What follows is Chapter 21 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's a good example of how a job search is an inverted recruitment exercise, but also how the same principles from recruitment can be applied in a job search. Market mapping is one of the first steps of a search process in what is often called headhunting. Here though, instead of an exercise that helps find a person for a job, you help find a job for you. This can be in one chunk, at the outset, and iteratively, as you learn more information. It's a great example of how LinkedIn can be used as a data repository, given the vast majority of professionals are present here. And if they are present here, the insight that is their careers is too, allowing you to identify potential viable employers, who works there, and therefore where else they may have worked, with further potential hiring managers. The snake that eats its own tail. Try doing the iterative work above, every time you come across someone new, whether in an application or in networking . You can use this to build out your network, identify companies to contact proactively. Simon Ward and I will talk more on this in our LinkedIn Live on Tuesday February 24th at 1pm GMT. You can join us, and view the full recording afterwards, here: Is The Nature Of Networking Changing for Job Hunters? If you happen to read this as a hiring authority, market mapping is one of the invisible processes in a structured search. It can often take me 80 to 100 hours to fully map a role for potential viable candidates, given I try to find non-traditional candidates as well as those that are easier to find through sourcing. 21 - Map the market Market mapping is a common activity in executive search. Why wouldn’t you adopt the same approach in your inverse of a recruitment exercise? The idea is to fully understand your market, so that you are better able to navigate it. This is a summary chapter because market mapping is both a strategic and a tactical exercise. I’ll cover some of the How of mapping in Part Three. There are three ways in which to map the market. The vacancies you are qualified for This is about determining which vacancies you should focus your attention on. In which domains does your capability directly apply? This could be context related, if your expertise is in start-ups, growth, downsizing or other contexts. It could be industry related - your process manufacturing expertise might directly apply in food, plastics or pharmaceuticals. It could be job related, with the right applicable skills. Establish where there is a market for you, and if what you offer is needed by that market. Advice on the transferable skills trap (p55) and whether you are qualified (p178) to apply will help. The geography of your job search Where are all the employers and vacancies that you can sustainably commute to? A geographical map can help you target opportunities by region. What resources are available to help you with this map? Searching online for local business parks, even driving around them, can give a list of viable companies to contact. Directories and membership hubs. Local newspapers, social media stories. If you see a company you like the look of, say from an advert, search on their local post code. Who else might be there? The chapter on doorknocking (p241) has more ideas. The people of your network Every time you come across someone you might build a relationship with, connect with them on LinkedIn. Then check out their career history. Who else have they worked with? Where else have they worked? This works for peers, hiring managers, and recruiters - a headhunter in one company may well have worked in a similar domain in a previous one. Is there anyone at these previous companies you should introduce yourself to? What about their listed vacancies? Building out a map of relevant recruiters to develop relationships with (if they answer the phone) can lead to vacancies. Treat it as an iterative exercise. Check out the chapter on networking (p236). This map isn’t just about potential opportunity. It’s also about information that might be helpful now and in future. This might be for job leads. It might be industry insight you can share through content. It may even be topics for conversation in interviews or with peers. Make sure you track it in the right way, whether through Notion, Excel or other resources you have available. With any information, check it is accurate, then prune appropriately. Prioritise on degrees of separation (closest first) and context fit (where what you need is most closely aligned with what you offer). 

