Grow My Team

Grow My Team https://growmyteam.ai/
AI enhanced recruitment software, integrated job boards, science-backed personality profiling for fit and bulk CV screening.

Put science, structure and AI behind every hire so that you can make better decisions, faster.

01/09/2026

AI embellished CV's is a hot topic. Many people ask me if this is going to be the end of CV's as we know it..... maybe, but I don't think so.

This is my first Morning Minute videos where I hope we can explore these sorts of topics together.

Please let me know your thoughts below in the comments.

31/08/2026

Read the CV last.

I know that sounds backwards. The whole industry is built the other way around: post the ad, wait for resumes, read the pile, shortlist the ones that read well, interview from there.

The resume tells you what the candidate chose to write. It's one data point, and it's also the easiest one to embellish or manipulate. Screening on it first means the cleverness of the document decides who gets assessed at all.

My bet is the operators who win the next two years move the first real assessment to the front.

→ Define the standard before you advertise. Build a behavioural profile of what good looks like in the role, drawn from the people already succeeding in it, so every applicant is measured against the same ruler.

→ Screen against the standard, then read the CV. A behaviour-first screen tells you how someone will operate once the performance is over. And reply fast enough to keep the good ones, because strong candidates have options, and speed on the reply beats speed on the decision.

Do those and the CV becomes something you glance at once applicants are already ranked. It stops carrying the whole decision.

The order of your process is a choice.

30/08/2026

AI is changing the world, not only the hiring process, but is job, careers, roles, businesses.... lives. Help me work out what hiring needs to look like in an AI future for the best possible outcomes for employers and employees!

One empty sales seat costs more than most budgets ever account for.The vacancy itself, not just the recruitment cost. Au...
28/08/2026

One empty sales seat costs more than most budgets ever account for.

The vacancy itself, not just the recruitment cost. Australian analysis puts an empty account-executive seat at around $3,000 per business day in lost pipeline. The figure moves with territory size and sales cycle length, but the direction is consistent: the vacancy cost dwarfs the recruitment cost.

Now run the timeline.

45 to 65 days to fill the seat.
4 to 6 months for the new hire to ramp to full quota.
Plus the notice period, when the leaver's pipeline was already thinning.

One resignation opens a six to eight month window where that patch produces a fraction of what it should. At $3,000 a day, even a conservative version runs into six figures. On one seat.

And with average rep tenure around 18 months, this isn't a one-off you can plan around. It's a recurring tax on the revenue engine.

When next year's budget gets built, most of this cost never gets its own line. It gets absorbed as "we missed target in Q2".

Your recruiter is the office manager with fifteen spare minutes. The person who does payroll, chases suppliers, sorts th...
27/08/2026

Your recruiter is the office manager with fifteen spare minutes. The person who does payroll, chases suppliers, sorts the insurance renewal, and now has 80 CVs sitting in an inbox because you posted a role on SEEK last Tuesday.

The problem in most small businesses is time. Screening CVs and running first-round conversations properly takes a few hours a week. Actual, focused hours. But owners running lean don't have hours, they have fifteen minutes between other jobs. So one of two things happens.

Hiring stalls, and the role sits open for weeks while the pile grows and the good candidates take other offers. Or hiring gets rushed. Someone skims the first twenty CVs, picks three that look fine, and the decision gets made on a gut read in a single interview.

Both of those cost you real money. The stalled hire bleeds revenue every day the seat stays empty. The rushed hire is worse, because now you've filled the seat with a problem that takes months to surface and months more to fix.

The office manager is doing four jobs. The owner is running the company. The process failed because there was only ever a pile of CVs and whoever had a spare quarter hour.

26/08/2026

You already employ the answer to your next job ad. Most owners never look at it.

When a seat opens up, the reflex is to write the ad first. Pull up the last job description, freshen the bullet points, post it on SEEK by Friday. But that just means you've invited hundreds of people to apply against a standard you haven't defined.

Your best performer in that role is a walking benchmark. The way they handle a stalled deal or a week where nothing goes right is a behavioural pattern, and that pattern is measurable. It predicts success in that specific seat far better than anything a candidate chooses to write about themselves.

So the order matters. Before the ad goes live:

1. Build a behavioural profile of the role itself, drawn from the people already succeeding in it. Before a single application comes in, you know the pattern that predicts success in that seat.

2. Screen every applicant against that standard, then read the CV. A behaviour-first screen tells you how they'll operate once the performance is over.

3. Ask the questions that predict performance. When the standard exists, whoever's in the room can interview against it consistently.

The payoff runs in both directions. The vacancy shortens because you're not rebuilding the standard from scratch every time a hire fails. And the wrong hire gets caught before the offer, before eighteen months into a wrecked territory.

