on its roster.

Despite having Zinedine Zidane, France did not win in 2002. Despite having Cristiano Ronaldo, Portugal did not win in 2016. Argentina had to wait until 2022—forty years after their previous title – before the pieces around Messi finally came together. Individual brilliance is necessary but not sufficient. The difference between a squad of stars and a high-performance team is something deeper, and organisations outside football have struggled to build it for decades. 

So what do national teams actually do in the months before a World Cup to create something that works? And what does it look like when it does?

What a national team actually has to build

Each team at this World Cup can name up to 26 players, including three goalkeepers. Those 26 players come from different clubs, different leagues, sometimes different countries, different cultures, different playing styles, and different conceptions of their own roles. They have spent the season competing against each other. They have approximately two weeks together before the first match.

The challenge is not talent; the challenge is cohesion – building, in a compressed timeframe, the shared understanding, trust, and role clarity that club teams develop over months and years.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will test not only teams’ tactical systems and physical preparation but also the maturity of their science ecosystems – with interdisciplinary collaboration evident from squad selection to player load management across up to eight matches. The environmental conditions – distances between cities, climate, travel schedules – add pressure for which no club season prepares players. Success, researchers note, depends on how effectively players transform uncertainty into opportunity, and variability into a source of resilience and creativity on the pitch.

That is a sentence that applies equally well in a boardroom.

The science of squad selection – it is not just about the best players

Watch closely when a national coach names their squad and you will notice something: the best player in a given position does not always make the cut. Form matters. Fitness matters. But so does something harder to quantify – how a player fits into the specific dynamic the coach is trying to build.

Brazil, for example, are trying to build a team around the speed, technique, and intelligent movement of their attacking players – not a traditional striker – supported by a strong midfield duo driven by Casemiro’s leadership.

That is not just a tactical choice; it is a team design decision: which combination of roles, personalities, and working styles produces the best collective output?

The use of positive language is crucial, both internally and aloud. While individual players need to develop internal skills to recover from setbacks and avoid spiralling, teammates should also offer encouragement in these moments. The psychological infrastructure of a team – how members communicate under pressure, respond to setbacks, and distribute leadership – is as carefully designed as the tactical formation.

What the preparation actually looks like

The months before a World Cup are not just about physical preparation; they are about team construction. Here is what the best national programmes do – and how this maps onto an organisational context:

The numbers that make this a business conversation

These are not football statistics; they are from Project Management Institute research and Fierce Inc. workplace studies. The dynamics that determine whether a national team wins a World Cup are structurally identical to those that determine whether a product team ships on time, whether a sales team meets its targets, or whether a leadership team survives a reorganisation.

The difference is that football coaches take these dynamics seriously enough to measure, design for, and invest in them before the tournament begins. Most organisations wait until something breaks.

What makes a team a team – the six roles

In football, every position on the pitch serves a distinct function – and no team wins with eleven strikers. The same logic applies in organisations. Research behind ZortifyTeam identifies six fundamental work roles that every high-performing team needs:

Every great football squad has players who naturally fill each of these roles – the creative midfielder, the defensive anchor, the vocal organiser, the quiet influencer. When a coach selects their squad, they are not simply choosing the best twenty-six players. They are designing a system of complementary roles.

Most organisations assemble teams by function and seniority. The question of whether the combination of personalities and working styles actually produces collective intelligence – or collective friction – is rarely asked until it becomes evident in the results.

What this World Cup will actually test

The 2026 World Cup’s vast distances between cities and increased number of knockout games will create conditions teams have never encountered before. The teams that navigate this best will not necessarily be the most talented. They will be the most cohesive – those who have built trust, role clarity, and collective resilience to perform well under conditions they did not fully anticipate.

That is the test. And it is the same test your organisation faces every quarter.

The best team does not win. The best-built team does.

ZORTIFYTEAM

Discover which roles your team is missing

ZortifyTeam maps the six fundamental work roles across your team – showing you where you have complementarity, where you have gaps, and what to do about it.

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

Amazon enters recruiting. Should HR be impressed or concerned?

Amazon Connect Talent has just launched. It can conduct AI voice interviews around the clock, score every candidate, and provide recruiters with a dashboard of results. Here is what it actually means for HR – and what it gets dangerously wrong.

Read more

The Sales Gene – does it actually exist?

We have been hiring salespeople incorrectly for decades. Not because we lack talent, but because we have been searching for the wrong qualities. Imagine the salesperson you would hire tomorrow. You probably already have an image in mind: confident, charismatic, outgoing, quick-witted. Someone who lights up a room and turns strangers into customers before the coffee goes cold.

Read more

The mis-hire is not the problem. Not knowing what it costs you is.

Around 14% of all new hires fail. Most companies are aware of this. Far fewer know what it is actually costing them, or where the money is quietly leaking away. Most finance directors have never seen this number on a spreadsheet. It does not appear in the quarterly report or the cost-per-hire metric. And it is unlikely to be on the agenda for your next board meeting.

Read more

Amazon Connect Talent has just launched. It can conduct AI voice interviews around the clock, score every candidate, and provide recruiters with a dashboard of results. Here is what it actually means for HR – and what it gets dangerously wrong.

Amazon does not enter markets quietly. When AWS announced Connect Talent in April 2026—an agentic AI platform that conducts structured voice interviews, scores candidates, and delivers hiring recommendations without human involvement – it sent a clear signal: AI is no longer merely assisting recruiters; it is replacing parts of the process entirely.

The headlines were predictably enthusiastic. The product is technically impressive. However, before HR leaders rush to adopt it, there are questions worth asking – about what it actually measures, what it overlooks, whether it is legal to use in Europe, and whether Amazon is truly the hiring role model anyone wants to follow.

What Amazon Connect Talent actually does

Amazon Connect Talent uses AI agents to conduct structured voice interviews, administer science-backed assessments, and score candidates consistently, allowing recruiters to focus on strategic decisions. Candidates can interview 24/7 from any device. The platform includes adaptive questioning, a mobile-first candidate portal, ATS integrations, and a recruiter dashboard with transcripts and evaluations.

