Johnson Controls is known for making buildings smarter, safer, and more sustainable. But inside the company, there’s a different kind of transformation happening—in how they attract, hire, and prepare talent for the future of work.
In this episode of Talent All-Stars, Mike Aronson— Senior Director of Global Talent Acquisition Operations—shares how he’s applying over 15 years of hands-on recruiting experience to reshape the function from the inside out.
You’ll learn:
Connect with Mike on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikearonson
Connect with us:
💻 All Episodes: TalentAllStars.com
💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ziprecruiter/
💼 Dave’s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davetravers/
📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ziprecruiter
🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@ziprecruiter
Enjoyed this episode? We’d be grateful for a rating or review on your favorite podcast app.
[00:00:00] Mike Aronson: We're making the shift from an experiential-based, I saw it on the resume, so I know they can do it here, to they have skill,s and now I need to translate those skills into kind of the future of work because in many cases, people are doing jobs that have never existed.
[00:00:14] Dave Travers: So what does it really take for your business to attract world-class talent today?
I'm Dave Travers, President of ZipRecruiter, and on Talent All-Stars, we shine a light on the people and the day-to-day processes behind recruitment and retention at some of the world's most influential businesses. My guest today is Mike Aronson, the Senior Director of Global Talent Acquisition Operations at Johnson Controls, one of the world leaders in smart, sustainable buildings.
Over the past 15 years, Mike's gone from contract recruiter to global TA leader, and along the way, he's stayed grounded in the day-to-day realities of what it takes to hire, engage, and retain top talent. We talk about how to build change ready teams, how to balance the needs of TA with the rest of the organization, and we even role play a hypothetical meeting, making the business case for a big investment.
Let's bring 'em in. Mike Aronson, welcome to Talent All-Stars.
[00:01:07] Mike Aronson: Thank you for having me. Really appreciate the time. Look forward to the conversation.
[00:01:10] Dave Travers: Excited to have you, and wanna dig into a bunch of different things given such an interesting background you have. But I wanna go back, maybe not to the beginning, but closer to the beginning than all the interesting stuff you're doing at Johnson Controls today.
And think more about when was the moment when you know you have a background in staffing and recruiting. When was the moment when you thought, talent acquisition in leading teams, not just recruiting for individual roles, might be a career for you or something you could really see yourself doing for a long time?
[00:01:44] Mike Aronson: Yeah, you know, I don't know that there was a moment specifically, I've always felt that talent acquisition and recruiting is a powerful function of an organization. We're pretty much the first interaction that. An employee would have in the recruiting process. And so first impressions really matter, and when you have a bad one, you tend to see it throughout, right?
Like, the idea that how you do one thing is how most things get done. And so if you have a bad experience in during the recruiting process, you'll probably see some of that kind of seep in through your onboarding and to the life cycle of being an employee. So I think that we have a unique position to see the human side of everything and anything that a company does, every company has products, every company has, whether it's services or tangible products.
I mean, that's what makes up a company. But you have none of that if you have no people, right? And so hiring people really dictate how well any of that comes to fruition. And so in some ways, we have the ability to shape a culture or an environment at the onset. I think for a long time, candidates were viewed as a commodity, right?
Like, if they don't wanna work here, we'll find somebody who does. And I do think that the paradigm has shifted quite a bit, probably in the last decade more than anything else, to candidates have more options today. There's more industries today. There are more careers than there were 25 years ago.
And so the idea that like, well, they should wanna work for us, that's not the world we live in anymore. And so we have to humanize all of what we're doing, make it real to the candidates. And it's not a matter of checking the boxes, you meet what I want, but we need to know what they want too.
So, at positioning, the job is as important as executing the job, right? Nobody wants to hear this is what I was supposed to do, but when I got here, this is not what I'm doing. And so connecting those dots and being kind of on the leading edge there is really talent, acquisition's, job, and I think it's so critical today because we are, if we haven't already, you know, fully shifted, we're making the shift from an experiential based, I saw it on the resume so I know they can do it here too.
They have skills, and now I need to translate those skills into kind of the future of work because in many cases, people are doing jobs that have never existed. And so if you're gonna interview for somebody for a job that you know is relatively new in this digital AI revolution. There's nothing to look back on to say, well, they did it here, so I think they could do it there.
