---
title: We Must Act Our Wage
description: I got a reality check on my situation.  I had slipped into a bit of the victim mindset.  He helped me gain perspective, saying. John, we hired you to LEAD.
---

[Recruiting Toolbox Blog](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog)

# [We Must Act Our Wage](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/we-must-act-our-wage)

 Written by [John Vlastelica](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/author/john-vlastelica) | November 13, 2026 at 3:05 PM

<https://internationalrecruitersday.com/recruiter-evolving/>This post first appeared on John’s [Try Harder is Not a Strategy LinkedIn Newsletter.](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-must-act-our-wage-john-vlastelica-azw9c/) 

 

Years ago, when I was leading technology recruiting at Amazon, I was overwhelmed.

I was working crazy hours, struggling with limited resources, and dealing with the [highest-expectation hiring managers of my career](https://www.socialtalent.com/podcasts/5-biggest-lessons-i-learned-from-my-smartest-hiring-managers-with-john-vlastelica).

Our CEO had just told the company's management team that the biggest constraint to our growth was our ability to hire engineers.

And with a newborn baby and exhausted wife at home, I was feeling like a failure. I was seriously considering quitting.

But, after a lunch with one of my internal mentors, I got a reality check on my situation. I had slipped into a bit of the victim mindset. He helped me gain perspective, saying…

**"John, we hired you to LEAD."**

My first reaction was “ouch.”

He wasn't dismissing the challenges I was facing. They were real. But he was reminding me that I wasn't being paid to just manage recruiting activity, work harder, and complain about the obstacles.

I was being paid to *lead* *through* them.

He didn't actually say "act your wage." But looking back, that’s what he meant. And I've been thinking about that conversation a lot lately, as I consider what's happening in our profession.

## Are we acting our wage?

With AI increasingly capable of taking on many of the transactional tasks that have historically consumed so much of a recruiter's time, I think we need to have a more uncomfortable conversation.

> **Are we creating the kind of value that justifies what we're paid?**

I hope so. But I’m worried. There’s no question we’re busy, working hard, and filling reqs.

When the CFO and CHRO start looking for cost savings, and they see recruiting primarily as a process rather than a strategic function, highly paid recruiters can start looking pretty expensive compared to automation and hiring manager self-service.

And this isn't entirely new. Even before AI, RPO firms often made their case by promising to perform transactional recruiting work at a lower cost.

In a [recent article about contractors, consultants, and architects](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-operating-like-contractor-consultant-something-else-vlastelica-2tf2c/), I challenged how we think about the role of the recruiter.

- Contractors do the work.
- Consultants help the business make better decisions.
- Architects design better ways to get the work done.

And increasingly, I believe the most valuable recruiters (Talent Advisors) will do all three, depending on what the business needs.

But here's the problem. If most of our perceived value comes from completing recruiting activities — finding candidates, scheduling interviews, screening resumes, moving people through a process — we risk being seen as highly paid contractors who must compete with technology that's getting faster and cheaper every few months at “contractor work.”

And let's be clear. This isn't just about what recruiters are capable of doing. It's about what TA leaders expect, enable, measure, and reward. [If we hire Talent Advisors but manage them like process administrators](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-suck-when-leading-work-change-recruiter-role-john-vlastelica-h9p3c/?trackingId=gHPXbAapR5K0KrimcjzMKA%3D%3D), we shouldn't be surprised when the business views them as process administrators.

And if the business primarily sees us as capacity to process reqs, we shouldn't be surprised when the CFO starts asking whether AI can help them get the same work done with fewer recruiters.

We need to give them a different reason to invest in us. Not because humans are better than AI at everything. We're not. But because great recruiters understand the business, diagnose problems, exercise judgment, influence decisions, and help leaders build teams capable of accomplishing more.

> **That's a much more valuable role than simply managing a hiring process.**

And it's one we need to earn through the work we do, the value we create, and the value we demonstrate to the business.

What kind of value? Helping hiring managers define what great talent looks like. Challenging unrealistic requirements that unnecessarily limit the talent pool and leave positions unfilled. Diagnosing and fixing the root causes of poor candidate quality. Engaging hard-to-reach talent who won't respond to another automated InMail. Improving interview quality so we make better hiring decisions and don't lose great candidates. And ultimately, helping leaders build teams with greater capacity and capabilities.