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

In tomorrow's LinkedIn Live, Simon Ward and I will debate the merits of customising applications. Simon is mainly on the side of customisation, whereas I feel it's often relied on as a crutch that detracts from more effective action. I'm not against it by any means, yet it falls much lower on my priority list than you might think. You can join us tomorrow at 1pm GMT, by clicking on this link: https://www.linkedin.com/events/shouldajobhuntertailortheircvfo7427656161476415488/theater/ You can generally see my views on customisation in three chapters of A Career Breakdown Kit . I've shared two of them in this newsletter already: Hierarchy of Pain , which explains why the real essential requirements of a vacancy aren't always articulated or even defined, in which case customisation can actually work against you. De Facto Automated Rejection and You , in which I explain why the ATS isn't the real problem, and what you should consider instead. Given customisation and 'ATS Compliance' go hand in hand, this is a must read. The third chapter is shared below and answers the question more directly. But if it's all far too TL;DR, then you should only customise your application if you answer yes to these questions: 1/ Is my core CV good enough? Good enough is your minimum acceptable level - not the goal - and I'm sorry to say the vast majority of CVs do not meet this threshold. 2/ Do I know the hierarchy of decision making in the hiring process, and what each stakeholder needs from the application? 3/ Does the advert speak to me personally? If it's a generic document, you can bet your customisation will look precisely the same as every other person taking the good advice to customise their application. 4/ Could the employer or agency have further vacancies, now or in future, that I am better suited to? 5/ Does my customised CV resemble my LinkedIn closely enough that it doesn't appear to lie? 6/ Am I articulating applicable skills, direct qualifications and relevant experience in the language of the vacancy? 7/ Does the time taken to customise outweigh the speed needed to apply? 8/ Am I 100% focused on the jobs that best meet my strengths? 9/ Is this a better use of my time than the harder activity I've been putting off? 10/ When applying through a job board, is this CV optimised to be findable for my ideal role through their CV database? I'm sure there are more, but these are a good start. The three chapters explain why you should ask these questions first, so you can make sure your strategy works for you. And these are the basis for my side of the discussion tomorrow. 34 - Should I customise my CV? It depends. Am I qualified? Strip away bad behaviour, laziness and discrimination, and ask any hiring manager what they want from an application. I’d wager the most common answer will be - ‘Qualified candidates’ Qualified goes beyond capability. Can we identify any insurmountable nos? This might be experience, qualifications, assumption of salary level or commutability, availability, or a lack of work permit. Often it comes down to assumption. Fair or not, it’s their assumption to make. All we can do is show how we qualify. Ask these same hiring managers what proportion of applications aren’t qualified enough, and the answer will be anywhere between 75% and 100%. Many of these will be wing and a prayer or automated applications. White noise that detracts from qualified candidates. If you truly are a best-fit candidate for a vacancy, how would you feel if unqualified applications took attention away from you? In a world where job seekers are often told to ‘shoot your shot’, is it possible that you’ve been an unqualified candidate on occasion? When looking at any advert, ask yourself - Am I qualified to do this job? If yes, ‘How will my application demonstrate that I am qualified?’ This informs whether and how you should customise a CV. Most jobs are learnable, using transferable skills. If everyone can learn and has similar transferable skills, neither of these is a remarkable quality. They don’t stand out and they don’t inherently qualify you for a vacancy. I expect that a significant proportion of what are considered to be unqualified candidates could ‘do that job’ with sufficient support. It’s just that the expectation is other applicants can do the job better or achieve sufficiency sooner. This may be perceptual and unfair. It is how many people make decisions when recruiting. Instead, the onus has to be on the applicability of what we offer. What’s in it for them? Can you show how each facet of your candidacy applies in the context of the vacancy? If you can’t, the decision is likely to be against you in a competitive market. If you strongly believe you are qualified for points you are always rejected for, you have to articulate why. This may be for as simple a reason as living 70 miles from their office. They assume it’s too far and say no. You’ve been commuting 75 miles for 10 years, and you know you are qualified. Say so. Same with salary. They judge you were probably on £70k and their budget is £60k max - it’s not going to work. You’ve done the maths. It’s a great job, the salary is fair, and it’s affordable. Say so. Or those career gaps. ‘This person’s unemployable - no work for three years!’ ‘When I was made redundant, I had the opportunity to support my ailing mother. She passed away in March, and I’m ready to work.’ Say so (and I’m sorry for your loss). When we talk about being qualified, it’s often more about the skills and capability required to do a job. If you know you can do the job, show how in your application. This should be the core part of your proposition in words a reader will accept to help us make the right decision. If you can’t achieve this in your application, you may not be seen to be qualified. ‘Core part’ is important, because you may be someone who has an excellent track record, and a small part of your expertise relates to the core of a vacancy. You may be able to show this in your application. However, if you are competing against candidates whose main expertise is the core of the vacancy, you may be perceived generally as a weaker candidate. An exception might be if you can demonstrate specifically how your wider experience solves problems the vacancy will have. How can you glean that from a generic advert? If you aren’t getting any return from customising CVs, it’s because you aren’t seen to be a qualified candidate (if your CV is even seen at all). And if you can’t provide suitable and sufficient evidence that you are a qualified candidate, you should save your time by not applying. Whenever I talk to job seekers frustrated by spending hours on customising CVs only to be knocked back instantly, I’m equally frustrated to say they probably never had a chance with those applications. Strip those applications away and focus on the ones you can show qualified candidacy for quickly. You’ll save a lot of time and frustration and you’ll IMPROVE your odds, by giving you more time to focus on what matters - more suitable vacancies and different job search activities. You’ll also improve the odds for more qualified candidates. Customise to beat the ATS! Okay, if you’re worried about beating the bots - reread the ATS chapters (p29). Worry more about being human optimised with a ‘good enough’ CV - it will be implicitly ATS compliant because of what an ATS is. Yes, solutions are changing all the time, yet as ‘AI’ evolves on recruitment platforms, it will emulate how humans parse documentation. Appropriate human optimisation is still key, our warts and all. Not keyword bombing and ‘93% ATS compliant’ piffle. Good enough The argument that you should customise your CV against every application to maximise your odds seems to make sense. Yet, it neglects one key principle. That your starting CV is good enough. In many applications I see, they are not. I don’t mean that they haven’t been customised, I mean that they aren’t fit for purpose. And if that’s the case with your CV, customising only covers over the cracks in a weak document. CVs in general are weak in specificity, context, applicable skills and readability. Because people in good times often get by on weak documentation. Jobs are aplenty, suitable candidates competed for - you can succeed with less. In bad times, good enough has to be a minimum, and most fall short. I had a debate with a career coach recently who challenged me that ‘good enough’ will never get you a job - why would you always want to be sixth place? Yet if CVs aren’t good enough to start with, there’s little point in chasing perfect - the most subjective of principles. If you don’t get past the first sift, you won’t even get to sixth place. Get the objective principles right and build from there. Besides, everyone has an opinion on what good looks like in CVs. Perfect for one may be rubbish for another. Quite the stinger when you’ve paid for perfection. Good enough is about reaching an objectively good CV-state for your context, which depends on all those factors unique to you - your skills and candidacy, the state of your market, the volume of competition and vacancies. Good enough shows you in your best light, highlighting your candidacy for the role you are most suited for. You can’t be all things to all people - good marketing is about leaning into what makes you, you. Get your CV right, and it’s the basis for non-application activities: Your LinkedIn profile (given it should be consistent with your applications) A document you share in networking (there’s no point customising here) A CV that may be found on CV databases (read Better Use of Job Boards - p211) A CV you’ve used for an application you were rejected for, then logged onto an ATS which is visible to the hiring team for more suited vacancies they may not even advertise The basis of how you describe yourself in personal branding, elevator pitches, doorknocking and any other commercial-type activity that can put you closer to a job A CV isn’t just an application tool, it’s the anchor of your professional identity. It isn’t just an outbound document, it can attract inbound interest. And if you get it good enough, any customisation should be minimal, allowing you to apply for suited vacancies more quickly. Quality of information Let’s face it, most job adverts and job descriptions aren’t fit for purpose either. Your experience of generic, misrepresentative job adverts mirrors how recruiters experience generic, misrepresentative CVs. Those carefully written adverts that appear to speak to you directly… well those are good enough adverts to spend time on. For the rest, would it make much difference if you relied solely on the job title, working arrangements and salary? Perhaps industry and product type, too. ‘Here at Bircham Wyatt Recruitment, we are a market-leading progressive innovator of fast-paced all-level communication.’ A lot of words which say nothing at all. And because everyone uses them, they lose meaning - as with transferable skills. Strip all the twaddle away, and if those top-level points are adequate, I expect you’ll go straight to Essential Requirements to see if you are qualified. The problem with generic adverts is that these Essential Requirements may also lack Essential Specificity. What’s misrepresentative? What’s missing? What are they really looking for? This is often hidden pain that is key to unlocking a vacancy – something I write about in more depth, in the next chapter. If you aren’t certain on these points, what are you customising against? Could it be you accidentally edit out what makes you most suited to a vacancy, if what they leave unsaid is the most important piece? Sometimes this is down to carelessness by the employer - sometimes it’s deliberate: I once placed an HR Manager at a ‘rapidly growing’ company. They didn’t tell me or her that the thing they needed most was her mass-redundancy experience, which was what she was tasked to do on day one. The truth was the opposite of their job description. And sometimes different stages of the hiring process have different priorities, which may never have been articulated in the advert: Administrator, Recruiter, Line Manager, Head of Department, Director... A messed-up perfect storm If you’ve made it this far, you’ve probably been looking for work for a while, in a competitive marketplace with too many qualified candidates, far too many applications, and too few viable vacancies. Plus, technology that encourages speed and volume. And under-resourced, over-worked hiring teams, many of whom don’t do hiring as a day job. Have you ever spent an hour customising a CV only to learn you were application number 232? Without knowing they’d closed applications at 200. And you received an instant rejection? Sometimes, it may be a question of speed over quality. How do you find the right balance? Reciprocity in action For advertising, the balance is simple. Invest as much time in your application as their effort in the advert. For a transactional generic advert - apply transactionally, diarise a follow-up, move on. Keep these in a transactional fire-and-forget pile. For the adverts that speak to you personally or take time and care to accurately articulate what the role is and what it offers you, reciprocate this effort in your application. Keep these in a non-transactional pile. Measure your return separately. You’ll find a higher hit rate in the second, with the virtuous circle of your added investment. While the lower hit rate of the first is mirrored by not needing to have put so much of yourself into it. What about AI? There are many wonderful AI tools available, and if you want to take the time out of customising CVs, automating seems a great opportunity. What exactly are they customising against? Because the quality of information you can convey is based on situational insight, it seems to me that AI can only tweak terminology or regurgitate what others have already written. If everyone uses AI in this way, the output is generic resulting in same-same messages and CVs at scale. This is what I’m hearing from people who are recruiting - reams of identical looking applications that lack punch. It doesn’t help; it works against you. For ideation, research, analysis, it’s an effective tool. Ask it which areas of a job description you might focus on selling your experience against. For applying at scale, for now, it’s part of the noise. Should I customise my CV and how? It depends. If your CV is already ‘good enough’, it shouldn’t take too much time to show how you meet the essential requirements of an advert. If an advert sings to you and you feel inspired to put your best foot forward, you should (maybe check it’s still live first). Use relevant impact based achievements. ‘I did x by y resulting in z’ Show relevant context - if your last employer was a context fit, show how. E.g. Rapidly growing scale-up, 50 to 250 in one year, t/o £24m. Or 500 staff, manufacturing of precision components for aerospace, significant downsizing programme Align your language to theirs - they say PDCA, you said CI. They say S&OP, you said integrated business planning. Don’t fabricate Remember - what’s in it for them? How will you solve their problems or help them reach their desired outcomes? For other situations, I’d question whether the marginal gain of customisation should be set aside for what may be the maximal gain of what you don’t want to do: Networking, doorknocking, personal branding, and all those other inbound and outbound activities that might get you closer to a job. 

I was just about to click "Post", when I read a comment by a peer, suggesting that even the most transactional recruiters fill their vacancies. In which case, why bother trying anything differently? One reason is because you care about long-term outcomes. It isn't just about filling the job, but finding the right person, and hopefully someone who will exceed expectation while thriving in their roles. If that's your goal, a smart idea is to break down how you achieve that, look at the common steps, processes, tactics and strategy, then find a way to replicate it consistently. While this series has appeared to be about recruitment messaging, that message isn't the goal, it's the consequence of the AiDE framework. A central principle in the framework is trust. May 30, 2023 Write words in the right way and you can make anyone believe anything. You can even get readers to behave in utterly predictable ways, in certain situations. I know you don’t believe me, so - Don’t think about your breathing. Now you are, and you’re admittedly annoyed but slightly amused. Okay that just works for 84% of readers, a stat I’ve just made up. Did that line undermine your trust in me? It’s why whodunnits are often better read than watched: the passage of words doesn’t just bring us forward – they trap us in the narrative. I don’t know how The Murder of Roger Ackroyd could be quite so clever as a film, a novel which breaks all the conventional rules of murder mysteries. Read it, then tell me if you disagree. Narratives that suck you in and suspend disbelief. It’s no different in advertising and content in general. If words speak to your emotional truth, then cognitive bias is hard to shift. Examples Have you heard about the situationally dangerous DiHydrogen Monoxide? - also known as Hydroxyl Acid, found in acid rain - used in industrial solvents - found in most junk food - too much exposure will kill you - found in all dead bodies This led