Grow My Team

Call Directions Website Contact the business

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.

We built a ten-question compliance check for AI in hiring, covering tool awareness, privacy policy disclosure, human ove...
24/09/2026

We built a ten-question compliance check for AI in hiring, covering tool awareness, privacy policy disclosure, human oversight, candidate transparency and the audit trail. It takes about three minutes to answer.

I ran it on our own process and got sixty percent.

Perhaps I just wanted to give it a fair go. Or perhaps that's what happens when you answer honestly instead of answering the way you'd like the answer to be.

The two questions that cost me were the ones underneath the legal half, about the data the system used and who made the final call on the ranking. I could answer those for the roles I'd been close to. I couldn't answer them cleanly for every role, from memory, without going and looking.

That's the gap I keep writing about.

Scoring badly on a tool I'd built myself was useful.

If someone asked you today how your last hire got ranked, could you answer from memory, or would you have to go and look first?

Most businesses will respond to the CVs-in-ChatGPT problem by banning it. That's the wrong move.What happens when a CV g...
23/09/2026

Most businesses will respond to the CVs-in-ChatGPT problem by banning it. That's the wrong move.

What happens when a CV goes into a free public AI tool. It leaves the country, and under the Privacy Act you stay responsible for what happens to it there.

On a typical AI account, unless someone found the privacy settings, it can be used to train the model. You can't get it back. And when the candidate asks what you hold on them and where it went, which they're entitled to do, you can't answer.

The regulator's guidance has said don't do it since October 2024.

So ban it. It moves to phones and personal accounts, and now you don't even know it's happening.

And the shared drive with ten years of CVs on it, the applications forwarded to three managers' inboxes, the spreadsheet with everyone's date of birth. That's been the same breach for a decade. The AI tab is the first version anyone noticed.

Give people one place to use AI on candidates that keeps the data in one place and keeps a record of every step. Every decision, on the record. Ban the browser tab and you've kept the leak and lost the visibility.

GrowMyTeam has compliance built-in, making sure you stay on the right side of the law.

22/09/2026

Somewhere in your business this month, a CV went into ChatGPT, right?

Through a browser tab, on a free account, with no hiring tool anywhere near it. An ops manager with 80 applications and no time, pasting three of them in and asking which one to interview.

The regulator has already said what it thinks.

The OAIC's guidance on commercially available AI products, on its website since October 2024, recommends that organisations do not enter personal information, and particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools.

The law underneath it is older. Information collected for one purpose, assessing an application, can't be used for another purpose the candidate wouldn't reasonably expect. The OAIC's own view is that it will be difficult to argue a candidate expected their CV to end up inside a public AI model.

And a CV is rarely just a CV. Address, date of birth, the volunteer role at the church, the two-year gap that hints at a health story. Sensitive information, in the Act's words, with a higher bar attached.

If your turnover is under $3 million the Act mostly doesn't reach you yet. If you provide a health service, and most care providers do, it reaches you regardless of size.

Everyone is going to use AI to hire. The question is whether the AI sits inside a process that keeps the candidate's data where it belongs and keeps a record of what was done with it.

Every decision, on the record. That's the difference between a compliant hiring tool such as GrowMyTeam and a browser tab.

Which one is running in your business?

20/09/2026

If you're still screening on CVs, ask yourself how many applications your filter is actually rejecting these days.

Over the last eighteen months, every candidate got a free AI tool that rewrites their CV to match your job ad, keyword for keyword. The polish is free and infinite. The fit you were screening for now comes back yes for nearly everyone.

A filter that passes everyone has quietly stopped filtering. You're still paying someone to run it, though.

And nobody lied. Most job seekers now use AI in their applications, and most of that is legitimate coaching. The signal is saturated because everyone is doing the same sensible thing at once.

Which produces a strange outcome. Your screening process now rewards the candidate who knows the tricks. The filter is selecting against the quality it was built to protect.

So the CV still sits at the front of most hiring processes, still gets read first, still decides who makes the shortlist. A document that says yes to nearly everyone, deciding who gets a conversation.

18/09/2026

Your ATS ranks candidates. What data did the system use? What did it produce? Who reviewed it? Who made the final call?

I keep putting those four questions to owners who've been running AI-assisted screening for a year or more. The conversation usually goes the same way.

"What does the tool weigh when it scores an applicant?"
"It matches them against the job description."
"Matches what, exactly?"
"...Keywords, I think."
"And when it ranked your last shortlist, did the ranking line up with who you actually hired?"
"Honestly, no idea."

That's not knowing how your own process works. A significant number of businesses using AI in hiring couldn't write a disclosure statement today, because they'd need to investigate their own process first.

It gets worse. When every candidate uses AI to mirror your job ad's exact language back at the system, keyword matching stops working anyway. The signal is saturated. So the ranking you can't explain might also be a ranking that means nothing.

Answer those four questions cleanly for every role you've hired in the last year and you're most of the way to compliant. Struggle with any of them, and the disclosure requirement is the least of your problems.