Starting with an existing job description, AI agents analyse the role requirements and generate a complete interview plan – identifying key competencies, creating structured questions, and building evaluation criteria. Once approved, the system automatically invites candidates to interview at their convenience.

Informed by decades of Amazon’s hiring science, Amazon Connect Talent provides transparency for every assessment, interview, and candidate score, enabling recruiters to retain control over final hiring decisions. During the preview, the platform supports English, Portuguese, French, Italian, German, and Spanish.

On paper, it sounds compelling, particularly for high-volume hiring environments. AWS is explicit that the target is high-volume hiring: seasonal retail, logistics, healthcare staffing, and hospitality. Amazon hired approximately 250,000 seasonal workers in 2025. The product is, in some sense, Amazon packaging its own peak-season playbook.

What it means for HR

Amazon’s new system is designed to conduct voice interviews, assess responses, and produce hiring recommendations independently, rather than merely assisting with CV screening or interview scheduling as traditional recruiting software does. AI is no longer just acting as a productivity assistant; it is increasingly an operational layer that can run workflows, integrate decisions, and manage candidate interactions on an ongoing basis.

For talent acquisition leaders managing hundreds of open roles, the efficiency argument is compelling. Scheduling alone consumes enormous recruiter bandwidth. A system that conducts interviews around the clock, reduces time-to-hire, and delivers consistent scoring across all candidates addresses genuine pain points.

However, efficiency is not the same as quality. Speed is not the same as fit. The most expensive hiring mistake is not the slow hire – it is the fast hire who leaves after six months.

Bersin’s framing is telling: the use case is high-volume, high-turnover hiring. This raises a fundamental question for white-collar HR leaders – is that the problem you are trying to solve?

The dangers nobody is discussing

Is it even legal in Europe?

This is where the conversation becomes critical for any European HR leader considering Connect Talent.

The EU AI Act’s most critical compliance deadline for most enterprises is 2 December, 2027 (originally, on August 2, 2026), when requirements for Annex III high-risk AI systems become enforceable. This includes AI used in employment, credit decisions, education, and law enforcement contexts.

The regulation’s extra-territorial reach mirrors the GDPR. Any organisation, regardless of location, must comply if its AI systems are used within the EU or produce outputs that affect EU residents. A US-based company using AI for hiring that serves European customers falls within scope, even if the AI models run on servers outside Europe.

What does this mean in practice? Under the EU AI Act, AI systems used for employment screening are classified as high-risk. They require human oversight mechanisms, transparent documentation, bias auditing, explainability of outputs, and a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment before deployment.

Non-compliance exposes both the provider and the deploying organisation to administrative fines of up to €35 million or 7% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Amazon signed the GPAI Code of Practice in August 2025, alongside Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This is a transparency commitment for general-purpose AI models. It is not equivalent to the EU AI Act conformity assessment required for a high-risk employment screening system. These are distinct obligations, and Connect Talent currently offers no published conformity documentation for European deployment.

Additionally, Amazon Connect Talent includes built-in audit logging and documentation capabilities, which is a start. However, audit logging and EU AI Act compliance are not synonymous. Works councils in Germany, employee representative bodies in France, and data protection authorities across the DACH region will have direct jurisdiction over whether and how this tool can be deployed.

In summary, Connect Talent is currently in preview, built primarily for the US market, and carries significant legal uncertainty for European deployment.

Is this really something we want?

Beyond the legal question lies a question of values, and it is worth considering that seriously.

A hiring process reflects on an organisation. For most people, the candidate experience is their first genuine encounter with your company’s culture. A fully automated voice interview, conducted by AI at 11 pm with no human present, sends a clear message. Whether that message aligns with what your employer brand intends to communicate is a question only you can answer.

For high-volume commodity hiring, the trade-off may be acceptable. For white-collar roles, leadership positions, or teams where culture fit and personality alignment determine whether someone stays and thrives, automating the human element out of the first conversation is a choice with consequences.

The best outcome in hiring is not a faster decision, but a better one.

Why Zortify is a better choice for European HR teams

The fundamental difference is not speed or scale, but what is measured and what that measurement actually predicts.

Amazon Connect Talent can tell you, more quickly and consistently, how a candidate performs in a structured competency interview. That is useful. However, it cannot tell you whether that person has the self-efficacy to handle ten rejections in a row, the resilience to recover from a setback, the conscientiousness to follow regulatory requirements without supervision, or the risk profile that could make them a liability in a leadership role.

These are the decisions that determine whether your hires stay, grow, and contribute, or leave within twelve months and cost you 200% of their annual salary to replace.

Zortify was created to address exactly this challenge – not from a generic playbook, but from eight years of certified AI and psychometric research. It is designed for the European regulatory environment and validated specifically for roles where personality fit makes the difference between a good hire and an expensive mistake.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE

Try Zortify for yourself – free

Discover your own personality profile in 30 minutes. Real insights.

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

The Sales Gene – does it actually exist?

We have been hiring salespeople incorrectly for decades. Not because we lack talent, but because we have been searching for the wrong qualities. Imagine the salesperson you would hire tomorrow. You probably already have an image in mind: confident, charismatic, outgoing, quick-witted. Someone who lights up a room and turns strangers into customers before the coffee goes cold.

Read more

The mis-hire is not the problem. Not knowing what it costs you is.

Around 14% of all new hires fail. Most companies are aware of this. Far fewer know what it is actually costing them, or where the money is quietly leaking away. Most finance directors have never seen this number on a spreadsheet. It does not appear in the quarterly report or the cost-per-hire metric. And it is unlikely to be on the agenda for your next board meeting.