to a 14-year-old convincing 43 of his 50 classmates to vote on banning water. Yet not a single word is untrue, just misleading in only speaking to fear and lols. What about all those front-page headlines of Cancer being cured? On further reading, it was from promising clinical trials, rather than market ready. Months later research shows the drugs were not as effective as hope sold, muttered in a byline on pg 17. Laetrile was promoted as a cancer cure in the 70s before being shown to be as effective as a placebo. One of many. All true words. Politicians play both sides. How about LinkedIn dimfluencers and their sales of hope? Or the posts about wolf packs as a metaphor for servant leadership? You can see the engagement – how do they stand up against critical thinking or a quick browse on Snopes ? Fool me once, and that suspension of disbelief comes crashing down. And so it is in recruitment. Adverts, content and messages that speak an emotional truth can be quite compelling. Should we even strive to compel, and what risk does that bring? For me that comes down to what outcome you want from recruitment. Do you want a candidate to engage? A candidate for submission? One for interview? To be offered? To become your next employee? To last long enough to give you a return on investment? Someone that enjoys working there while doing so? Now, I know many of my fellow recruiters feel that from the point of interview it’s down to the employer and the candidate to fairly assess whether it’s the right move. We may chaperone candidates through the offer stage, but we are not accountable for a failed hire. If we treat recruitment as a solely transactional process this may be a fair view. But, if we accept that every communication touch point is an opportunity to bring candidates forward, to better fill our vacancy, what should we consider as our duty of care? And if we have an opportunity to influence from the top of the process - such as ideation for job descriptions - aren’t we accountable for the outcome? These questions hold whether you’re an agency, internal, HR or hiring manager. If you can convince with your narrative, speak to emotional truth, and influence behaviour, all through your ongoing words – that isn’t a transaction, it’s a relationship being nurtured. What happens if someone leaves within three months of starting a new role, for an unequivocal and non-negotiable reason that could have been identified before the first interview? Or accepts a counteroffer for a reason, in retrospect, we could have seen? Or withdraws on the day of the interview? For a recruiter who cares about long-term outcomes and relationships, that’s where our duty of care is – to bring the right candidates forward for reasons that are right for them. It’s not just about candidate attraction. If you are genuinely committed to finding the right people, it has to be done with integrity throughout rather than just compelling content. Otherwise, we risk candidates rightly losing their suspension of disbelief when they encounter situations that either belie the message or their needs. Something to consider next time a candidate withdraws unexpectedly or disappears inexplicably - could we be responsible because of how they experienced our words? How we write the right words is in our control. One way to establish the right words is the non-negotiable no’s of candidates. Once all the candidates with non-negotiable no’s are qualified out, what happens? That’s what the next & final edition is about. Regards, Greg 

What follows is Chapter 7 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026). While the title suggests a lottery, how they break down includes misreporting, people following poor advice, wing and a prayer applications and suitable applications from unsuitable applicants. That last one being the fault of poorly specified adverts, not the reader. How do the numbers break down? When you see 400 people have already applied for a vacancy, you might think not to even bother applying. But these numbers aren't always accurate and are never the full story. Until recently there was a common reporting error on LinkedIn, when a click that led to an incomplete application on an ATS still counted as an application. The true number here is often lower. As a fix, LinkedIn now shows ‘people who clicked apply.’ In this tough market, it's understandable that many people will apply at volume, often without reading the adverts. Tools like EasyApply allow a straightforward application, while automations like LazyApply enable you to apply for 2,000 vacancies while you are sleeping. This leads to a high number of 'wholly unsuitable' applications. Common reasons can be no work permit or experience that has no relation to the vacancy. As well as a high number of applications that appear suitable yet are non-viable. This might be down to a too high salary requirement; one reason to list salary and help people make informed decisions. Even then many will still apply. Or they may have missed simple points like a location too far to commute to. These applications are fairly straightforward to rule out, yet at scale are time consuming. Anything between 80% and 99% of applications aren't suitable. When you read 400, there may be only 4 suitable candidates. If you are a suitable candidate, it's well worth considering. You might follow up directly with the hiring manager. It doesn't help that many adverts don't list salary, misrepresent working conditions, or are so vague you can't assess if you even are suitable. These should be low stakes applications. It also doesn't help that employers make arbitrary decisions. Such as a LinkedIn post I read recently describing a hiring manager who took down an advert after 24 hours, having received an overwhelming response - then expressed surprise none were suitable. These high