A benchmark built once is an asset you reuse for every hire in that role.

25/08/2026

Fifteen years of experience tells you someone survived fifteen years. That's it. Job ads I see treat survival and performance as the same thing.

The pushback is that experience filters out the risky hires. Your best sales rep and your worst one probably have near-identical CVs, with the same tenure and the same job titles. The CV can't tell them apart, and neither can the years.

Tenure rewards people who are good enough not to get fired. Someone can spend fifteen years being politely moved along, never bad enough to sack, and arrive at your door with a CV that reads like reliability. Meanwhile the person with three years who genuinely thrived gets screened out before anyone speaks to them.

The experienced candidate has done fifteen years of interviews too, so they read the room brilliantly, and the interview measures the one skill least connected to whether they'll actually do the job.

When we built our scoring, we deliberately excluded proxy signals like postcodes and graduation years. Years of tenure sits closer to that list than most people are comfortable admitting. It says almost nothing about whether someone can do the work.

And yet. If I had two identical candidates in front of me, identical behaviours, identical fit, I'd probably still take the one with more years. The bias runs deep, even in me. So I don't let it near the shortlist.

Eighty applications for one role, and the pile keeps growing while you're doing payroll. Every CV is polished and keywor...
24/08/2026

Eighty applications for one role, and the pile keeps growing while you're doing payroll. Every CV is polished and keyword-perfect, hitting the same phrases from your job ad. Somewhere in that pile are three people genuinely worth meeting.

Hiring in a lean business runs into one constraint: time. Screening CVs and running first-round conversations properly takes a few hours a week. Most owners have fifteen minutes between other jobs.

So one of two things happens. The hiring stalls, and the seat stays empty while the ad keeps running. Or it gets rushed, and fifteen minutes of skimming produces a shortlist built on whoever formatted their CV best, and a decision that's closer to a coin flip than anyone wants to admit.

Neither one finds the three people worth meeting. The stalled hiring loses them to faster competitors, and the rushed shortlist can't tell them apart from the other seventy-seven.

A fifteen-minute screen of eighty polished CVs is measuring who formatted their CV best.

23/08/2026

Every sales-led owner has one. The hire who looked perfect in the room and cost you a fortune once they started. You still remember the name.

Bad sales hires usually interview brilliantly.

Reading a room is the job. So a certain kind of candidate sells you on themselves better than they'll ever sell your product. The interview on its own measures the one skill least correlated with hitting quota.

And the salary was never the expensive part. A bad sales hire runs 1.5 to 3 times their annual package once you add up the comp you paid while they found their feet and never did, the deals in their patch that went cold, and the two good accounts that went quiet after a few clumsy calls and renewed with someone else the following year.

If you're earlier in your career and hiring your first reps, this is the trap. The candidate who dazzles you in the meeting room feels like the safe pick. Your gut tells you that you'd buy from this person, so your customers will too. But a polished meeting-room performance hides whether someone will do the daily behaviours that close deals, like the pipeline discipline and the unglamorous fourth call.

Keep interviewing. Just stop asking the interview to predict quota on its own. You already know what your best rep does differently. The problem is measuring it in a stranger before you sign, when it costs nothing, instead of eight months in, when it has already cost you a fortune. Define the behaviours that actually drive results in the role, then score every candidate against that standard. The interview does what it's actually good at: confirming what the evidence already suggests. Charisma in the room is one data point.

22/08/2026

Ask most owners when the cost of a sales vacancy starts and they'll say "once I begin hiring." They're already weeks late.

The pipeline that rep was building stops the moment they check out, usually a fortnight before the resignation letter arrives. It never shows up as a line item. Just a quarter that came in soft for reasons everyone had a theory about.

Then the seat actually goes empty, and the maths gets uncomfortable. Australian analysis puts an empty account-executive seat at around $3,000 per business day in lost pipeline. That's the revenue the territory was meant to generate, divided across the days nobody works it.

Now run the timeline. 45 to 65 days to fill the seat. 4 to 6 months for the new hire to ramp to full quota. Plus that notice period, when the leaver's pipeline was already thinning. One resignation opens a six to eight month window where that patch produces a fraction of what it should. Even a conservative version runs into six figures. On one seat.

There are quieter costs too. Missed callbacks, lapsed renewals, relationships that quietly move to a competitor. Those losses accumulate and rarely get attributed back to the vacancy.

Average rep tenure sits around 18 months. Sector turnover near 35%. So this is a recurring tax on the revenue engine, and it started collecting before you knew the seat was open.

Address

Perth, WA

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

+61420975033

Website

, ,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Grow My Team posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Grow My Team:

Shortcuts

Share

Category