Episode 53

Eyal Rosenfeld on The Future of Hiring and Evaluating Adaptability in Modern Hiring Practices

TIM: Eyal, thank you so much for joining us on the Objective Hiring show.

EYAL: Thank you very much, Tim, for having me here in your podcast.

TIM: So we chatted a couple of weeks ago, and you mentioned how important it was for you that candidates could learn new things as opposed to they currently know how to use a specific tool, and so you're looking at maybe more of their future growth, their ability to learn new things. I feel like this is especially important now given the rate of change of technology. If you're not willing and able to pick up new things, you're going to be left behind pretty quickly. Do you have any ways that you evaluate this in the hiring process or any ways you try to figure out if this person can actually upscale quickly?

EYAL: Tim In today's world we're looking for an agile candidate who is open-minded, listening, and constantly learning and changing. In the past we sought candidates who had the experience with the specific tools, but today the tools and methodologies are constantly changing, so the candidate must constantly learn and adjust his environment. Now to do this when I'm hiring someone and checking to see how they perform, we give them a couple of tests. So first of all, we give them an online test for one or two hours. In this test, they hold the basic elements that are required for the candidate, like SQL. We want to check them if they are correct in the basics, and so they can do it if they have their own ability to do whatever they want because we can see how they think; we can only see the results, but we can analyze the results and see from there if they create SQLs. Perfect. How they do the right SQLs we cannot allow, but they can do it on their own time during this one or two hours, and they can do it with AI help, right? We cannot monitor that, but we want to see if they can do it in this specific time, so this is one test. The second test that we give them, we want to see how they react without the AI, and usually it's a face-to-face interview with the team leader. We give them a couple of high-level tests with a real problem, and we want to see how they can respond to that problem, and while he's conducting this, we will introduce more factors, more elements that he or she will need to address in their solution. and by that we can see how he's shifting his or her mind and being more agile on the thoughts and on the way they tackle this specific problem.

TIM: So in that live, face-to-face interview, as you say, the candidate doesn't have access to ChatGPT, so you're dealing directly with them and their brain alone, and you're trying to look at their adaptability, their ability to learn. How exactly do you do that? You start to shift the requirements you've given them and see if they can keep up with the solution they're discussing. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that process?

EYAL: Okay, we're doing an interview with them, and as I said, we're holding a high-level test with a real problem, a real situation that we currently have in our field of expertise while the candidates respond to the problem we We are changing some elements that they need to change their thinking. so their solution Their previous solution that they just gave us won't fit; they need to change it and adjust it. I want to see how he's thinking. Is he asking the questions for more information he needs to do it on his own? Does he ask the right questions? And we will observe how the candidate behaves on his own without the assistance of the AI, as you mentioned, and how he's communicating with us. This is very important. Now this will show us the ability of his mind and how agile he is. If someone can change and will not be locked on his own solution, previous solution, and try to adapt, we will know he can adapt also to other tools, so he's not locked on only one solution. He's open-minded; he's listening and trying to evolve.

TIM: If you think of the candidates who, at that live interview stage, have failed, have not passed it, are there common recurring patterns among those candidates? Is it that they are a little bit stubborn? Is it that they only have one tool in their toolkit and they only know how to do things in a certain way? Yeah, how would you characterize the most common reasons for failure?

EYAL: During the face-to-face interview, we have only one hour, and in one hour we need to figure out if this candidate is right for us. So when we give them and change his, we check his deck, and changing his solution, we try to see if he's listening to us and trying to adjust his thinking. This gives us a spot if he's on the right track if he can adjust also in the work environment if he's using one tool and and as I said, because of AI and everything and clouds, we are changing all the time. Tools we are adapting to new technologies, so we need them even though they made the solution in some kind of in another tool. Perhaps we're going to say, Okay, let's redesign it and do it in another tool that will be more fitted for Zadara. So I can't check that in one hour, but what I can do is see if he's open-minded or she's open-minded.

TIM: And is part of what you're testing for also how receptive they are to the feedback? Are you maybe critiquing or critiquing their initial solution and pointing out some flaws and seeing how they react to that to make sure they're not defensive, for example?

