La Donna Lokey

That mismatch can leave employees frustrated by generic advice that does not reflect actual advancement paths.

• Managers, mentors, and internal career advisors remain the best resources, they argue, because they bring institutional knowledge and access to opportunities that turn insight into action.
• Organizations that pair internal AI career support with real performance data, learning resources, and human judgment will hold a competitive advantage.
• Without that support, employees will seek third-party coaches and external mentors rather than go without advice.

Lokey cites a 2023 survey in which 47% of Gen Z respondents said tools like ChatGPT gave them better career advice than their manager, while nearly half of employees said their manager did not know how to help with career development. A 2025 study cited in the same post suggested one in three Americans had used AI to help make a career decision.

Lokey frames the shift as structural, not personal: organizations are trimming middle-management layers or asking leaders to do more with less, leaving AI tools to fill the guidance gap for workers.

Read original

Candidates often spend dozens of hours applying and receive no acknowledgment or declination.

• They list small choices that shape the candidate experience — being distracted or multitasking during an interview, keeping your camera off while expecting theirs on, failing to prepare, or already having someone else in mind — and argue that a kind word or moment of empathy can change a candidate's day, their view of the employer brand, and whether a strong hire accepts.
• The post also turns to recruiters: if you start feeling your work doesn't matter, Lokey calls it a flashing red warning sign and suggests taking a break, learning a new skill, or finding a new role or company.

Lokey writes directly to the candidate, "To that candidate - I promise you, it matters," and closes with an African proverb: "If you think you are too small to make a difference, you haven't spent a night with a mosquito."

Read original

Their practical test: collected data should sync into the applicant tracking system, and the flow should ideally carry candidates through the full hiring journey as the technology matures.

• The value, they argue, lies in improved candidate experience, lower application barriers, higher completion rates, less recruiter administration, and better pre-screening — not novelty.
• Lokey names tools that make this possible, including Paradox Olivia, Brazen, HireVue, Phenom People, Employ, and Sense, then asks whether organizations have experimented and what results or lessons they have seen.

The post links each claimed benefit to a process outcome: lower barriers let talent apply anytime, anywhere; simpler flows mean fewer drop-offs; AI-powered interactions mean better candidate fit and quality.

Read original

In a separate post, they ask talent acquisition and hiring professionals how tools that let candidates apply to dozens of positions at once have affected the process.

• The options range from no impact, to minor impact cushioned by security and process steps, to medium impact with more qualified applicants and higher volume, to teams drowning in applicants who do not meet criteria but say they do.
• The tension beneath the conversational-apply enthusiasm is clear: friction removed for candidates can return as recruiter workload and quality risk.

The post's poll options describe practitioner outcomes, ending with "Major impact - the team is drowning in applicants who don't meet criteria (but say they do)," and asks respondents to estimate what percentage of their applicants use these tools.

Read original

Their questions address both hiring professionals and candidates, framing the industry's direction as something to learn from practitioner and candidate experience rather than assert from a vendor's position. The technology posts end with open questions, and the jobseeker's view serves as evidence of whether recruiting is improving.

One post asks recruiters and talent acquisition professionals which new recruiting tools or feature updates genuinely improve candidate experience or team productivity. In the same post, Lokey asks jobseekers about standout experiences after fake postings and "the black hole after clicking apply," inviting both groups to share what is working, what is promising, and what is pushing the industry forward.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

La Donna Lokey defines conversational apply as natural-language, low-friction applications through chatbots, QR codes, text messages or mobile apps, with collected data syncing into the applicant tracking system.

• The post lists claimed benefits including improved candidate experience, lower application barriers, higher completion rates, increased efficiency and better candidate fit.
• They name tools including Paradox Olivia, Brazen, HireVue, Phenom People, Employ and Sense, then ask the network whether organizations have experimented with conversational apply.

For brands planning a campaign

For a content collaboration on conversational apply and candidate experience, this post shows Lokey framing a category, naming vendors and inviting practitioner evidence. It’s a natural anchor for a sponsored explainer or discussion.

Lokey retells the starfish story and applies it to hiring, asking recruiters whether small acts still matter when they’re distracted, keep cameras off, don’t prepare, face hundreds of applicants or already have someone in mind. The post reminds recruiters that their actions matter to the candidate, and argues that losing the sense that work matters is a warning sign in recruiting.

For brands planning a campaign

A strong candidate-experience piece for a brand that wants to discuss empathy, communication and candidate treatment—not just tools or process metrics.

Lokey cites a 2023 survey in which 47% of Gen Z respondents said they received better career advice from tools like ChatGPT than from their manager, and a 2025 study suggesting 1 in 3 Americans had used AI to help make a career decision. The post distinguishes what public AI tools cannot know from what leaders, managers, mentors and internal career advisors can provide, and predicts that organizations combining internal AI career support with human context will have a competitive advantage.

For brands planning a campaign

For a recruiting-technology company, this connects AI advice, career development and manager enablement. It opens a content angle on AI-supported internal mobility and career coaching.

Lokey asks talent acquisition and hiring professionals to choose the process impact of automation tools that let candidates apply to dozens of positions at once, from no impact to teams "drowning in applicants who don't meet criteria." The post asks for colleagues’ reports and bonus information on what percentage of applicants use such tools.

For brands planning a campaign

This polling post can anchor a research-led collaboration on application volume, quality, screening and candidate fraud.

Lokey asks recruiters and talent acquisition professionals to name the coolest new recruiting tools or feature updates, and asks jobseekers about standout experiences after fake postings and the "black hole after clicking apply." The post invites both sides to share what’s working, what’s promising and what’s pushing the industry forward.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for a community or user-generated content campaign seeking recruiter and candidate perspectives in one thread.

They list expected benefits: improved candidate experience, lower application barriers, higher completion rates, recruiter efficiency, and better fit through AI pre-screening. They name tools including Paradox Olivia, Brazen, HireVue, Phenom People, Employ, and Sense, then ask whether organizations have tried it.

Explainer post defining conversational apply, listing benefits and tools, and asking the network questions.

For brands planning a campaign

A recruiting technology company could use this as a ready-made collaboration on conversational apply: explain the candidate journey, test claims against practitioner results, and ask the audience to share lessons. La Donna Lokey frames both the benefits and open questions, making a campaign that pairs product education with evidence from actual implementations stronger than a one-sided tool list.

Examples: Source 1

La Donna Lokey offers poll options ranging from no impact to teams drowning in applicants who do not meet criteria but say they do, then asks readers to share colleagues' experiences and the percentage of applicants using such tools.

Poll-style post with multiple-choice options and an invitation to comment.

For brands planning a campaign

For a vendor selling screening, matching, assessment, or applicant-tracking workflows, La Donna Lokey's framing identifies a concrete buyer pain: high volume and low-fit applications. A collaboration could address that operational pressure and show how a product changes recruiter workload or candidate quality, with the audience poll as a natural research hook.

Examples: Source 1

La Donna Lokey argues that public AI tools lack performance context and internal opportunity data; managers, mentors, and internal advisors remain best placed to turn advice into action; organizations that combine internal AI career support with real performance data, learning resources, and human emotional intelligence will have an advantage; and external coaches and mentors will fill gaps when support is lacking.

Research-led reflection with numbered implications and source links.

This post moves from recruiting operations to employee career development, giving brands a broader talent-ecosystem topic to evaluate.

For brands planning a campaign

An HR technology, learning, coaching, or career-development brand could collaborate on AI-supported career growth grounded in real performance and internal opportunity. La Donna Lokey draws a clear line between generic AI advice and contextual human support, so a campaign should demonstrate the difference rather than simply praise AI.

Examples: Source 1

They argue that one kind voice, a moment of empathy, or a friendly exchange can change a candidate's day and the employer brand, and that feeling one's work does not matter is a warning sign in recruiting.

Narrative parable followed by hiring-scenario questions and a reminder of the impact on candidates.

The story-led format stands apart from the tool-and-trend posts and shows La Donna Lokey's range in values-driven candidate experience content.

For brands planning a campaign

An employer-brand, candidate-experience, or recruitment-marketing campaign could build on this theme of human treatment. The content suits collaborations on communication audits, recruiter training, or candidate feedback loops, with the starfish narrative offering an emotional counterpoint to technology-led topics elsewhere in the corpus.

Examples: Source 1

One post invites recruiters and jobseekers alike to share what is working, promising, or pushing the industry forward.

Open-ended LinkedIn questions and polls inviting comments, experiences, and examples from hiring professionals and jobseekers.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand could use this question-led format for launch research, a live Q&A, or a co-created survey that draws perspectives from practitioners and candidates. Rather than a straight product placement, the collaboration could position the brand as part of a conversation about what works in recruiting technology, with La Donna Lokey as the convener.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

No commercial relationship is stated.