Read more

Beyond AI Support: Why HR Must Become a Decision Architect

What remains of HR once everything automatable has been automated? In his latest feature for Human Resources Manager (Issue 2/2026), Zortify co-founder Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes argues that process optimisation through AI is not enough – and explains how Decision Intelligence brings people decisions to where they matter most: the point of decision.

Read more

We have been hiring salespeople incorrectly for decades. Not because we lack talent, but because we have been searching for the wrong qualities.

Imagine the salesperson you would hire tomorrow. You probably already have an image in mind: confident, charismatic, outgoing, quick-witted. Someone who lights up a room and turns strangers into customers before the coffee goes cold.

That image is costing companies millions every year.

The “born salesperson” is one of the most persistent – and most expensive – myths in hiring. It influences who gets shortlisted, who receives the offer, and who leaves within six months. Because the myth feels so intuitive, it is rarely questioned.

Research has been challenging it for over thirty years. It is time the hiring process caught up.

The myth has a name – and a weak correlation

Ask most sales managers what makes a great salesperson, and extraversion is mentioned within the first thirty seconds. The gregarious, people-oriented personality. High energy. Natural conversationalist. Loves being around others.

The science presents a more complex picture. Research on the Five Factor Model of personality and sales performance has found that conscientiousness and openness are positively related to sales outcomes, while extraversion shows no statistically significant relationship. Meta-analytic evidence, spanning decades and hundreds of studies, consistently places extraversion’s predictive value for sales performance at around rho = 0.15. That is modest at best.

To put this in context: this is roughly half the predictive power of conscientiousness, and less than half the predictive power of self-efficacy. The person you overlook because they seemed too quiet in the interview may well be the one who outperforms everyone in six months.

So if it is not extraversion, what actually predicts sales success?

Decades of research – including Zortify’s own validation study —consistently point to five dimensions. None of these are visible in a CV. Most are invisible in a standard interview. All are measurable.

The cost of getting this wrong

This is not an abstract academic debate. Every time a company hires on gut feeling and the wrong profile, the financial consequences are immediate and compounding.

The first-year attrition rate in insurance and financial services structural sales is among the highest of any sector. Research consistently shows that performance and well-being are best ensured when sales personnel can work with their strengths rather than their weaknesses – which means identifying those strengths before hiring, not six months later.

Companies that implement structured, personality-based selection processes consistently reduce early turnover by 25 to 40 percent. Not by hiring better people, but by making better decisions about the people they already have in front of them.

Three traits that appear to be strengths – but are not

Beyond the five positive dimensions, research identifies three behavioural risk factors that require specific attention in sales hiring, particularly in regulated industries. These are dangerous precisely because they can appear to be strengths in an interview.

High narcissism can present as charisma and drive. Manipulative tendencies can resemble persuasiveness. Impulsivity can seem like decisiveness. In the short term, these traits may produce results. In the longer term, they generate customer complaints, regulatory exposure, and toxic team dynamics – the kind that quietly erode culture and cost far more than any individual mis-hire.

Standard unstructured interviews are almost entirely blind to these risks. The Five Factor Model provides important insights into personality traits that work well within sales environments, but capturing the full picture requires looking beyond surface behaviour into the underlying personality structure.

So, does the sales gene exist?

Not in the way we imagine. There is no single trait, no charisma factor, no genetic lottery ticket that determines whether someone will succeed in sales. What does exist is a measurable personality profile – five dimensions that consistently differentiate top performers from early quitters, across industries, cultures, and thirty years of peer-reviewed research.

The good news is that three of these five dimensions are trainable. Self-efficacy, optimism, and resilience can all be developed through targeted interventions, with effect sizes (d = 0.50–0.60) representing some of the highest returns on investment of any HR development measure.

The implication is clear: companies that measure these dimensions at the point of hiring make better selection decisions. Companies that develop them after hiring retain better employees. Companies that do both stop treating turnover as inevitable and start treating it as the preventable outcome it actually is.

Sources

FREE WHITEPAPER

Das Vertriebs-Gen

The full research behind the five dimensions – with practical recommendations for selection and development. Available in German.

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

The mis-hire is not the problem. Not knowing what it costs you is.

Around 14% of all new hires fail. Most companies are aware of this. Far fewer know what it is actually costing them, or where the money is quietly leaking away. Most finance directors have never seen this number on a spreadsheet. It does not appear in the quarterly report or the cost-per-hire metric. And it is unlikely to be on the agenda for your next board meeting.

Read more

Beyond AI Support: Why HR Must Become a Decision Architect

What remains of HR once everything automatable has been automated? In his latest feature for Human Resources Manager (Issue 2/2026), Zortify co-founder Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes argues that process optimisation through AI is not enough – and explains how Decision Intelligence brings people decisions to where they matter most: the point of decision.

Read more

The hire who did not stay – A Recruiter’s Perspective

The notification arrives on a Tuesday morning. The hiring manager wants to talk. You already sense the reason before the call connects. The person you placed four months ago has resigned. To understand why early turnover affects recruiters differently, it is important to consider the conditions they already face.

Read more

Around 14% of all new hires fail. With 50 hires per year, this can quickly add up to over $300,000 in direct costs. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The real damage become apparent later: declining team performance, lost innovation, and a domino effect that drives top performers to competition. Bad hires are like a slow leak in the system. That’s exactly why they often go unaddressed for a long time. It’s time to change that.

The domino effect: from the wrong hire to crisis 

The obvious costs are clear: recruiting expenses, onboarding, months of salary, and a new hiring process. Studies estimate the replacement costs – depending on the role and seniority – at 50% to four times the annual salary.

But even these figures fall short. By the time a bad hire becomes apparent, six to twelve months have often already passed. During this time, the team has to compensate, for example by working longer hours and putting in more effort to coordinate. stress level rise, quality declines, and the risk of exhaustion and burnout increase structurally. The important thing to note is that the damage rarely affects just one person. Bad hires can trigger chain reactions that destabilize entire departments. At this point, at the latest, it becomes clear that is not a “soft” cultural issue, but rather the measurable business of hiring decisions.