EYAL: Yeah, I'm trying to keep the interview as positive as possible, but we give them—we tackle them with a real problem and let them have a few minutes to adjust and ask questions if they want. We're not giving them any more information than the basic. I want to see that they are truly into trying to solve it and how they think. And usually when you want someone, he needs to ask more questions, the right questions, so we need them to see how they react to that, and even though after he's given us a solution, we will, as I said, be trying to change some factors and add more factors and add more elements that he will need, or she will need, to change their solution, and everything is on a time limit. So there's a pressure that usually it's a positive pressure for the candidate to answer it and change his solution. Yes, we are trying to fit everything in one hour. We're trying to give them pressure to change stuff during and shake their deck and to see if their solution and their thinking… Actually, it doesn't matter what the solution is; it can even be that there's no solution if we really don't care about the solution itself because we are not really trying to solve the problem in one hour. Usually, it's more complex, and it's at a high level, but I want to see that he's open-minded and he's Working with us with the team to find a solution is conducting back-and-forth conversation with us. He can ask questions; he can say Oh, maybe we can do it like this or this. Why do you think everything is okay? There's no right way to answer it; we just want to see how he's acting accordingly to our changes during the test.

TIM: Yeah, I think this is a smart way to do it, and I feel like the importance of this skill of, let's say, being adaptable, having an open mindset, as you say, being able and willing to learn new things, you could argue maybe this has never been more important because if you live in a world that's in some kind of status quo where one year is very similar to the next, maybe you can get away with having the same skills because not much is changing. But I don't think anyone would describe our current world as like that. It's very dynamic; obviously, AI is changing a lot of things, and so if you're not willing and able to change, I feel like you're going to be left behind very quickly, and it's quite a, I think, quite a cognitively difficult thing because, with something as profound as AI, a lot of our assumptions of what could and could not be done are being shattered. and I say this myself in the hiring context around things that we would have dismissed even six months ago as impossible and now actually easy, and so if you don't have that open mindset and you're really on top of things and you're really being honest with yourself, then I feel like you're going to get stuck pretty quickly. So yeah, the fact that you've unlocked a clever way to get a sense of that in an interview, I think, would be really helpful for other hiring managers to incorporate into their interview process.

EYAL: the AI It's making our life more complicated, but it should help us during the hiring process, so there's two sides to the coin for AI. The candidate and the recruiter are recruiting, and the company is trying to recruit. Today it's more mature for the candidate to use the AI during an interview because if it's online or something like that, they can have the answer in the AI. We saw we all saw the solutions, so it's very helpful for the candidate, but as a company we need a better tool that uses the AI for our advantage. For example, today I'm using the AI for the job description publish. They carry up opportunities, so I'm using the AI to create the job descriptions much better than thinking on my own. I can add everything and edit, of course, but first of all, I give it to the AI. Please create the job descriptions. So this is something nice. The second thing that I'm using today is a company that is like creating the online test. As I said, we're giving it for the first screening. I'm giving them an online test; they do their own on their own time and on their own computer, and usually I create this test using an AI. It's not supposed to be too difficult; it's only to check the basic elements, as I said before, but the AI can do it. We don't need to do anything else other than that, and yes, it's hard. I wish the AI would help more the company and will help us to sort out the candidates.

TIM: I feel like we are going to see a drastic change in the next six to 18 months in how hiring is done using AI because I feel like now the large language models are at a point where they are very useful for a lot of different things in hiring, and it's just a case of the applications being built using those large language models. We just need to wait a little while for this to catch up, and then we should be in a much better space, I hope. For me, like, there's loads of use cases. Like you mentioned, writing the job description is a no-brainer. That application-level feedback I think is also easy at the moment. Companies would typically do, like, a manual CV screen with a human description, which is very slow, very expensive, very open to bias, and completely unauditable. So an AI doing that more objective screening step seems easy, I think, and then having done that, they could also give feedback to candidates that means it's meaningful, so rather than just the generic sorry you didn't get an interview email, which doesn't tell a candidate anything, presumably this AI system that's, let's say, scoring the CV or scoring the application could then share some of that feedback with the candidate. completely automatically, and so I feel like we've got to be very close to that kind of scenario becoming normal, so I'm personally excited. Are there any other bits of hiring that you think AI would be really helpful in that you can see us developing tools in?

