I find myself questioning whether I effectively use AiDE, and whether it's effective enough every time I recruit. As an external partner I work low volume, which allows time to do things 'right'. However, when I take on fractional in-house work, I still deploy the same framework, even at mid volume (my highest volume was 55 vacancies in six months). Because it's scalable and can be applied across a whole recruitment system. I wouldn't recommend it to a high volume, high churn environment, though I expect they aren't reading these newsletters. It isn't just about advertising. A current vacancy is at final interview today. I ran an 'appropriate multichannel' campaign, including public advertising, networking & referrals, 'headhunting' (sourcing across LinkedIn and CV databases). My advert was a consequence of my consultations, as was the six page candidate pack provided to viable applicants. My narrow then wide sourcing strategy was a consequence of the same consultation. My written and spoken outreach was also a consequence of this. That I shared the advert and candidate pack proactively, was in part why I had a 100% response rate to my six inmails (it's a niche role in a low population area). What was also interesting was that a number of the applicants described themselves as passive, and there was a significant overlap between the 56 and the sourced longlist. I noted that one of the final interview sourced candidates had viewed the public advert after our initial conversations. I find advertising can be effective with passive candidates, because they can browse without commitment. You'll never know they were there if they don't get in touch, and they aren't going to be interested in a cookie cutter peacock advert. But that gap is a hard one to breach if all you know is "we're a market leading employer of choice". Because we rely on the evidence of what's in front of us. This is the final AiDE piece. I plan to publish this as a short paperback, given I think it stands alone as an approach that can improve your recruitment. Next week I start "Innovation from Iteration" which includes an article on why the Gemba (value from the shop floor) is valuable for recruitment. Where it relates here is that my work with job seekers, and what turns them off from enquiring to adverts, has been so helpful in finding the blind spots our habits miss. While the next series is separate, and was mainly written before AiDE, both show the modularity of recruitment and how you can experiment iteratively, layering on good foundations in a way that best works for you. As I've said before, you can see pretty much all of me through these pieces, which may help you decide whether we should ever do business together. This final piece is about how negative descriptors can attract great people. In the example above, one of the lines I lead with is "this won't be for you if you thrive in a structured, corporate environment." Both because it's true, and because it speaks to frustrations viable candidates may have. Of course I also talk about how they can make a bigger splash in a smaller pond, if they can adapt to a smaller company setting. Pushing and pulling are key tools in the AiDE framework. Negative Space June 2023 “This isn’t just any typical food manufacturing company, with an as-is workforce that only requires handholding and firefighting.” A bit of context: HR in the East of England is fragmented, with many senior HR practitioners being more of the old-school personnel approach than commercially focused. And others adopt the People title with no rhyme or reason. A common reason for commercial HR vacancies rejecting candidates who have identical CVs to successful candidates is that line above. It resonates with many commercial HR practitioners that have interviewed either as an employer or candidate. Firefighting here means the high volume of employee relations common to food manufacturing. No time to do the proactive stuff. I should point out this was a confidentially advertised vacancy. Were it branded or directly advertised, you’d need to think about how this kind of description is perceived, in case you’re seen to criticise your ‘competitors’. When I ran it on LinkedIn, there were 32 applicants, 14 of whom were auto-rejected by the killer question ‘do you have full right to work in the UK’. 10 were suitable enough to call. 2 of these were submitted to the employer, alongside 3 found through other means. 1 of them got the job. In total, I spoke to around 40 candidates before presenting this shortlist. “That line really struck a chord with me, and it’s so true of some of the companies I interviewed with last time”, said the candidate that went on to get the job. She'd also seen their original advert and not applied, because it seemed exactly the same as her current one. She wasn’t the only person to comment so. Disappointingly, not one person spotted the M&S allusion. By highlighting what it isn’t, this line draws attention to what it is: The negative space of a vacancy. It’s actually pretty simple to find this kind of example for any common skill vacancy - I include a niche HR role in this category. “What reasons have you had for declining candidates, in terms of skill sets, context or attitudes?” “Why wouldn’t someone work out in this role?” “Why did it go wrong last time?” The answer’s with the hiring manager. If it’s a role for which there are archetypes for success and failure, you can set the scene while speaking to the ikigai and experiences of your readers. We should be mindful of bias of course: “This isn’t a company with a diverse workforce or where people stay longer than a year” might be an accurate counterpoint to concerns about culture fit and institutionalisation, but perhaps not something you want to advertise. “You’ll hate it here if you’re a West Ham fan.” “If you enjoy the machinations of structured corporate life, this won’t be for you.” It’s an approach that works for many reasons: It sets the scene with texture and candour It appeals to the experiences of candidates and builds trust It tells them they aren’t going to waste their time by going for the wrong job It shows you know the truth of the vacancy, from unexpected angles For readers that enjoy “a steady reactive workload where they can support line managers through disciplinaries and grievances,” they’ll get a sense they aren’t an ideal candidate, confirmed by the rest of the advert. Nothing wrong with what they do, of course, it’s just a different type of HR. It’s an ‘essential requirement’ in disguise that helps readers make the right decision while giving an implicit and constructive reason for saying no It’s unusual enough to be a pattern interrupt that encourages credibility and to focus on the rest of the advert If relevant, I’ll include ‘negative space’ in my adverts, whether above-the-line or below-the-line. If you were wondering about the picture, which is a style you are likely familiar with – it’s Rubin’s Vase, an optical illusion whereby two faces are created from the negative space of the vase. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg