For employer branders, there's that terrifying moment when we've built something and it is time to release it to the world. All the pride and passion that went into it could go up in a puff of "meh" unless we insert one new step: testing the waters to gauge interest.

Speaking of diversity, here's an article breaking down what women in STEM really want in their next job (and if you clearly offer these things to them, they are more inclined to apply and accept your offers.

What are we getting wrong about attracting and hiring diverse candidates? That we treat them like they are special. Instead, focus on giving them a concrete and tangible reason for them to choose you. It's a pretty compelling argument.

Ooof. When you ask the question, “Does TA Understand Passive Talent Engagement?” you know what the answer is going to be, and that answer isn’t going to be positive. But what I was amused by was that after examining the wreckage of the question, the solution the author came away with was that more time and energy should be spend on marketing. Now, if you’re a marketer, you know that marketing can be broken into two kinds: direct and brand. Direct marketing is what you get when you Google “kid’s STEM activities,” the direct response to a need. Any marketing with a clear CTA is direct marketing, which hardly seems in keeping with the original question. So what the author is actually prescribing is that employer branding should be in charge of passive talent engagement. QED, right?