EYAL: Actually, one of the first things that we do while we are hunting the candidate is manually screen the resumes today, hopefully, and today the AI won't give you the ability to investigate a specific person, a candidate, and hopefully in the near future the AI will be able to run overall the resumes and add information and verify the resume. Checking that the candidate did go to this specific university that he said, and he will go into his media and track his highlights of the candidates and whatever is open on the web, of course, and eventually create maybe and produce a score to fit our candidate, our culture, to see if it's more fitted for me for my line of work, and we'll start with that. Give me a score, and I'll start from top to bottom and work my way from there to the candidates.

TIM: Yeah, for sure, and maybe that's one of the exciting things about the large language models: they are very good at taking unstructured data and making structured data out of it, so suddenly all these things around the internet—for example, people's content they might have on a blog or their GitHub profile or their LinkedIn content or LinkedIn page and all these other just random disparate sources—the enlarged language model, then with the access to the internet, you're right, could be doing some kind of aggregation. I guess the territory we'll get into then is which of that information should you use in hiring decisions and which is unfair. That's it. For example, we find a post someone wrote 13 years ago on Facebook when they were in high school. Should that be part of the hiring decision, or should it be time decay, or what have you? Had any thoughts around that?

EYAL: Yeah, it's a delicate matter, as you said, but everything that you post on the web, and everybody can see all the videos, the pictures, every phrase, and every post that you post there on the web, you can use it when you're searching for a candidate. I'm doing it manually when I am thinking of a specific candidate. I'm going to his LinkedIn to see what he published. I'm going to see what he saw in Facebook and something I'm not going all over the media; I just want to see to understand the person is how he works his thinking, and if he's more, let's say, culture-ready in Zadara, we have a saying that it's the culture we call it Zadarian. I want to see if it's if he or she fits us. I'm not using it as a culture as something that it's bad or good or you're not. You're not fitted to our culture because culture is a wide, wide thing. I just want to see that initiates are open; there are positives to see if they're thinking, listening, and analyzing things. I'm trying to get everything from what is publishing, and of course I'm taking into consideration if you post something 10 years ago, it's not the same as the current period, so of course I'm taking into consideration today, but I'm doing it manually today. If the AI could do it for me, and of course, taking into consideration that this post is from 10 years ago and not from today, or is publishing something today it's so I expected I expect the AI and the LLM to give me some better summary than just add everything up into one place and, of course, a score.

TIM: Yeah, this is really an exciting and interesting area because at the moment the screening process is pretty flawed, I think, because most companies would have that CV and that application that a human is manually reviewing. Even if we automate that bit with AI, which I think is already taking place, it's still such a limited data set to use to make that decision. It's still a candidate summarizing themselves onto maybe one or two pages, and they've gotten ChatGPT to rewrite it, so what I'm hearing a lot of recently is that lots of the CVs are looking very similar to each other. They all seem great; they're increasingly good-looking CVs compared to the job description. because they've been optimized with ChatGPT, like people have clearly written prompts to say, Make my CV look as close as possible to this job description, so this is still not going to be a great data set, but yeah, if candidates have more content that's available around the web, they might have a GitHub profile. LinkedIn profile and StackOverflow blog They might've had a business they ran before a consultancy; they might've done a conference that's on YouTube or whatever. All sorts of these things that, yeah, for you as a hiring manager, would be so time-consuming to go and search and hunt and look at and review and think, How does this match to what we're looking for? Yeah, if other hiring managers also think of it that way or would like to do that, then a system that does it automatically would be really interesting and would certainly give you more context than a CV alone, that's for sure.

EYAL: Yeah, and if you publish something, you have to take responsibility for it. This is what I'm telling even my kids: everything that you take digitally could be held in a court against you. Yeah, you can do whatever you want, but you have to take into consideration it could hurt you. I know it's very delicate. I know it's, but we live in the real world, and too many factors are getting in, and we need to adjust ourselves to that.

TIM: Yes, absolutely, and you've made me also think I should go and do a review of my own Facebook page, which I haven't been on for about five years, but I currently imagine my views of when I was 18 are very different from what they are now. Who knows what I used to say, so I'll look into that. What about this, Al? If you could automate just one stage of the hiring process, which stage would you like to automate and why?