Skills-first meets personality-first 

Many organizations still focus too much on applicants’ professional qualifications and too little on what really make people successful in everyday life: ownership, integrity, resilience, learning ability, and collaboration. Oxford Economics sums it up succinctly: Managers are hired for their professional qualifications – and fired for their personality.
The solution is not either/or, but a smart combination:

Important: It’s not about testing more, but about making better decisions. The key lies in the predictability of performance.

From gut feeling to measurable results 

This is where this AI-supported diagnostics come in: they can significantly increase the quality of professional performance forecasts.  Companies report 31% faster hiring times with AI tools, 50% better quality of hire, and with proper implementation – 50-61% less unconscious bias.

How personality-based recruiting works: 

Instead of “it’ll do,” organizations receive data-based probabilities of success, enabling them to plan to plan team capacities and implement projects more reliably. The KPIs are clear: shorter time-to-fill, higher offer acceptance rate, better quality of hire, higher retention rate, and shorter time-to-productivity. The latter in particular is often underestimated: suitable employees become productive more quickly. 

HR: From process owner to decision-making authority 

When recruiting is understood as strategic value creation, the role of HR automatically changes. HR is then no longer the authority that coordinates appointements and guides process steps, but rather the function that sets the decision-making standard. This means that HR is not only responsible for ensuring that hiring takes place, but also that it is of high quality, i.e., transparent and business-relevant. HR ensures governance, fairness, and compliance without losing speed.

More stability, less rework, more leadership capacity 

In the long term, this creates a system that not only fills positions faster, but also better. Fewer miscasts mean less friction, more stable teams, and more leadership capacity for value creation instead of damage control. 

Companies that modernize their decision-making standards in 2026 will gain an advantage in a working world where adaptability, responsibility, and cultural fit determine competitiveness.

Download the whitepaper “The business impact of fast and precise recruiting decisions”

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

1 in 700 is not enough! – How companies really hire based on skills  

Three-quarters of companies have announced in recent years that they will evaluate candidates more on the basis of their actual skills and competencies rather than formal qualifications. However, a Harvard study shows a clear discrepancy between promises and reality.

Read more

2025 Check-Out with Marcus & Florian, CEOs of Zortify

What do you think: Beyond the hype – where does the HR industry really stand today when it comes to AI? Marcus: Looking at the big picture, I believe the fundamental question “Do we use AI in recruiting?” has been answered clearly. The focus is now shifting to the question: “How good are the AI systems we use?”

Read more

Bias out. ROI in: The unexpected win of AI regulation

How AI in recruiting went from being a mere tool to a driver of the future. February 2025. While some companies are frantically reviewing their AI-supported recruiting processes to meet the EU AI Act requirements at the last minute, others are remaining calm. They have used the previous months not only to ….

Read more

Three-quarters of companies have announced in recent years that they will evaluate candidates more on the basis of their actual skills and competencies rather than formal qualifications. However, the Harvard study “Skills-Based Hiring: The Long Road from Pronouncements to Practice” shows a clear discrepancy between promises and reality: of all new hires in 2023, less than one in 700 was the result of having degree requirements removed.  

This figure is not a setback, but a reflection: it highlights how much potential remains untapped – and how much growth is possible when companies consistently focus on personality and skills. 

Research by Harvard Business School and the Burning Glass Institute also impressively shows where this journey can lead. Companies that have already made the transition — the so-called “leaders,” around three percent of the market — are hiring 18% more people without academic degrees in roles that previously required one. Above all, they achieve significantly higher quality hires and higher retention rates. Joseph B. Fuller (HBS) emphasizes that simply changing job ads is not enough. It requires a rethink among hiring managers, in corporate culture, and in hiring processes. The key insight: transformation does not come from better intentions, but from better systems.  

Analyze personality early in the process  

The first step toward recruiting that reveals a person’s true potential is to use technology-based personality diagnostics early in the process. Whether before, during, or after CV screening, the goal is to identify mindsets, cognitive abilities, character traits, and associated specific skills and development opportunities based on data before human selection decisions are made.  

A multi-measure approach that combines several dimensions is particularly effective. 92% of companies that take this approach report higher satisfaction with their hires. This is a clear indication of what is possible when personality is treated not as a soft factor but as a strategic variable. 

Understanding outcomes instead of biographies  

This change can only succeed if there is a prior definition of what success in a role actually means. Many companies underestimate this phase. The “leader” companies from the study mentioned at the beginning take a different approach: they don’t ask what candidates need to bring to the table, but what they should achieve in the role. This shifts the focus from formal requirements to outcomes. Key questions include:  

Those who answer these questions in a structured manner will be able to identify talent that traditional processes would never have captured.  

Ensure fairness and objectivity in recruiting  

Even with clear success criteria, human bias remains an obstacle. We unconsciously favor people who are similar to us. When companies remove academic filters but do not set objective criteria, bias can actually increase. 

Leader companies counter this with consistent structures, including blind recruitment and standardized evaluation grids.  

84% of UK companies openly admit that unconscious bias has an effect. But the difference arises when this insight is translated into systems that reveal potential rather than reinforcing subjectivity. 

Scaling personality measurement with AI  

AI models trained on resumes inevitably reproduce patterns based on the past. Tools based on personality and performance data, on the other hand, open up completely new possibilities. Natural language processing, which analyzes open-ended responses, recognizes patterns of thinking and communication at a depth that traditional assessments cannot capture. For companies with high application volumes ­– especially in IT, consulting, and financial services –­ this creates a scalable, objective, and fair way to reveal personality and potential without compromising quality. AI thus becomes not a decision-maker, but an enabler of better human decisions. 

Closing the 1-in-700 gap  

Implementing this kind of personality- and competency-based talent logic happens in several steps:  

Measurable talent advantage  

Non-degree hires in roles that previously required a degree achieve on average ten percentage points higher retention and salary increases of 25%. They show above-average motivation because they are given opportunities that would traditionally have been denied to them. For companies, this means better matches, more stable teams, and access to talent that the competition will continue to overlook. 