And so we are perfectly positioned to have those conversations and influence managers and really shape the culture and environments that the candidates work to become employees in. And so when you pull that back into, like, the moment that I would feel as talent acquisition being the difference maker, it's where all of those things collide.
I don't remember when it happened, but like just having, and maybe it was through a series of conversations that I've had with managers and candidates where I was like, this is misaligned, that's misaligned, and you don't understand this, and we don't understand that, and we didn't set expectations. So it's very clear to me that we're, you know, for a long time, candidate or recruiters and talent acquisition leaders wanted to seat at the table.
Well, now we have a seat at the table. We need to know what to say.
[00:05:04] Dave Travers: Absolutely. And I love how you bring it back first to the candidate, the job seeker, and what the changing nature of how we attract and speak to candidates and think about what are the qualifications and all those sorts of things, and the meaning of what we do every day.
But what I would love to also hear is, what about Mike? Like what about you when you decided to step into leadership and not just do this day to day? What was that like? How did it feel different? Was it immediately like you found that leadership was the place you wanted to be? Was it uncomfortable at first? What was that transition like?
[00:05:38] Mike Aronson: Yeah, it was all of those feelings. And when I think about, you know, stepping from an individual contributor into a leadership role. I wanna make a point that stepping into a leadership role, just because the title is leadership, doesn't make you a leader. And I think that was something that, so I, I took on an opportunity that where I was the peer of the team that I was now leading, and that was really hard for me.
I was actually younger than most of them, and I was uncomfortable with it. And so I had to shift my mindset from being tactical, strategic, but still, early on, I felt like why? But somebody's still gonna gimme the strategy, right? Like, I may lead this team, but like, what am I leading? And I don't know if this was by designer, particularly leader that I reported to at the time, is I didn't get a lot of direction and, you know, strategic thinking.
And in the end I, and also I think in retrospect, I think that was intentional. It was like, your job is, it's the difference between what saying, what's the strategy, and saying here's the plan. You know what I mean? Like this is what we're going to do. And so it works both ways. If the team is looking for strategy direction, leadership's also looking for this, this is what we're going to do.
And so that took some trials and tribulations. I mean, you learn from those sorts of things, but I genuinely think that looking back on the most uncomfortable moments in my career, the places where I thought things were most uncertain or even unstable were probably where I grew the most. And I tend to tell our teams, like, you guys gotta run to uncomfort.
Like, if you start feeling that good things are about to happen, right? Like we're gonna solve a problem, we're gonna make an impact. And that was a pivotal moment for me, understanding that, all right, now it's my job to come up with the strategy. I've worked for leaders in the past, and I'd seen, especially during my recruiting days, where a manager was reporting to in a function and it was like very rigid, very authoritarian, and almost dictorial.
I never understood, like, what, like, does somebody think that everybody likes to be managed that way? Just because I said to do it doesn't mean people are going to do that. So I remember as an individual contributor, thinking as if I get into management or leadership, like I wanna be a kind of a servant leadership role, like everybody has an important role to play.
If my role is the mouthpiece of this particular group or function, I wanna advocate and hold people accountable through that vehicle. It's not a status thing, or ironically, I've always been uncomfortable with like a hierarchy because what does it mean? It's just whatever the company or you know, the structure dictated at a time, but what is the role?
What is the impact that that role gets in the organization? And so like I am a firm believer that like creating clarity and empowering people, setting direction, you get the best out of everybody, rather than saying, you need to do this because I told you to do this, and this is what I think is best.
And so collaborating and really allowing people to be creative and ask questions, and challenge. That to me is leadership. There are plenty of managers who don't lead. There are plenty of individual contributors that do, and so to me it's more of a mindset shift around leadership that like, I'm not chasing a title, I'm not chasing the next role or more money, if I chase knowledge and empowerment and understanding, some of that other stuff just comes with it.
And it's ongoing, right? Like in the time and space that we're in, like everything is changing. And so how people lead and what's available, that's different too. And so for me, that was what was most pivotal when going from somebody that was executing on a day-to-day basis. All the way to, you know, all right, now we're driving strategy across the board.
[00:09:25] Dave Travers: I love how you talked about both strategy and tactics, which I think is something that a lot of people think about, but is honestly not always clear to people what the difference between those two things are. And you hinted at a couple examples there, but for someone thinks like, Hey, I'm a day-to-day individual contributor.