numbers of non-viable applications take oxygen away from people who apply with care. There aren't any easy answers to this situation, which is driven by poor market conditions, application processes that work against the applicant, and cynical behaviour from many hiring organisations. Added thoughts: We are where we are with the jobs market. A high volume of job seekers, a difficult market to navigate, few vacancies, and many poor experiences. Much of this is defined by the state of the market and wider economy. In the UK this does look to be getting better and may lead to a shift for job seekers. More vacancies, less competition from qualified candidates, more urgency from employers. For candidates who take care in their applications, the market has been the main factor holding them back. When you see an advert similar to the one described, consider applying, if you can show you are a suitable candidate. If you can’t and it’s a common skills role, I’d make the choice to step away. Concentrate on roles you are a 70%+ fit for. If you do decide to apply, don’t only rely on the transactional process: Find out who the hiring manager is and contact them directly. Check if they are still reviewing applications and make a case for yourself If you can't find out who the hiring manager is, who can you find to gain more information? Use the LinkedIn search bar to find peers in the same department or people who manage their recruitment, such as Talent Acquisition Managers Find constructive reasons to keep in touch, especially if you are declined later in the process If you see an interesting role that has closed, get in touch directly. It might be that hiring manager scenario where they have many applicants, but no one suitable. It’s a careful balance. You want to find ways to cut through without being a pain or being seen to cheat. Listen to anything you get back from a process and use that to improve your approach. This might be anything from instructions to follow in an application to individual feedback on your performance. Think about what you can do to stand out. Get ahead of the game. If a company advertises widely on LinkedIn, create a job alert on their company page. Click on their company name, go to jobs and you’ll see the option. The flip side of this advert scenario is that numbers can work against a careful application, such as if an advert is removed before you can tailor your CV. Or worse, if an advert remains live, but no applications are reviewed after the first 100. It’s an argument for having a single ‘good enough’ CV so you can move quickly, rather than spending hours on a single application – I’ll discuss this in more depth in Part 3. 

Walk a mile May 2023 “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” That’s how 1984 starts, the classic dystopian novel by George Orwell. What does it make you think of? I don’t know about you, but thirteen to me is both an unlucky number and an improbable one for a clock to strike, evoking curiosity and trepidation. It makes me want to read on. George could have instead written an opening like “it was a dark and stormy night”, to evoke a sense of darkness at night, during a storm. I gather that cracker is often derided as the worst opening line of all time, not just for the words, but for how it’s a representative experience of the entire book. Some people love it. For me, it’s up there with “My favourite client is an innovative market leader” “To apply, send an up-to-date CV, and cover letter, stating your current salary to greg.wyatt@darkandstormyknight.com ” “If you haven’t heard from us within the thirteenth strike of the hour, please assume you were unsuccessful” Or even “We don’t discriminate on the grounds of….” What do you think a dream candidate experiences when they come across them? Especially one that is selfish and feels like they’ve no reason to consider a new role yet happens across yours by happenstance. The irony is that if you dig into the websites of agencies and employers that write these words, they’ll often extoll disruptively good candidate experience, values alignment and culture fit. But what do their words and behaviour show, and how is that experienced? Flipping it around, the questions might be “What can we do to create the best experience for the high-performing person we want to employ at this step in our recruitment process? What can they benefit from? How can we make their journey more palatable? What are we missing?” As smoothly as these questions roll off the tongue, it’s not just the steps taken, but the ones before, in-between and after. While it doesn’t just benefit your next employee, it benefits everyone - your other candidates, you and your stakeholders. Of course, there’s no need to gaze so navelly if you hire people well enough. But, if your adverts aren’t working or if your process doesn’t fill vacancies, you can either work on things in your control or accept those that aren’t. What you shouldn’t do is blame candidates, agencies or the market if your own affairs aren’t in order. Having a recruitment process whose consequence is both good candidate experience and serves to better fill your vacancies – that’s something in your control. It starts with putting yourself in the shoes of your candidates and giving them what they can benefit from. Do this through your words, show it through your actions. You could consider Attention , Ikigai , and Definition for your messaging. What else? How about considering the situation of the “successful candidate”? What if they are likely to be happily employed, sceptical of a move and have no interest (yet) in updating their CV or writing a cover letter? If you require an updated CV, and they don’t have the time, what are the chances of this candidate (who you’d love to employ) not applying, and how would you ever know? What if you offered