Companies that understand personality as an economic value, recognize potential as a currency for the future, and design their recruiting processes so that impact, rather than biography, is the deciding factor, are very likely to come out ahead in the competition for the best talent very soon. The most successful three percent have shown how it’s done. Now companies must decide whether they want to be among the next 30% who will follow. 

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

Predicting retention: How companies can avoid costly employee turnover

In many organizations, the actual costs of turnover are overlooked in recruitment strategies. While enormous resources are invested in job profiles, hiring funnels, and assessment processes, one crucial question remains unanswered: Will the person hired today still be with the company in 18 months?

Read more

Who’s behind that perfect prompt?

How talent stands out and companies recognize who really fits. The application sounds flawless. Every word is perfect. Every phrase hits the right note. And that’s exactly the problem. Since ChatGPT & Co. have reached the application process, documents are becoming increasingly similar.

Read more

The recruiting advantage: Why quick decisions bring in better talent

Speed in recruiting is not an operational detail, but a strategic competitive factor. Companies that take too long to make decisions systematically lose the best candidates to more agile competitors. Studies also show that longer processes do not result in better hires. On the contrary.

Read more

In many organizations, the actual costs of turnover are overlooked in recruitment strategies. While enormous resources are invested in job profiles, hiring funnels, and assessment processes, one crucial question remains unanswered: Will the person hired today still be with the company in 18 months?  

Current data shows an average misplacement rate of 14%, and as high as 30% in junior programs. With 50 hires per year, this already results in losses well into the six-figure range. Much of this cost could be avoided if recruiting took into account not only the probability of success, but also the probability of termination.  

The true cost of employee turnover   

The well-known cost factors, such as recruiting expenses, onboarding, and training, are only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, depending on the role, hiring the wrong person can cost between €45,000 and €100,000, and in the case of executives, up to €300,000. The direct costs of searching for and training new employees alone add up to as much as €60,000.  

Added to this are hidden costs such as:  

Companies have it in their own hands to avoid these. This is because employees often resign not because of the job itself, but because of a mismatch between expectations and reality – patterns that would have been visible during the recruitment process.  

The unsurprising exit  

Current data shows that early turnover is rarely a coincidence. 14% of employees leave because the tasks do not meet their expectations, and 17% leave due to a cultural mismatch. The SHRM Global Culture Report confirms that 64% of employees who perceive their corporate culture negatively actively look for another job.   

The common denominator: a mismatch between expectations, culture, and personality. These risks are predictable, however, not through intuition, but through data-based personality analysis. 

Recognizing invisible red flags  

Truly costly mistakes are rarely caused by obvious warning signs, but rather by personality patterns that remain invisible during interviews. AI-based methods based on the Big Five and the Entrepreneurial Capital developed by Zortify make these risks measurable. 

Among other things, the Big Five show: 

Entrepreneurial Capital adds to this analysis with future-critical skills like resilience, self-efficacy, agility, and solution orientation – the very factors that determine long-term performance and retention. 

In combination, the Big Five and Entrepreneurial Capital reveal the invisible red flags that trigger early attrition: personality and context mismatches, fragile stress profiles, and unrealistic expectations. AI provides a solid basis for decision-making where gut feeling fails. 

Predicting retention with AI 

Modern NLP-based methods analyze how people think, prioritize, and deal with uncertainty. This results in a reliable prediction for long-term retention. 

Companies that use such data can reduce their misplacement rate by 30%. Often, avoiding a single misplacement pays for the entire technology investment.  

Typical green flags in applicants include:  

At the same time, companies benefit from presenting everyday work life in a blunt manner. The best talents prefer realistic descriptions. Surprises on the first day, by contrast, undermine trust and drive turnover. 

The business case: Data-driven decisions save a lot of money 

For a company with 50 hires, the picture is as follows: 

In addition to the financial effects, companies benefit from more stable teams, greater knowledge retention, better performance, and employer branding that signals long-term loyalty. 

What companies can do straight away  

Using AI to tackle talent shortages 

The most costly mistakes in recruiting are not the candidates who drop out of the process, but those who are hired and resign a few months later. Bad hires are not an isolated HR issue, but a strategic business risk in the six-figure range.  

Personality-based assessments have thus become a business-critical tool. Organizations that can predict turnover make better decisions – and win in a market where talent is the scarcest resource. 

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

Who’s behind that perfect prompt?

How talent stands out and companies recognize who really fits. The application sounds flawless. Every word is perfect. Every phrase hits the right note. And that’s exactly the problem. Since ChatGPT & Co. have reached the application process, documents are becoming increasingly similar.

Read more

Predictive hiring: How HR can identify employee engagement during the interview

And why brilliant resumes often lead to expensive hiring mistakes The resume shines, the interview goes smoothly, the references seem flawless. But six months later, it becomes clear that although the new colleague is highly qualified, they have long since quit quietly.

Read more

The recruiting advantage: Why quick decisions bring in better talent

Speed in recruiting is not an operational detail, but a strategic competitive factor. Companies that take too long to make decisions systematically lose the best candidates to more agile competitors. Studies also show that longer processes do not result in better hires. On the contrary.

Read more

The application sounds flawless. Every word is perfect. Every phrase hits the right note. And that’s exactly the problem. Since ChatGPT & Co. have reached the application process, documents are becoming increasingly similar. Studies show that around half of all applicants already use AI tools to help them. Among students, the figure is as high as 57%.  

What began as the democratization of good applications is developing into a new challenge: if everyone’s wording is perfect, how can I still stand out as an applicant? And how can companies recognize who really suits them? 

From perfection to uniformity   

Resumes are smoothed out and cover letters are optimized, often losing their personal touch in the process. For companies, this means that traditional application documents say less and less about personality, motivation, or potential.  