View example

No commercial relationship is stated.

View example

No commercial relationship is stated.

View example

No commercial relationship is stated.

View example

No commercial relationship is stated.

View example

No commercial relationship is stated.

View example

A second post addresses fabricated or misleading candidate information and declining confidence in hiring decisions. The beat—recruiting and retention, judged by whether the right people stay—overlaps closely with Lokey’s.

Ricketts focuses on clarity and verification for employers, ending posts with an offer of a workforce consultation through their firm. Lokey focuses more on the candidate experience and named recruiting tools, usually closing by asking what the network has seen rather than pointing to a service.

Read original · Original 2

One post draws on a TEDx talk about recruiting mistakes and the gap between time spent recruiting and time spent fixing bad hires; another argues against paving the cowpath with AI and asks whether the linear funnel should exist at all. The same skepticism about automating broken processes runs through their questions about application tools.

Cox mostly reacts to other people’s talks and ideas in short, reflective posts that end with a question. Lokey explains specific practices or products, names the tools involved, and invites practitioners and candidates to report results.

Read original · Original 2

One post lays out a screening structure—setting deal-breakers, sorting candidates into yes, maybe, and no buckets, and using screening questions.

• Another argues that an organization’s recruiting problem is often a retention problem whose root cause needs to be found.
• Flesher’s practical, employer-side voice and shared audience make them a natural next follow.

Flesher writes long, operational how-to posts from the employer’s chair. Lokey is more conversational and market-facing, weighing tool promises, keeping the candidate experience in view, and putting open questions to recruiters and jobseekers rather than prescribing each process step.

Read original · Original 2

Cox's post on Mads Faurholt-Jorgensen's talk focuses on role definition, similarity bias and resumes screening out non-traditional talent.

• A second post applies “don't pave the cowpath” to talent acquisition and asks whether the linear funnel should exist at all, describing hiring as potentially more continuous and conversational.
• That gives a recruiting technology brand a sharper point-of-view angle for conversational apply: the point is not to speed up the old application form but to remove steps that should not exist.
• Cox is the better choice when the main deliverable is a thought-leadership piece or executive discussion.

The tradeoff is less practical detail for a buyer evaluating implementation.

• The posts comment on a TEDx talk and a process idea; they don't demonstrate configuring chat-based applications, syncing data to an applicant tracking system or measuring completion rates.
• A brand would need to pair Cox's funnel argument with its own product demonstrations and customer proof.
• Cox also frames hiring change at the system level, making the posts less directly useful for a campaign focused on hands-on recruiter tactics or candidate-experience checklists.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Ricketts' posts offer concrete hooks for a vendor selling assessment or verification: a cited survey finding that 73% of HR professionals encounter fabricated or misleading candidate information and that 36% say AI-generated content has reduced confidence in hiring decisions, followed by a practical argument for success profiles, stronger interviews and candidate checks.

• A second post pushes clarity in job descriptions and interview expectations.
• For a recruiting technology company whose product addresses quality of hire or applicant verification, that is a more direct editorial match than Lokey's tool roundup.

The tradeoff is narrower application-experience coverage.

• Ricketts writes about what happens before and after the application—verification, clarity and retention—but not conversational-apply mechanics, applicant tracking system sync, chatbot design or the candidate's experience inside an application flow.
• A collaboration would need the brand to supply that product and workflow context.
• The posts also direct readers to a workforce consultation, so the brand should clarify editorial independence and disclosure before assuming a vendor-neutral treatment.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Flesher's posts give specific operating advice: sort candidates into yes, maybe and no buckets against deal-breaker criteria; ask screening questions tied to those criteria, travel, on-site requirements and salary; examine employment gaps and career progression; and treat retention as a separate root-cause problem using exit-interview patterns. For a recruiting technology company whose product supports screening workflows, interview consistency or retention analytics, that is more concrete than Lokey's broad candidate-experience message.

The tradeoff is distance from conversational apply and current AI-assisted hiring.

• Flesher's posts date from January and February 2024 and describe traditional application review, screening calls and exit interviews; they don't address chat, text or QR applications, applicant tracking system integration or AI screening.
• The brand would be buying operational credibility and would need to bridge the material to its current product.
• The posts present established practice rather than innovation commentary, so a campaign centered on category change would get less momentum.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2