I've got my recs. I need to go fill and find good talent for et cetera. Like I wish I were involved in the strategy. What does that really mean? You talked about the difference between saying what the strategy is and here's the plan. Like, what does that actually mean? How do you how do you difference between those two things?
[00:09:58] Mike Aronson: Overly simplified. I'd say this is when looking at whether it's a tool or a process or whatever. If there's something that you're trying to solve for, ask these two questions. Or am I solving my problems, or am I solving all the problems? And it's probably loaded to say, am I solving all the problems? You can't solve all the problems, but am I solving more than just mine?
And I think that's the difference between tactical versus strategic. Oftentimes in operations and enablement, what we get is, Hey, this button isn't working, or this process is broken, and it's like. Yeah, but we're a global company and so there's reasons why we have done certain things. Now we don't have all the answers, and we certainly have room to optimize tactics.
[00:10:40] Mike Aronson: But at the end of the day, like we try to deploy broad-based approaches that serve the masses rather than individual needs. And I think that that is the difference between strategy and tactics is if I'm fixing your problem, did I create somebody else's problem? And so while something may be a mild inconvenience for you, it would be very different if we didn't have it in there for this, and we would, maybe it's a compliance thing. I mean, when you, you look at the scale of like a global enterprise and you've got privacy laws and regulations on AI, and you've got all of these things to navigate, so how do you deploy standardization?
That's really hard. And so at. At the core, that ends up meaning that somebody's tactics may be sacrificed in some instance for the broader strategy. And so that's how we try to make it real for people is that understand what you're experiencing, but at the end of the day, like here's why we've made that decision and hope you can understand.
And if there's ways to improve, you know, your particular challenge, well, let's look at that. But we can't upend a whole strategy because one country or state, or region. Has a, you know, dynamic that's mildly inconvenient.
[00:11:49] Dave Travers: One of the things that comes up often, as somebody wants to implement a new strategy or improve the tactics of a particular strategy, is you often need to make the ROI case for supporting that change.
It may be more people, it may be new technology, some other form of. So talk about some of your experiences doing that and what makes you effective at doing that at such a large organization, where you need to improve a part of the candidate experience or bring in a new piece of software. What have you give an example of how you do that and how you make that work successfully?
[00:12:25] Mike Aronson: So I think first, where we would start would be looking at the entirety of like, when we look at any item, whether it be a tool, technology, headcount, whatever it is, it's what is our guided light as a function, right? And what we've talked about in enablement in our leadership team is everything is rooted in an experience, whether it's the candidate's experience, the recruiter's experience, the hiring manager's experience, all of it.
Somebody is gonna have an experience to have. And so what are we doing today that is either positively or negatively impacting that experience? Whichever one it is. And what is the problem that we're trying to solve in this particular case for you know, return on investment? And so I heard somebody say one time, and I love this, it's fall in love with the problem.
Don't fall in love with the solution. Because when you really love the problem, you know inputs, you know the gaps, you know what works, you know why it works, you know why it doesn't work. You know what some of the challenges are, and you can really start dissecting it.
Then you can get into what are the solutions. The analogy? If everything is viewed as a nail, everything's a hammer. Well, that's not, you can't solve problems that way. So if we have an issue, what is available to us? Is there an internal dynamic that we need to correct? Is there cross-functional collaboration that needs to get better? Is there a technology that we need?
Are we limited in capacity? We need more headcount. So ultimately, what are the solutions available? And I think it's important to illustrate where possible multiple solutions, because leadership tends to like to have options, right? I don't wanna be told I have to do this. And then you kind of take the problem, you take the solutions.
And then you translate it to the business, right? What is the ROI gonna be for the business? Because it's not just what TA needs, but how do these investments drive value at the enterprise level? And so before any rollout, we build a business case and we look at it from strategy standpoint, a technology standpoint, efficiency gains, and all of that together will equal higher value work.
And if that's what we're trying to get to, we have to illustrate that to the business. And so let's fast forward, we've done the business case, we've outlined all of that, and we've gotten buy-in. That's just half of the journey because now we have to develop it, whether it be a technology or a process or onboarding a new recruiter or whatever, and we have to ensure that we're gonna maximize the ROI.