EYAL: It's a good question. I think just my most expensive time, my most expensive things during an interview and hiring a candidate, a specific employee, is the time-consuming part, so I will try to figure out the best place that the AI can enter and help me reduce my time with all the candidates. It's like a funnel, as we know, so first of all, we have all the resumes from here, and in the end, we are conducting the face-to-face interview, and from here it's only one or two candidates, three candidates at the most, so I guess we need to address the upper funnel. Oh, and there is the most time that you're trying to filter out the correct resumes to continue with you to the next step. If you ask me, the manual screening resumes as we spoke a minute ago, if the AI can do it and give me some kind of summary and produce a score as a starting point, I'm not telling you that the AI will choose which candidate will be fitted for me, but it will give me some kind of a score and an ability to continue from that point. It would be much more helpful if I could see the summary for each candidate instead of going myself and looking them up. Of course, in the end, I will check his credentials and speak to people that he works with, his manager. If he gives me the ability to do it and asks my friends if they know him, If he works with them in the same company or something like that, but first of all, let's do the Okay High-level screening faster without my help.

TIM: Yeah, I feel like that's definitely going to be the first step that will be automated. I feel like it's probably the easiest, where there's the most obvious value add. You're not really removing the nice human-to-human element because it's a human reading a CV, so there's no loss in that sense, so yeah, I feel like that's definitely going to go. You mentioned a few times culture and looking to hire someone who would fit into the culture of the business. How do you go about evaluating that? Do you have a rubric or a set of specific values you're looking for, and how do you ascertain whether or not you think a candidate's going to meet that culture?

EYAL: This is very difficult. A culture is something spread; it's not there's no correct formula for culture, at least in my eyes and in my company, but I'm trying to see a positive candidate, someone who's taking the initiative and trying to solve going forward and not sticking to his ground and saying this is the way, this is the only way that I know this should be the solution. There's not a lot of time to try to identify it with a candidate. We have a couple of calls with them on the phone, and we have the face-to-face, so we don't have a lot of time. Most of the information that I get regarding the culture to see if he's positive is if he's right for us in the face-to-face when I tackle him with the questions, and I'm checking to see how he reacts with us with the team and how we adjust to his environment when we change it. This gives us some kind of ability if he's got the right energy for the company and for the team. Of course, yeah, you have to work in a specific team. We want to see that he's or she's adjusting to the company, to our team, to the team leader. Usually, the team leader will be in that face-to-face meeting. So yes, it's hard to understand if he's the right culture for us, but we're trying. It's not the culture; we just want to see that the candidate is thinking positively, let's say like this, because we can't manage our employees. We expect them to open a camera on Zoom or something like that in a meeting and stuff like that. This is a culture for me. Everybody's open and can talk freely and want to help the other in the team and in other departments, and this is, for me, like positive thinking.

TIM: And is it the case that this step you would say is done consistently in the company in that you're all looking for the same thing, or, for example, have you had a scenario where you might've had yourself and other interviewers interviewing a candidate, and maybe you had very different opinions of whether or not the candidate was a good cultural fit for the business?

EYAL: It's hard to say if I'm interviewing someone or if I'm not. No, I'm not looking for a candidate with a specific culture; I'm just screening out the person that I think could work better with the adjustment environment and my team. I want them to see that they can speak to us. They are open-minded; they are listening; they are not locked on their own solutions; they can ask for help; everything is okay. We just want to see them work because, as I said, in today's world, it's supposed to be the candidate should be agile for all and open-minded for all things. Because it's changing constantly, we are on the verge of new technologies and everything, and this is the most important to learn the new tool. It will give them time; it will give them the ability they have. Our team can ask the right questions; they can say, Oh, I don't understand that. This is okay. We will learn it together because everything is new, but they have to act on their own. I want to see them trying and not quitting on us; that's the most important thing, so I'm not looking for a specific culture; I'm trying to see if the candidate can adjust and work together with the team. This is the most important thing. Otherwise, it's hard with you; it's very hard, usually in our days after the Corona era, that, let's say, two or three days a week, you work from home and not in the office face to face, and this is hard. They need to be on their own if I cannot trust them to take into consideration and work at home. and if they have a problem and they cannot work it out, try other things. Use the AI to search to understand if there's another way. If there's another solution, you can address a team member and try to get help from them. This is okay, and raise a hand if you have flagged out if you have a problem, and you're still stuck because it's harder if we are all weak face to face; it's much easier. You can see them struggle and help them, but if they're on their own for two or three days a week, you cannot be there; you cannot monitor their progress. I don't want to be there each day and each minute asking them, Did you finish this task or that type? I usually want to give them a task, and they will continue if they have a problem, and they try to tackle it from the AI and team and still didn't manage to complete it, or they see a delay. I expect them to raise their hand. raise a flag to me and say that I'm stuck here; it will take me more time, or I need help.