At the same time, applicants are faced with the question of how they can show who they really are when AI helps them do everything “right”?  

Because one thing is becoming increasingly important: authenticity. Especially in a job market that is once again becoming more of an employer’s market in many industries, it’s no longer just perfect documents that count. What is needed are people who want to learn, who can adapt, and who deal with their strengths and weaknesses in a reflective manner. 

Personality is not expressed in clichés  

Psycholinguistic research – such as that conducted by James Pennebaker – shows that our language patterns are as individual as fingerprints. It is not what we say, but how we phrase things that reveals a lot about our way of thinking, decision-making logic, and values. That is why modern recruitment processes are no longer about delivering the perfect cover letter, but about showing how you think, act, and reflect.  

Open, situation-specific questions – for example, about real experiences, difficult decisions, or learning moments – create this space for authenticity. This is where human substance outstands the smooth surface of AI. A machine may be able to write convincingly, but it has no real attitude, no conscience, no learning curve.  

Smart selection – a win for both sides  

Technology can help to reveal these genuine signals – for example, through linguistic pattern recognition and NLP-based analyses. It identifies the essential personality factors for a role, creates an objective basis for evaluation, and facilitates the final assessment by an experienced recruiter. 

Old: CV screening – interview – assessment – hiring decision

New: Initial pre-selection – AI assessment – In-depth interview – Data-informed hiring decision 

For companies, this means spending less time on superficial CV and oh-so-smooth motivation letter screenings and focusing more on what really matters: potential, learning ability, and cultural fit.  

Gen Z, on the other hand, is generally open to such technology-based assessments if they are perceived as fair. At the same time, applicants who come across as honest, reflective, and authentic have a much better chance of standing out from the crowd in a personality-oriented selection process. 

Authenticity leads to the perfect fit  

Bottom line: The best talents are not those who shine with the most flawless applications, but those who show who they are, what they want to learn, and how they deal with challenges.  

When AI standardizes applications, a new level of differentiation emerges, especially in working with Gen Z: authenticity. Applicants can use this level to their advantage. Companies, in turn, have state-of-the-art AI technology at their fingertips to identify the qualities they value most in candidates. In the end, both sides benefit from a perfect match between role and person. 

Personality plays the key role in this. And regardless of perfect prompts, it remains unmistakable at its core. 

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

Predictive hiring: How HR can identify employee engagement during the interview

And why brilliant resumes often lead to expensive hiring mistakes The resume shines, the interview goes smoothly, the references seem flawless. But six months later, it becomes clear that although the new colleague is highly qualified, they have long since quit quietly.

Read more

The recruiting advantage: Why quick decisions bring in better talent

Speed in recruiting is not an operational detail, but a strategic competitive factor. Companies that take too long to make decisions systematically lose the best candidates to more agile competitors. Studies also show that longer processes do not result in better hires. On the contrary.

Read more

EU AI Act: How smart companies are using regulations to outperform competitors

What HR Must Do Now. The EU AI Act has been in force since August 2024, and further compliance deadlines passed in August of this year. For companies that use AI tools in recruiting and human resources development, this means that the legal gray area is over.

Read more

And why brilliant resumes often lead to expensive hiring mistakes

The resume shines, the interview goes smoothly, the references seem flawless. But six months later, it becomes clear that although the new colleague is highly qualified, they have long since quit quietly. A classic mismatch that not only eats up salary and recruiting costs, but also destabilizes teams, strains customer relationships, and delays projects.

Gallup estimates the global cost of lack of engagement at $8.9 trillion per year. That’s almost nine percent of global GDP. Only 21% of employees are engaged at work, 62% do the bare minimum, and 15% actively work against their managers and teams. These figures illustrate that the problem does not begin on the first day of work, but already during the recruiting process. Many companies carefully check whether candidates can perform the tasks. However, the crucial question is: Will this person be really committed to the job?

What drives engagement

Engagement is not a “nice-to-have,” but rather the most important performance driver in modern organizations. Gallup and other studies identify three areas of relationships that have a significant impact on motivation, loyalty, and thus also results:

These relationships are not soft factors. They determine whether a project succeeds, whether a team sticks together, and whether customers remain loyal in the long term. Nevertheless, traditional interviews hardly capture factors that indicate a successful relationship on these three levels. A standard question such as “Are you a team player?” says nothing about whether someone can actually build functioning relationships in the work environment.

Personality as the key to engagement

Personality research has shown that traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and low neuroticism scores (emotional stability) are reliable predictors of performance, loyalty, and customer focus. However, traditional questionnaires cannot measure these traits reliably. Instead, recruiters get:

Companies feel secure, but the results are distorted – and bad hires are inevitable.

Language reveals engagement potential

Companies that want to make sure they get engaged employees rely on a thorough personality analysis of their applicants, using the latest AI tech and Natural Language Processing (NLP). Studies show that people can consciously control what they say, but not really how they say it. Choice of words, sentence structure, punctuation – all of these reveal initial signs of personality patterns that are difficult to conceal. Based on open-ended text responses that candidates formulate in a relaxed atmosphere at their desk, AI recognizes factors such as an increased risk of egocentrism or a strong orientation toward cooperation –differences that are crucial for assessing engagement potential long before it becomes apparent in everyday work. Important: Higher scores aren’t a reason to disqualify a candidate, but they give the interviewer important clues about what questions to ask during the job interview. 

Engaged employees accept leadership

An often overlooked aspect: commitment depends not only on how well a manager leads, but also on whether employees can recognize and accept good leadership. A study from 2021 shows that employees with high self-efficacy and openness remain more committed even under mediocre leadership, while others are quicker to withdraw. This means that it is not only managers who are responsible for commitment. The personality of the employees also determines whether leadership is effective. Those who accompany change constructively, place trust in others, and support decisions remain motivated longer, even in difficult environments. These qualities are critical to success, especially in demanding industries such as consulting or finance, where uncertainty and regulation are part of everyday life, or in the tech sector, where priorities are constantly shifting.