And so the best way that I've seen to do that, and I've, we've seen this through not doing it this way, is you've gotta start simple. Right, like it's very easy to get complicated and complex, but when you do that, you will undoubtedly lose ROI because now you're gonna struggle for adoption. You're gonna struggle for understanding.
And so we really try to design and configure whatever it is that we're trying to do in a very simple way that maximizes adoption. And that we can track, right? So that we can see what the key performance indicators are because doing that, you gain confidence, you iterate, you build on, and your journey is never really done.
The destination is the journey, I guess, when it comes to that. And so once you then go live with it, you now have an ability to measure and then report out back to the business and say, Hey, we said this was gonna take time off the process. So we said that this was gonna make it. A better experience for your managers.
You know, here's how we know that we've done that. And so we constantly iterate and we look at it and we share the, I mean, doing any of this without sharing the successes is it feeds a negative perception that we're not trying to advance, we're trying to proceed. And so ultimately we are trying to enable the business to do better, to whether it move fast or perform better.
This is why we then have a strategic seat at the table is because we're looking at it top to bottom. We're hearing the business needs, we're solving problems that would enable a better dynamic for them, and ultimately whether it's a new tool or whatever the case may be, we've now demonstrated some value to them if you're game for it to do a quick role play to show how that works.
[00:16:28] Dave Travers: So suppose I'm the stuffy finance guy that you have to get past, uh, the initial, you know, pitch here, and you have this amazing new candidate experience improvement you wanna roll out. When I don't know that much about talent, but I'm the gatekeeper to the dollars. You know, say, explain to me again why candidate experience is part of the business needs, like aren't we filling the roles we need in generally, how do you make that sort of a case in that sort of a situation?
[00:16:54] Mike Aronson: We're kind of going through that actually in real time right now where we're in the budgeting cycle and we've got to justify, they want flat budgets and we want some investments and the first place I go in that particular instance would be like, do we have a case to be made work for that not investing?
This year and we've invested, but like we haven't invested like we had planned, and we have seen a little bit of an upward tick in time to fill. We'd already driven it down, some very positive numbers last year, but like holding back on some of our spend. Maybe it's coincidence. Maybe it's correlation.
But ultimately we have seen a creep up and the case that I've made to our finance team is we could continue to do these things and maybe see slight upticks and have some level of kinda leveling off, but we're not where we wanna be and we measure time to fill as a KPI that we report out to our CEO every month.
So when the time to fill is going up, like we have to justify what we're doing to do to go down, and I don't know that finance wants to be the position to say we told you no. But ultimately, and I think more, I think in this period of time with the just so much AI and automation in the atmosphere, so to speak.
There's a lot of creativity being asked upon. It's like, how can we get better at this? How can we get better at this? And there's a lot of tools and technology out there, and in some instances, we're gonna have to either co-create or we're gonna have to buy and try, and it may not work the way we thought.
And so to sacrifice what we're doing today for something that may not work, may not solve the immediate goal, but ultimately. Being able to continue to invest will allow us to solve the long-term goals. And so over time, we may be able to say, Hey, this tool over the next three years will decrease our capacity, need, and eliminate time here.
We won't realize any of the savings in year one or two, but by year three, we should. Those are guesses. I mean, those are not hard, fast yet. We will, we won't. And so, making the case and drawing the connection, what we saw, time to fill, go up, and we stopped spending or investing in innovation here again, coincidence or correlation.
We would never know if it was one or the other, but not doing it would be a grave disservice for us as an organization if we wanna be on the leading edge of doing some of these things. And so I think the dynamic with finance is tricky because they're holding the money, they're not really seeing the actual impacts of speed.
And to your point, like you're filling positions, aren't you? What's the difference if you do it in six weeks versus seven weeks? What's the difference? The business wants us to be in five weeks. So you're talking money. I'm talking process optimization. The business is talking results. We have to somehow triangulate that so that everybody is understanding that the direction needs to be.
Look, we don't get everything that we ask for, but we have to know that you know what we're sacrificing by saying no to it. I think we try to do a good job of at least explaining like, listen, we don't have to do this, but this is what this means. If we don't, if you're okay with it, the business is okay with it, and you're willing to kind of get by with it, I'm okay with that, but our job is to make things efficient and effective and easy and, you know, productive ultimately turning the result to what the business needs.
This makes it harder to do that if we don't do that. And so, really having that conversation and I tend to see we have great finance partners. They get it. Sometimes it's just, it's not a math equation.
Like this year was this. You get that much next year. It's not everything doesn't necessarily need to stay flat year over year. But I will say this, there are things that you can sacrifice and not have to worry about, meaning there are strategies in a, especially at an enterprise organization, where they're just not effective, and you can cut those and transfer those out.
I think you have to be willing and ready to look and say, well, we can't fund all of it, but we can get some of the funding from this. And really what we're asking for is a, you know, supplemental X here, and we think we could bring that down over two years and really have those discussions. Again, kind of translating it to the finance speak.
That's finance speak. It's like, where do you realize value and where do you drive down, you know, operational costs and all of that sort of stuff. So those are always fun conversations.
[00:21:13] Dave Travers: I love that. I love, especially where you talk about how the, uh, I'm talking process. You, the finance guy or gal, you're talking uh, dollars.
And we have to triangulate this to business results. And I think what I love about your approach is, I think so often the gatekeepers in that process to go have an ROI discussion and get approval to make an investment to improve results. Those gatekeepers are often in a position where they can immediately tell their bosses about how they shut down some bad ideas and didn't spend the money, they're not as often highlighted by their counterparts saying, Hey, we made this investment and it really paid off because you had the temerity and the guts and the vision to see with me that we were gonna improve the process and improve the business results, as an example.
And so if you bring them onto that journey too, we're gonna drive business results together. And I'm not gonna forget you. When we achieve this together, it makes a huge difference. So I love that. The one thing I've noticed that you've done recently is you've shared some of your thoughts on talent acquisition outside of, of Johnson controls that, you know, like sharing out some of your, started to write on some of your thoughts in including on what the sorts of teams are that are gonna be successful in the future.
And I would love to hear like what inspired you to start writing? How do you choose the topics that you're into? It's not just for the benefit of Johnson Controls, but I think there's a lot to be said for how writing can come back and help. Tell me about how you thought about doing that and what inspired you to do it.
[00:22:50] Mike Aronson: I think what inspired me in the moment was I've been in networking groups and talking to people that have similar jobs at other companies, and I just remember thinking that TA operations or talent operations, talent enablement, and branding, like that's not a role that every company has. Oftentimes, especially at smaller companies, it's you, the head of ta, you do the strategy, you do the operations, you do kind of branding, all of that sort of stuff.
And so I was thinking about it in terms of like, I get a privilege of focus that I get to work on this stuff. This is what I wake up for every day to do, and I'm lucky that I get an opportunity to just see what's going on in different countries and different regions and get different tools in front of me.
And so, uh, I thought, you know, hey, I don't know if anybody wants to hear it, but I'm, I'd be willing to say it and see what, you know, comes of it. And so in kind of coupling that idea with all of the changes that we've experienced over the last, I would say, three and a half, four years at Johnson Controls.
If you were to look at our tech stack from 2020, I don't even think there's a tool that's still on it that was there when we were keto in 2020. And so I just reflected on a lot of the change, and a lot of my writing is about. Change in the future of work, and how do we make ourselves more ready for what's coming?
Because the reality is no one knows what it's gonna look like, but it's not gonna look like it looks today, just like it doesn't look like it looked like in 2020. And so because change is accelerating, well one, it's making it harder to predict what it's gonna look like, but it just reinforces the idea that you always have to be ready for it.
And you know, I find that like in a change process. We tend to lay out a good change management plan. Here's the comms, here's the positioning, here's what we expect. Here's training and all of the things that follow. But at the end of the day, what you're doing is you're conditioning people on, well, this is now the process.
And then at some point, which would be probably more closer to when the rollout is today than it will be, and it was in the past, it's going to change. And so, you break a pattern to create a pattern, to break a pattern again, and that's really hard for people. And so what are we doing as a one from Johnson Controls?
I get to speak to that, but like what are we doing as a kind of collective society of like making people ready for what's to come? Because there's this idea that AI's coming for our jobs, it's coming for tasks, that's for sure. But the way I see it is. If we can make the technology intuitive, right? We can make it easy to use.
Like I always use this example, like no one trained anybody on how to use or shop on Amazon. You just click around, you figure it out like, and it's pretty effective. Like you didn't get some sort of like change management email. Here's what's coming. Every time they update something, like you just figure it out.