TIM: and I'm interested just to dig slightly deeper, so in these interviews where you're trying to evaluate these sets of things, basically, yeah, some people might call it culture; some people might just say, I'm trying to imagine them being in our team and operating well or not, and you've got these various kinds of things you're looking for. If you ever tried to codify those into a specific set of criteria, like you mentioned several times, adaptability, openness to learning new things, if you have a codified this and almost tried to create a structured interview out of it, or is it more of a free-flowing conversation, and then at the end of it, you get a sense of whether or not they're going to be the right match for the team?

EYAL: Tim I think it's both. During the face-to-face, you conduct it; it's not a specific question that you ask; you see how the meeting is flowing so you can ask questions and see how he reacts and you react to that to his reaction, so it's a back and forth, but there are some structures that we put in our hiring process. for example, when I give them the online test Even though they have one or two hours for themselves to solve it and they solve it, they give me an answer. I can check the results, for example, how they wrote the SQL, if the joins are correct, if they are aligned, and if it's unstructured results. I can understand that maybe they were rushing in and trying to do whatever they could to solve it. and they are not working a methodology correctly, so it gives me some kind of information about how they work, how they are built, and so you can see there's no real answer to that; you have to feel the candidate.

TIM: Okay, I understand, so yeah, a combination of slightly subjective and more objective measures, and you build up this overall picture of whether or not they're going to be the right person for the role. We were talking before about the screening step, and we mentioned lots of things around how it's quite tedious doing the manual CV screening. Hopefully I can take it over; we can have something a bit more objective. Maybe we can unlock some new data sets that are way beyond the CV by trolling the Internet for more interesting things about the candidate and aggregating those. That all sounds interesting. I wanted to get your thoughts on this, though. I hear from a lot of hiring managers who feel like some of the recruiters and talent teams they've dealt with struggle sometimes to do their bit of the screening process, be it screening CVS or doing that first phone screen, and a lot of it seems to stem from the fact that typically talent teams and recruiters don't necessarily have technical skills, and they're not necessarily from the background of the roles that they're recruiting for. and I feel like when I've tried to put myself in their shoes and imagine what it would be like to hire a role that is nowhere near what I do, I was thinking about this recently, trying to think about what it would be like to hire a lawyer, which is a long way away from my skill set, and I would find it very difficult. I would have not really any clue about the difference between a surveillance lawyer and a criminal lawyer and this lawyer and that lawyer, and I would at best be able to maybe ask some of my friends who are lawyers and get their feedback. I could ask ChatGPT these days; I could Google it, and I could maybe get some weird sense. But if I were hiring a lawyer, I'd probably be left interviewing them and relying on my intuition and relying on my evaluation of their soft skills. Did they communicate well? Do they keep things simple? do they seem like they know what they're talking about I can't really tell myself because I'm not a lawyer they could just be good at bullshitting and very confident sounding so is this a fundamental floor and how we've set up recruiting that we expect people to do those important screening steps for roles that they don't have any skills in themselves Is that fundamentally flawed? What do you reckon?

EYAL: Yeah, so Tim I think you're correct; it's hard for a human resource person or a headhunter to look for a specific candidate in a specific area, and they do not have the skills to do it; they do not have the knowledge, so first of all, I expect them to learn a little bit. There are two ways to learn. First of all, you can use the AI and the internet and figure out and learn a little bit about words and tools that are in this specific area that they are looking for a candidate. This is one. The second one is they can come to me. I'm the team leader in that specific area that I want to recruit a person to my team. so for my team so Ask me what you expect, what you see in the candidate, and what to look for. I can give them some kind of pointers regarding my expertise in my field, like data or something. It's hard; I guess the headhunters can join this process usually in the upper level of what we spoke about because they just need to reduce the amount of resumes. and as you said, it's a problem because everybody's using an AI to create a resume. I know there's a hack in Israel, for example, when someone is reading a resume and he wants to add some words that if the AI or your tool for recruitment is scanning, he will add in white font more words that you cannot see in the eyes, but But the machine will get it. The AI will see it as a written text, for example, words that will jump up in more tools and then more abilities, even though when you print it out, the page of the resume you won't see it. It's very hard, so the headhunter needs to do their homework. They need to check a little bit on the candidates to see Maybe to see that what they wrote in the resume is correct, to see if they really worked in the places that they mentioned, the university that they went to, just to see that it is in the starting point for starting this process to join my team, it's very hard other than that. I cannot see them adding more information because I want to screen all the candidates from that point on because I need to be in contact with them. I need to have each meeting with them. I don't have too many meetings with the candidates. I have one or two calls with them, and face to face, this is not a lot of time to see who is the one or that relevant to my team.