That's not just recruiting process work. That's business impact.

But we can't keep talking about leading quality of hire and business outcomes while spending most of our time focused on filling reqs faster. [Speed is no longer the primary metric we should use to evaluate our success](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-dont-want-fastest-surgeon-right-john-vlastelica-47a4c/), and I definitely don’t want human recruiter value compared to AI value based solely on efficiency, either.

## Choose your hard

Earlier this year, I wrote about how [TA leaders need to choose their hard](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ta-choose-your-hard-john-vlastelica-nbmxe/).

We can do the hard work of evolving our roles, developing new skills, challenging hiring managers, and demonstrating a different kind of value.

Or we can face the hard consequences of having our work increasingly automated, commoditized, or eliminated. Neither path is easy.

## We were hired to lead

We're busy. We're stretched too thin. And we’re probably 20% excited about the future, and 80% anxious about the future.

I’m very pro-human while also being thrilled to be alive in a time when AI can take over so much of the transactional work of recruiting. In my 30 years in TA, I’ve never seen this kind of transformation taking place. It’s bigger than the ATS, CRM, sourcing tools, assessments, and Docusign (!) combined!

But whether we’re a hands-on recruiter or TA leader, now is the time to get better at **doing the things that make us worth more to the business. More leading.** For example, that means…

- demonstrating [stronger business acumen](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/why-curiosity-might-be-the-most-important-skill-for-recruiters) with more tailored talent strategies (not just relying on generic best practices),
- diagnosing root issues impacting speed, quality, and capacity,
- showing up with a stronger, more credible voice in hiring decision meetings for critical hires,
- and [taking more ownership for quality of hire](https://lnkd.in/p/gc4c9iWS) and business outcomes.

It also means [TA leaders need to create the space, expectations, training, and incentives for recruiters to actually do that work](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-suck-when-leading-work-change-recruiter-role-john-vlastelica-h9p3c/?trackingId=gHPXbAapR5K0KrimcjzMKA%3D%3D). Because you can't tell someone to be a Talent Advisor and then measure them exclusively like a [req-filling machine](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/are-you-building-a-recruiting-machine).

The future of our profession won't be secured by convincing executives that recruiting is hard work, [requiring human to human connection](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/more-interested-more-interesting-better-recruiting) (it does!). It'll be secured by demonstrating that our work produces outcomes worth investing in.

I want you to win in your job. I want you to be seen as a high-value business advisor, not a cog in a process machine that churns out filled reqs within the 55-day time-to-fill SLA.

If you’re looking to level up your talent advising skills, check out all the free resources we have at [www.TalentAdvisor.com](http://www.talentadvisor.com/). And [I talked to Hung Lee of Recruiting Brainfood](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/10-ideas-from-my-recruiting-brainfood-conversation-on-where-i-think-the-recruiter-role-is-headed) about the changes coming to the role of recruiter on his podcast, if you’d like more insights.

## We must act our wage.

Here's a question for recruiters and TA leaders alike:

If your CFO asked you tomorrow to explain why the business should continue investing in human recruiters as AI takes over more recruiting work, what would you say?

And more importantly, what evidence would you have to share?

© Recruiting Toolbox, Inc. 

No duplication or re-posting without express written permission of Recruiting Toolbox, Inc. - contact us at [www.RecruitingToolbox.com/Contact](http://www.recruitingtoolbox.com/Contact)

[View full post](https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/we-must-act-our-wage)

```json
{
  "@context" : "http://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "John Vlastelica"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-11-13T15:05:20.433Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-11-13T15:05:20Z",
  "headline" : "We Must Act Our Wage",
  "image" : {
    "@type" : "ImageObject",
    "height" : 719,
    "url" : "https://5331653.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na2.net/hubfs/5331653/1794512977432.png",
    "width" : 1280
  },
  "mainEntityOfPage" : "https://blog.recruitingtoolbox.com/blog/we-must-act-our-wage",
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "height" : 60,
      "url" : "/hs/hsstatic/content_shared_assets/static-1.4092/img/default-amp-logo.png",
      "width" : 60
    },
    "name" : "Recruiting Toolbox Blog"
  }
}
```