You make it intuitive enough, people will use it. And so when we evaluate tools and process technology, we make it. It's simple and intuitive enough for people to adopt. At the same time, letting them know is this is what it is today. But yeah, it's gonna change. It may change slightly, it may change greatly.
It may be replaced it, whatever the case may be. But your skill needs to be adaptability, like you need to be of the understanding that whatever's going on today will undoubtedly change. That's the first part. The second part, and it kind of goes back to something I said earlier in the conversation, is we've gotta connect dots on strategy, right?
If we look at experience as, or an experience as something that guides us on everything, everybody should be looking at it from the same way that here's this process and it's clunky for this person, and that's why we're making it. And so maybe somebody's experience may have to be sacrificed because of somebody else's.
There are definitely a hierarchy experiences. Like, we certainly don't wanna give the recruiter the best experience and the candidate the worst experience because it's easier for the recruiter. And so what are the tradeoffs that need to be made? And so we have to connect the dots on that strategy, right?
Like the strategy, the technology, the efficiency. What higher value work are we giving people to do? And that's one of the things I think is hardest that I've seen here at least, is, you know, make these changes in our process. They think it's a, not they as a monolith, but like that, you know, the, the general consensus is, oh, we're changing again.
Or like, it wasn't broken. Why are we trying to fix it? Well, look at the parts of the work that's low values interview schedule. Why would you wanna schedule your own interviews if there's some sort of automation that can do that? You can now spend probably going back and forth for two, three days with a candidate and a manager.
You can do it in 10 minutes. That's time that, yeah, you maybe not be doing that the whole two, three days, but it's hanging over you. And so now spend the time having a more meaningful conversation about the talent market, pulling market data. Let's review some resumes on the launch call and the intake session, and calibrate on the job description showing up rather than being an order taker.
Strategic, be more valuable and say, this is what you can expect, and this is what the market dictates, and this is what I need from you, and this is what I'll get back to you. And sort rather than us sitting back and saying, you got a new requisition, what do you need? We should be saying, here's how this is gonna go, kind of back to tactics versus strategy, right?
Here's the plan versus what is the plan. And so for us, it's making those connections, making the technologies easier, making the processes more transparent and simple to, so that we're ready, because that's gonna continue to happen, right? We're gonna continue to bring on new and evaluate new tools and technologies.
And so the irony is, AI is actually making us more human. It allows us to be more personable, and I've been saying this for years, like there's never been a time where the learning materials and development opportunities are available for free. You can get information in so many different ways, whether it be a podcast or a white paper, or posts on LinkedIn.
We owe to ourselves professionally to develop ourselves and seek out that information so that we can show up in the ways that the future of work will dictate. And so. Curiosity and adaptability are gonna be so key in making organizations ready for those types of changes because they're not slowing down. If anything, they're getting faster.
[00:29:20] Dave Travers: Okay. We always end these episodes with a rapid fire section, so I want you to envision that you're at headquarters in Milwaukee and you bump into in the elevator, bump into the CEO and you have 30 or 60 seconds to sort of say your piece, and before the elevator ride comes to an end and the CEO says, Hey Mike, you're the expert on interviewing. I interview people all the time for all sorts of different reasons. Help me, gimme your one best tip to become a better interviewer.
[00:29:49] Mike Aronson: I would look at kind of playing off the last question, and you know, kind of the thought would be how are you drawing the connection between adaptability and curiosity?
Because what you may be interviewing that person for today is not what their job is gonna end up looking like down the road, and their ability to change and adapt and be curious about what it may look like or what could be done. And maybe they're the driver of the change. So, trying to dig into how they adapt what the most challenging changes that they've experienced. Just understanding how that plays, because to me, that's a skill that everybody will need to have in the future of work, is adaptability.
[00:30:30] Dave Travers: Mike Aronson, it is so clear why you're a Talen All-Star. Thank you so much for taking the time with us today.
[00:30:35] Mike Aronson: I really appreciate you having me. This was fun.
[00:30:41] Dave Travers: That's Mike Aronson, the Senior Director of Global Talent Acquisition Operations at Johnson Controls. We'll drop his LinkedIn profile in the episode notes so you can connect with him and learn more about his work. And just a reminder, Talent All-Stars is also available on YouTube over on ZipRecruiter's official channel.
I'm Dave Travers. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you right here next week.