I don’t have a PhD in Recruitment Psychology.

Nor am I a Stoic.

Although I have grown up sharing many traits with Stoicism, which led to me reading about this millennia-old philosophy to understand myself better.

I recommend researching Stoicism for many situations, not least of which is a difficult job search.

“Focus on the process, which is in your control. Detach yourself from the outcome, which is not,” is one piece of advice I give to job seekers.

It’s a quality which helps with expectation management and resilience, given every ‘no’ or ‘lack of answer’ is less disappointing.

It’s a funny thing too, detachment - it’s a quality that pulls others forward in the right context.

Have you ever noticed that Salespeople who aren’t desperate for a sale are often more likely to win your purchase, especially if they focus on the process of giving you what you need?

Especially for commodity goods sold by multiple sellers, where you can choose from many - which salespeople do you trust more to buy from? Not that this is a candidate analogy… hopefully.

I’m sure they do care, it’s just that they aren’t hung up on your decision.

And while detachment is an excellent quality for a candidate, it’s something you should be conscious of as an interviewer.

Does learning being detached from outcome make them better candidates, or just better interviewees?

Well-delivered answers in an interview don’t guarantee a good hire, nor does confidence or the desire to want something you can’t have.

Indeed the people I’ve supported in their job search with this advice were excellent candidates to start with and just needed help with their interviewee skills (most have interviewed well enough as an employer).

Back in 2012, I managed a volume recruitment programme for a tech manufacturer, in the East of England. We took a multichannel approach to fill vacancies, including the effective use of referrals.

One such hire was a CNC machinist, let’s call him Kevin.

The hiring manager knew Kevin from his previous job – he was highly skilled, in a skill-short vacancy, and would fit in well with the team. And he really wanted to join the new business too!

Yet, he interviewed badly, a bundle of nerves who was unable to show his skills in his words.

The hiring manager said to me, “we can’t hire him off that interview”.

I asked him if the interview was representative of what he was like to work with, and the answer was no.

Quite the quandary, so the hiring manager took Kevin out for a beer and they had an informal chat, leading to his appointment.

Kevin was there for six years.

This leads to the question – can it be that bad interviews hide good candidates?

It’s certainly the case that, in general, people who don’t need a job interview better than people who do.

Think about any time you’ve been out of work, and how your confidence levels were reflected by your situation, as well as your requirements in an interview process.

Speak to anyone that has consistently recruited for senior appointments, and we will tell you the odds lie heavily in favour of those who are already employed.

It’s one reason why headhunting has a perception of finding better candidates than other approaches.

Typically, we approach people who are happily employed, and sceptical that a move will improve their lot – their detachment engenders confidence and enables them to challenge the new employer to gain objective insight on whether it’s the right move.

Logically and realistically though, a person’s situation isn’t tethered to their capability.

Going in with the attitude that ‘no’ is an acceptable outcome, and that the interview is there to confirm whether that candidate should be interested, leads to a more attractive performance.

While there’s commonly an element in an active job search of being willing to compromise to gain good employment.

Over time, if you interview regularly, it’s easy to build up a stereotype of who is likely to interview well and who isn’t, and to use previous experiences as a predictor of future success.

Of course, this links back to the advice I give jobseekers, to interview from a detached position, because I know how it is often perceived by employers.

Yet the opposite holds true too – detachment isn’t evidence of quality, it’s evidence of process.

The perception that someone is a worse candidate because of a weak interview is understandable yet can be false if you consider the ‘why’ of their interview.

Hard to unpick given all you have to go off is their interview performance.

But what you can do is check for detachment bias.

Does your experience of previous interviews create an assumption that a detachment from outcome means a better candidate?

Or does the fact someone is having a challenging time in a difficult job search, with impacted confidence levels, and a need for employment – does this influence their interview performance negatively?

All you need do is give people a chance and make their interview process more accepting and accessible - which any interviewee will benefit from.

If you’d been struggling to recruit, you may find excellent candidates were already in an unexpected place: right under your nose.

Actually, for me that’s a key point of identifying any bias in recruitment – to strip out assumption and prejudice, allow full access to candidates, and assess on capability and contribution.

It’s the commercial benefit of doing the right thing.

p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services:

- commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment (available for no more than two vacancies)

- manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client

- recruitment coaching and mentoring (one place available at £200/hr + VAT)

- recruitment strategy setting

- outplacement support

Just hit email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk to check if my approach is right for you.