TIM: Thinking big picture now, if you had the proverbial magic wand, which sometimes AI feels like magic to me, but if you had a magic wand, AI or otherwise, how would you fix the hiring process? Is there anything in particular you would change if you could click your fingers?

EYAL: If I had a magic wand, I think I would want to reduce the time-consuming task of selecting the right candidate. This is very difficult; it takes a lot of energy from the team leaders, and to figure out who is the right candidate for you, as I said, if I had a wand, I would want the ability to screen out Let me have the top 10 candidates, and let's start from that because there's a lot of time-consuming work, and I want to practice data and not search for the correct candidate.

TIM: Yeah, exactly. I think those early screening stages are just so tedious, and we've all got better things to do than trolling through hundreds of CVs, so yeah, I feel like your wish will be granted very soon by some kind of AI genie. And you're going to be a happy man.

EYAL: Yep.

TIM: As a final question to you, if you could ask our next guest One question What question would that be?

EYAL: I have to say maybe during the face-to-face interview, you will give your team leader the lead in the meeting and ask their own questions. Are you doing a pre-meeting with them with your team leaders to prepare for the scenarios in the face-to-face meetings? It's interesting because I usually want to give others the ability and the skills to do it on their own, and I want, if they are the team leaders of this candidate, to give them the ability to be a part of the process and choose the correct candidate for them. Of course, I will be there and follow up and everything and be a part of the process, and we'll have questions later on about who is the correct one, but I want there also to be intervening work. So my question is, will you give A, your team leader, the ability to ask their own questions?

TIM: That's a great question, and yeah, I feel like hiring skills and the ability to interview is Probably an underrated and undertaught skill set is that anytime you're first becoming a manager, you are often thrown into the deep end without any clue what you're doing. It certainly was the case for me. The first two people I hired, I will point out, quit within one week. I'm not going to say that was all my fault, but I certainly could have used a little bit of help on the hiring front in those early days, and yeah, being able to empower your team to throw questions at the candidates and take a bit of ownership and responsibility in the hiring process I think it would be a great upskill for them for sure.

EYAL: Yeah, I usually want to give My team and the ability to learn each year, they have to learn a different tool to dive into a specific tool that they're already working on, and we give them time to e-learning. Usually, it's e-learning because it's easier. We give them courses; they can choose whatever courses they want, and from there on, this is something that I demand from my employees. So I want them to learn to adjust and evolve, and this is very important to me as a manager.

TIM: Yeah, and again just highlighting the need at the moment to be adaptable, the need to learn quickly, the need to embrace maybe being uncomfortable in learning a new skill that initially you're going to be pretty bad at, but just getting comfortable with that because things are changing so rapidly that If we don't stay on top of things, we're going to be left behind pretty quickly, so it's good that you invest in your team that way and also encourage them and almost sometimes push them along. I guess some people might need to be reminded to actually commit the time, like I noticed for our team sometimes, even though we have learning days, they're just sitting there. and if I don't remind people, you know what? You should probably take some time off to do this thing; they might not necessarily do it, and yeah, I'm sure you have to prod them along the way sometimes.

EYAL: Yeah, exactly, and you have to push them to a better place to learn to adapt because, as we said, it's changing walls now, and everything is changing. They need to adapt; they need to learn the new technology. I'm usually telling them to go to an online or a physical Congress to be a part of the industry even though they need to work, take a break, and enjoy a little bit.

TIM: It's been a great chat. I feel like the main theme we've had is really around that adaptability, that willingness and ability to learn and to go with the rapid changes in technology that we're seeing, so yeah, thank you so much for sharing your insights and your wisdom with our audience today. It's been great having you on the show.

EYAL: Thank you very much, team, for the opportunity to be here. It's a great show and a great podcast, and I wish you luck.