Football season is officially over. Congrats to the Seahawks, though the real headliner was Benito reminding everyone why the halftime show still matters. The game itself took its time waking up, didn’t really stretch until the fourth quarter, and the commercials felt oddly restrained for a night that’s supposed to sell excess. It was a Super Bowl that looked big on paper and played smaller than advertised.

This week, we dive into:

Events for You:

I’ve watched candidates light up in human interviews and freeze in AI ones, and I’ve watched the opposite happen. Some people thrive when they can read facial cues, adjust in real time, and feel the rhythm of a conversation. Others perform better when the rules are clear, the questions are fixed, and no one is silently judging their body language. That contrast explains why interviews have quietly split into two experiences, human and machine, even as most candidates insist they prefer the former. In a recent piece, Glen Cathey explores this contradiction, showing that preference for human interviews is often less about quality and more about influence, familiarity, and the belief that a person can be persuaded in ways an algorithm cannot.

I understand that instinct because I’ve spent years on the hiring side. I’ve hired, screened, and interviewed more people than I can count, and when interviews are done well, I still prefer them in person. I was able to adapt in real time, shift questions, and follow threads that don’t fit neatly into a script. People believe they can shape a human interviewer’s perception in ways they can’t with a machine, and that belief drives much of the discomfort around AI interviews.

Here’s where the data complicates the story. Cathey points to a pattern that shows up repeatedly in hiring research. When candidates are asked hypothetically, they report a strong preference for human interviewers. When candidates are given a real choice between a human interviewer and an AI-led interview, many choose the AI. This fits into a broader shift in hiring. AI interviews are fast, structured, and consistent. It doesn’t get tired, doesn’t need to warm up to candidates, or penalize someone for being nervous early on. At the same time, candidates still value empathy, adaptability, and real-time judgment, which remain genuine human strengths. 

From my seat as a former recruiter, this is where human interviews still earn their place. In person, you can catch signals that don’t translate cleanly into scores. You can probe when an answer feels incomplete, pivot when a candidate’s story takes an unexpected turn, and slow things down when someone is thinking through a complex problem rather than reciting a polished response. Trust often gets built in those moments, and trust is where potential shows up, especially for mid-career professionals whose resumes reflect trade-offs, pivots, and context that never fit neatly into templates.

That said, it would be dishonest to pretend AI doesn’t bring real advantages. Speed, scale, and consistency matter, particularly when companies are evaluating hundreds or thousands of applicants. AI reduces noise and forces candidates to focus on substance. That shift helps explain why large hiring experiments keep producing surprising results. In the U.S., employers experimenting with structured and automated interview tools have reported higher offer acceptance rates and stronger early retention. When evaluation becomes more consistent, candidates adjust their behavior, and performance often improves.

AI is already embedded in screening, interviews, and feedback loops, and its role will only deepen. At the same time, human interviews aren’t going away, especially for roles that require leadership, judgment, and collaboration. Companies still value people who can connect, synthesize, and engage in real dialogue. The mistake is assuming you only need to prepare for one or the other.

Understanding both sides gives you an edge. Too many candidates overestimate the power of charm and underestimate how often they’re being evaluated by systems that don’t care about it. Others flatten their story into bullet points and forget that humans still notice how you think on your feet. The strongest candidates adapt to both environments without complaining about either.

Toward the end of the process, that adaptation becomes very practical. Turn insight into action with a few clear moves:

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Subscribe here to get weekly insights that help you navigate your career with more clarity and confidence.

If you really want a workplace where you are treated like a valued employee, maybe you should get a job at…. a carwash?

Glassdoor’s Economic Research Team and its fancy algorithm determined that Crew Carwash was the Employees’ Choice Award winner for the Best Places to Work 2026. The company is ahead of Nvidia (#3), ServiceNow ( #7), Bain & Company (#8), and Google (#11). The award was based on ratings from 10/2024-10/2025 across nine factors that include compensation & benefits, diversity & inclusion, and work-life balance. 

Crew Carwash was founded in 1948 in Fishers, Indiana and is currently owned by the third generation of the Dahm Family. It maintains locations throughout Minnesota and Indiana. Its annual revenue currently exceeds $100 million.

In an era of mass layoffs, Crew Carwash remains a job creator. As of 2/1/26, Crew Carwash has 244 open roles, many of which have nothing to do with wiping down a vehicle. 

Crew Carwash has tech/tech adjacent jobs, with currently open roles as IT Help Desk Technician, and on-site Systems Administrator.

From a thorough reading of the reviews, Glassdoor’s methodology, and the history of Glassdoor’s ranking, three insights become apparent:

For entrepreneurs, one takeaway is that you don’t need a venture scale dream to be a successful entrepreneur. You can build a lifestyle scale business that evolves slowly, reliably generates profit, and allows you to treat employees with maximum respect.

For job seekers, perhaps one of the biggest takeaways is to stop looking only within tech companies for technical or tech-adjacent roles. Carwashes need IT help, project managers, and system administrators too.

In addition, perhaps the ideas of purpose of work have grown to be too grandiose. Don’t we just want to have good, clean fun at work and go home to our families? Is that not a life of enough purpose?

American companies are expanding paid leave, and the change is widely treated as progress. More parental leave, more caregiver leave, more flexibility when work collides with life all signal overdue recognition of modern adulthood. Yet this expansion is not simply an act of generosity. It marks a quiet shift of power away from workers and toward institutions.

That shift is visible in how employers explain these policies themselves. A recent HR Dive report, citing survey data from the advisory firm WTW, found that nearly three-quarters of U.S. employers plan to expand paid leave over the next two years. The main driver is not regulation or worker advocacy but competition for talent. Leave has become a recruiting and retention strategy. When leave functions as a competitive perk, control moves with it. Benefits framed as advantages rather than rights grant employers broad discretion over how they operate. A company may offer twelve weeks of paid parental leave while leaving unresolved questions about workload coverage, performance evaluations, and promotion timelines. If business priorities shift during an employee’s absence, the policy offers little guidance or protection.

Many people may feel grateful for expanded leave and reluctant to test its limits. They weigh not only whether they can take time off, but how doing so will be perceived. The result is a system in which leave appears generous on paper but remains conditional in practice, shaped by unspoken managerial expectations. The WTW findings reinforce this dynamic in another way. Employers frequently cite administrative complexity as a barrier to expanding leave. That complexity does more than create logistical challenges. It enables variation, and variation enables control. When leave policies differ by role, manager, or business unit, employees lose the ability to compare experiences or contest outcomes.

At this stage, for many readers, advancement depends less on salary bands than on momentum, reputation, and trust. Caregiving responsibilities often span years, not isolated events. A system that treats leave as discretionary can quietly shape careers even when policies are technically generous. Employers operate within incentives, and flexible benefits serve real business needs. Expanded leave still matters. Time away during major life disruptions provides real value. The mistake is treating these policies as proof of employer benevolence rather than as instruments of governance. Leave now signals how organizations allocate risk, discretion, and accountability.

That reality demands sharper questions, both before accepting a job and while working inside one. Employees should understand how leave affects performance reviews and advancement, who controls workload coverage, how leadership tracks outcomes for those who use leave, and what protections exist if business priorities change mid-absence.

The expansion of paid leave reflects a real shift in how companies compete for talent. It also places greater responsibility on workers to understand where discretion lives, and who holds it.