Employee engagement drives business success

The economic effects of high employee engagement in companies are measurable:

This contrasts with the immense costs of hiring the wrong person. On average, this costs 1.5 to 3 times the annual salary and often runs into six figures for senior roles in IT, consulting, or finance. A more precise selection based on authentic personality profiles costs only a fraction of this. And usually pays for itself already by avoiding a single wrong hire.

From skill match to commitment match 

The crucial question for CEOs, HR executives, and recruiters today is no longer: Can this person do the job? But rather: Will they be engaged in doing it? AI-based personality analyses and the evaluation of open-ended text responses provide a valid answer to this question. These methods are difficult to manipulate and can be integrated into the recruiting process immediately.

Those who identify tendencies toward relationship skills in the three critical areas – with managers, teams, and customers. Before the first interview not only make better hiring decisions, but also strengthen the resilience and competitiveness of their organization.

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

Introverted top talents are being overlooked

Extraversion has long been considered an indicator of leadership quality, which is why extroverted candidates have a clear advantage in selection processes. However, recent studies show that this preference often has little to do with actual performance. This highlights a key problem in executive search: traditional methods overlook introverted top talent.

Read more

EU AI Act: How smart companies are using regulations to outperform competitors

What HR Must Do Now. The EU AI Act has been in force since August 2024, and further compliance deadlines passed in August of this year. For companies that use AI tools in recruiting and human resources development, this means that the legal gray area is over.

Read more

The Charisma Trap: Why Shiny Leaders Don’t Shine in Crisis

In the first few weeks of this year, 222 CEOs resigned. A record since surveys began in 2002 and 14% more than in the previous year. What is particularly alarming is that 19% of successors were only appointed on an interim basis, compared to just 6% at the start of 2024.

Read more

Extraversion has long been considered an indicator of leadership quality, which is why extroverted candidates have a clear advantage in selection processes. However, recent studies show that this preference often has little to do with actual performance. This highlights a key problem in executive search: traditional methods overlook introverted top talent. Companies are thus missing out on some of their strongest leaders.    

This bias can have serious consequences, especially in high-profile industries such as finance, insurance, and consulting, where strategic depth and risk awareness are crucial. 

The hidden pitfalls of traditional selection processes 

Assessment centers: performance over substance 

The problem lies in the DNA of traditional assessment procedures. Studies show that 60% of interviewers make their decision about candidates within the first 15 minutes, and 5% even within the first minute. These snap judgments are inevitably based on superficial factors such as charisma, eloquence, and “executive presence” — qualities that favor extroverted candidates. 

Assessment centers further reinforce this bias: in group discussions, the louder voices naturally dominate, while thoughtful contributions are lost. What is considered assertiveness is often just another form of information processing. 

The cultural fit illusion 

Harvard professor Youngme Moon sums it up: “Soft stuff” is often just a euphemism for bias. People hire individuals who are similar to them, who they feel comfortable with, who look, act, and speak like them.  

The supposed “cultural fit” thus becomes a gateway for similarity bias. Introverted candidates are rejected as “unsuitable,” even though they may be professionally and strategically superior to extroverted applicants. 

Network effects reinforce homogeneity  

A study of 123 German executive search consultants revealed a significant in-group bias: male headhunters unconsciously favored male candidates. Comparable mechanisms also operate among extroverts: those who are well connected and skilled at marketing themselves are more likely to be “discovered,” regardless of their actual performance. 

What companies are missing out on      

Strategic advantage in volatile times     

Current research also shows that introverted leaders excel in “intellectual stimulation” and “empowering leadership,” leadership styles that offer key advantages in complex, dynamic markets.      

These qualities are highly valued in the sometimes heavily regulated industries in the DACH region. Examples:   

The self-awareness advantage 

A Korn Ferry analysis of 486 companies with 7,000 employees revealed that organizations with weak financial performance had executives with 20% more “blind spots” and a 79% higher likelihood of low self-awareness.  

Introverted leaders tend to have greater self-awareness, a competitive advantage that translates directly into business performance. 

Leadership of the future  

Other studies have found that introverted leaders are better than extroverted ones when it comes to leading proactive teams. In a working environment where initiative and empowerment are crucial, managers who are perceived as “reserved” prove to be more effective.  

AI-supported solution: Objectively assessing personality potential  

The limits of human assessment  

The figures should make companies pay attention: 48% of neurodivergent people report in the “Neurodiversity at Work Report 2024” that they find recruitment processes unfair and biased. This is a group that often exhibits introverted characteristics.  

The problem becomes even more apparent in blind hiring: it increases the likelihood of women being hired by 25 to 46%. This shows how strongly superficial impressions influence hiring decisions and systematically disadvantage people. Training on unconscious bias is of little help: 48% of HR managers still admit that bias influences their decisions. 

Data-driven alternatives  

The solution lies in objective, AI-supported personality analysis. It gives decision-makers a truly realistic first impression of a candidate. Within a very short time, AI tools can use the extent of certain personality traits to predict expected business performance and teamwork.

Specific advantages:  

Integration into existing processes 

Important to note: AI does not replace human evaluation, but rather complements it intelligently. While traditional methods rely on subjective first impressions, data-driven assessments can reliably predict actual leadership competence, regardless of personality type. 

Recommendations for HR and C-level executives 

Short-term measures: 

Investing in AI-supported tools pays off by reducing the costs of bad hires while increasing leadership quality and team satisfaction.     

Conclusion: The silent paradigm shift    

The future should belong not to the loudest, but to the most capable leaders. Introverts often have skills that are needed in the modern workplace. Leadership research shows the measurable advantage of introverted leadership in proactive teams, i.e., those that perform at their best in demanding and rapidly changing environments. So it’s worth keeping your eyes and ears open, making the nuances audible, and reading between the lines. AI technology makes it easy for you and reliably ensures that the right people end up in the right positions.   

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

The best teams are not made up of clones!