17/09/2026

For most of my 25 years building recruitment software, I treated an empty seat as a scheduling problem. A gap in the calendar. Something you fixed when you got around to posting the ad.

Then I actually did the maths on what a vacant sales seat costs, and I haven't scoped a role the same way since.

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.

But the number on its own wasn't what got me. It was the timeline sitting underneath it.

A rep resigns on a Monday. Most owners assume the cost starts once they begin hiring, and by then 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 you add it up. 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 of that window on a single seat runs into six figures.

And with average rep tenure around 18 months and sector turnover near 35%, it's a recurring tax on the revenue engine.

Once I'd seen that, urgency became a figure. Every brief I've written since starts from the same question: what is each day of this seat sitting empty actually worth?

Which changes other things too. How fast you reply to candidates. How early you start the search. Whether you can afford to wait until after the quarter closes to get to it.

16/09/2026

Nearly every job ad asks for "5+ years experience." It's the first filter applied to a pile of applications, and I'm struggling to work out what it measures beyond the fact that someone survived somewhere for five years.

Your best rep and your worst one can both clear a tenure bar. Graduation years, postcodes, names and years in role are all easy to filter on, and they say roughly nothing about whether someone can do the job. Some of them quietly introduce bias while they're at it, which is why we deliberately keep them out of scoring altogether.

What we've found more useful is flipping the order. Profile the role before you profile anyone. Work out the behavioural pattern that predicts success in that specific seat, then score every applicant against that. You already know what your best rep does differently. The job is to measure it in a candidate before you sign, rather than eighteen months and one wrecked territory later, when a bad hire has already cost you.

But I'll admit the tenure habit is stubborn, and maybe there's a reason.

15/09/2026

Nobody has ever given a bad reference.

The candidate picked the referee. The referee already knows you're calling. Neither of those is something you control.

The one thing you do control is the questions, and most checks waste them.

Take the classic. "On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate them?"

Almost nobody says under seven. Ever.

So the number on its own tells you next to nothing.

The actual reference is the next question: What would have made it one point higher?

People rehearse the safe score. They don't rehearse that follow-up.

Same principle runs through the rest of a proper check.

Assume there was a difficulty, and ask what it was, so the referee doesn't have to volunteer one.

Ask for a specific example instead of a rating.

And when you've asked your last question, stop talking.

Count to five in your head. Most people can't leave a silence alone, and what they fill it with is rarely the polished version.

Get the full six-step version with the free runsheet (link in the comments).

Two of your top three shortlisted candidates had already accepted somewhere else before you finished reading the pile.Yo...
14/09/2026

Two of your top three shortlisted candidates had already accepted somewhere else before you finished reading the pile.

You lost that candidate to a faster offer.

Strong candidates have options. While your process sits in the gap between "application received" and "someone finally reads the pile," they're interviewing elsewhere. Every week of silence is a week they're reassessing whether they want the role at all. Research on ghosting backs this up: each extra week between offer acceptance and start date raises no-show risk by 22%. The same dynamic runs all the way through the process. Silence bleeds candidates.

And I understand why it happens. Screening CVs properly takes a few hours a week. Owners running lean have fifteen minutes between other jobs. So hiring stalls. Then it gets rushed. Then the seat gets filled by whoever was still around at the end.

The most patient applicant, which usually means the one with the fewest other options.

You need to acknowledge faster, screen faster, keep the good ones warm while you do the thinking properly.

13/09/2026

The most expensive part of hiring is starting from zero every single time.

Most businesses rebuild the entire process for each vacancy. A rep resigns, someone digs up the old job ad, tweaks a few lines, posts it, and the screening starts from scratch. Whatever was learned from the last hire, what worked, what went sideways, why the good one stayed and the bad one didn't, lives in someone's head or nowhere at all.

A behavioural benchmark compounds.

The first time you build one, you do the hard work. You look at the people already succeeding in the role and you define what good actually looks like in behavioural terms. Every applicant is screened and profiled against that standard. Structured interview guides mean whoever's in the room asks the questions that predict performance.

That first hire, the benchmark earns its keep by catching the mismatch before the offer. A 53% resume match with an 87% behavioural match is a conversation worth having. The reverse is a warning worth heeding.

By the second hire, you're refining the standard. Did the person you hired against it perform? The benchmark absorbs that answer. By hire three, you're measuring against evidence from your own business. By hire five, you have something most SMEs never build: a defensible, repeatable definition of success for the role, sharpened by every decision you've made.

Gut feel resets to zero every time.

The maths follows. The vacancy shortens because you're not starting over. The wrong hire gets caught before the offer instead of eighteen months into a wrecked territory. The targets we built GrowMyTeam.ai around, up to 90% fewer bad hires, up to 50% faster time to hire, are design targets, not guarantees. But the mechanism behind them is simple: a structured, benchmarked process lets each hire make the next one easier.

If you want to see what that first benchmark looks like for one of your roles, bring a job description from a recent or current hire and we'll run the GrowMyTeam.ai process live, together, on a free call. Link's in the first comment.

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