Cultural fit has long been considered the gold standard in recruiting. The idea: if you fit perfectly into the team, you will automatically be more successful. But what was intended as a quality feature is increasingly turning out to be a brake on innovation.

Read more

The Charisma Trap: Why Shiny Leaders Don’t Shine in Crisis

In the first few weeks of this year, 222 CEOs resigned. A record since surveys began in 2002 and 14% more than in the previous year. What is particularly alarming is that 19% of successors were only appointed on an interim basis, compared to just 6% at the start of 2024.

Read more

Your Gut Feeling is Gutting Your Talent Pipeline

AI is neither all good nor all bad. Used correctly, it can improve the lives of many people in general and working life in particular. New opportunities are opening up in HR recruitment and development in particular, without people being ” sorted out ” or replaced by technology.

Read more

In the first few weeks of this year, 222 CEOs resigned. A record since surveys began in 2002 and 14% more than in the previous year. What is particularly alarming is that 19% of successors were only appointed on an interim basis, compared to just 6% at the start of 2024. 

These figures are not just a symptom of political uncertainty, but an expression of a deeper problem: HR professionals often choose the wrong personality types when hiring executives. The fascination with charismatic, extroverted candidates leads to personalities with high self-presentation skills reaching top positions – often at the expense of character and substance. 

The lure of first impressions 

The Childhood Leadership Study of 2025 already showed that in 96% of classes, children with a strong self-expression are chosen as leaders. This pattern continues in professional life. Charismatic candidates shine in job interviews, appear self-confident, inspiring and present convincing visions. Meta-analyses confirm this: Especially in application and selection processes with strangers, such personalities are systematically preferred. 

Charles O’Reilly from the Stanford Graduate School of Business warns: 

“We see the 10% of self-promoters who succeed and call them visionaries. We ignore the 90% who fail and do damage.” 

This effect reminds us of fast, aggressive brands like Shein or Temu: shiny promises, quick wins, but often with unseen costs and long-term damage. 

Introverted beats loud 

Studies confirm that introverted CEOs are more successful in the long term than their extroverted colleagues. These quieter leaders make more considered decisions and act more sustainably. Nevertheless, many selection processes still favor the opposite: loud, shiny, extroverted. 

The short-term effect is tempting, and yes, sometimes legitimate in terms of quick success: A charismatic candidate can, for example, inspire stakeholders, generate momentum and attract media attention. In the long term, however, they often lack strategic depth, genuine team orientation and the ability to maintain calm and foresight even in difficult phases. Impulsive decisions or risky prestige projects lead to higher fluctuation, declining trust and often to financial losses and damage to the company’s image. In the medium term, the initial “gain” turns into a painful “pain” for the entire organization. 

The true cost of bad hires 

According to McKinsey and Kienbaum, bad hires in management positions can cost up to three times the annual salary. For C-level roles, these losses quickly add up to millions. In addition, there are serious follow-up costs that are difficult to measure: toxic corporate cultures, increasing fluctuation, risky takeovers or manipulated share buybacks. 

All of this not only reduces company performance, but also jeopardizes the trust of employees, investors and markets, with long-term consequences for reputation and competitiveness. 

Young executives in constant self-promotion mode 

Our 2021 study for Harvard Business Manager with almost 10,000 German participants shows that self-promotion-oriented tendencies are widespread among German managers. Young executives are particularly likely to succumb, exacerbated by social media and the trend towards personal branding. Three critical patterns stand out: excessive self-centeredness, impulsive risk-taking behavior and strategic manipulation to assert one’s own interests. These developments clearly show how important alternative selection methods are for companies. 

AI instead of gut feeling 

Traditional assessments are reaching their limits here. They are usually based on self-assessments, a playing field in which self-promoters are particularly adept. NLP-based analyses (Natural Language Processing) take a different approach: they work with candidates’ open text responses and uncover unconscious language patterns that allow conclusions about key personality dimensions. This makes manipulation much more difficult, while at the same time providing a deeper, more objective assessment. 

Such approaches not only help in the selection of new leaders, but also in the further development of existing top managers. They provide a sound basis for coaching, succession planning and long-term cultural development that goes far beyond mere recruitment decisions. 

Character as a competitive advantage 

Companies that rely on objective, technology-supported personality analyses at an early stage gain more than just security when filling key roles. They create a corporate culture in which character, integrity and long-term thinking count. This creates a real competitive advantage: teams work together with greater trust, strategic risks are reduced and the retention of key performers increases. 

In the end, it’s not about devaluing charisma. Rather, it is about combining it with character, substance and foresight. This is the only way for companies to ensure that their managers not only shine in good times, but also provide orientation, create trust and ensure stability in times of crisis. 

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes

Prof. Dr. Florian Feltes is co-founder and co-CEO of zortify and a forerunner in AI-supported HR innovation. Together with his team, he develops intelligent personality diagnostics and helps companies identify the perfect candidates—without expensive assessments and without bias. His vision: a world in which every company can effortlessly form high-performance teams and create work environments that allow human potential to flourish.

You may also like

The best teams are not made up of clones!

Cultural fit has long been considered the gold standard in recruiting. The idea: if you fit perfectly into the team, you will automatically be more successful. But what was intended as a quality feature is increasingly turning out to be a brake on innovation.

Read more

If your CHRO is still counting heads, you’re already losing the best ones!

The figures are clear – and alarming: while IT and marketing are allocated 3.14% and 7.5% of turnover each, HR receives a mere 0.8% on average. This is shown by the current Gartner study “2025 CHRO Budget Benchmarks”.

Read more

Your Gut Feeling is Gutting Your Talent Pipeline

AI is neither all good nor all bad. Used correctly, it can improve the lives of many people in general and working life in particular. New opportunities are opening up in HR recruitment and development in particular, without people being ” sorted out ” or replaced by technology. Let’s take a look at what is important for a fearless, constructive and responsible approach to AI in HR.

Read more