an informal call or to answer any questions before an application? (Research shows that offering multiple means of getting in touch improves response rates) What experience might they benefit from in the opening salvo of what might be an advert, message or website? What reasons can you give them to build trust, commit to your process and see it through? Do they want to be told something is a brilliant opportunity, or shown why it may interest them? What if they’ve wasted many lifetimes going through never-ending interview processes, and might just benefit from knowing what your process is? Why couldn’t you highlight your interview process in your advert? What if they needed an accommodation? Perhaps they’re ND, have a disability, struggle to find childcare at short notice. Who knows what’s going on in their lives where minor amendments can find suitable gains? Rather than say “we don’t discriminate on the grounds of” (discrimination is illegal for protected characteristics in the UK - what are the reasons it needs to be said in an advert?), why not instead show how you are inclusive and accessible… which IMO, is what the points above contribute towards. That’s just for advertising. What if your job descriptions were clear & concise , suitable & sufficient and true & fair ? What if you provided interview questions in advance of interviews? This is currently advised as good practice in the UK for autistic candidates. Does it give an unfair advantage to people that don’t need this accommodation? If not, why not allow everyone the same access? My answer is it doesn’t give an unfair advantage. It allows everyone to fairly evidence their capability on a more even playing field. How might that affect the experiences of you and your candidates? What if you clearly managed expectations? What if you highlighted bottlenecks and delays, rather than not saying anything? “There won’t be any news this week as Gary is unexpectedly away from the office. Can I come back to you on Monday? How are things with you by the way?” What if you answered questions before they were asked ? The list is endless, and it starts with establishing what your successful candidates could experience. For an example of how it might come together, here is the basic structure of my job board adverts: Attention – the hook that will appeal to a carefully established ‘right candidate’ Ikigai – why they might be interested in further investigation, what they can expect from an employer they might benefit from working for Definition – a line or two on what makes the company the company; two to three lines on what the role is and its context; no more than three minimum viable requirements the successful candidate should have. An invitation to talk to or email me, with any questions or accommodations that may help. No need for a CV if it isn’t to hand. “All applications will receive a reply within three days.” The boring bits: what you can expect from me; what the interview process is, with any notable points; time frames. This is a loose structure and will vary in length, detail and style depending on who it’s for. While some people confuse me as a dedicated Headhunter (I’m an appropriate-multichannel recruiter that does headhunting), I make half of my placements from advertising. Yet many of these adverts produce hires that weren’t actively looking. Two more editions to come: Trust Me, and Negative Space. Then we move on to a new series: Innovation from Iteration. Regards, Greg p.s. the last line in 1984 is “he loved Big Brother”. And that’s the end of the story. And then there were none. And that was that. And so it goes. All was well. Bonus points if you can name any of these books from their final lines. P.p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, and you're a UK employer, why not drop me a line and explore whether we can improve everyone's experience together 

What follows is Chapter 14 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . I've updated it yesterday, having done a little digital hygiene and the revelation I have fallen foul of two fake jobs. Or rather they are real jobs I'm recruiting for, which have been scraped without my permission, then hidden behind a signup screen. Why not google "Engineering Manager Bircham Wyatt Recruitment" and see how it looks to job seekers? What makes this particularly egregious is that in both cases AI appears to have been used to alter specific details of the role. Such as including a salary that is well, well above the budget for the role. As well as being a waste of time for someone wanting to apply, there's the cost of their private details, and were the employer to see the advert, potential internal reputational risk of employees seeing a fantasy salary. Looking at Trustpilot reviews, to gain access to one there is a paid subscription. The second appears to sell CV writing services to applicants. Both appear terrible from what customers say. A real job that is worse than fake, if you happen to come across it. I expect people are getting wise to these odd listings; however when one vacancy appears umpteen times in a google search, with only two leading to a real listing, it's easy to assume they are all fake. "Be aware of fake jobs" is one of my top 10 pieces of advice shared in today's LinkedIn Live with Simon Ward. If you are around at 1pm GMT, please join us by clicking here . 14 - Fake jobs Picture the scene. You’ve gone through the emotional turmoil of losing your job. Or maybe something’s happened at work to galvanise your decision to make a change. You take a bit of time to figure out what the right next move is. You go through the obvious channels to see what jobs are out there - job boards and other websites which promote jobs. Your first reaction is one of hope and optimism - there seems quite a bit out there - maybe you’ll secure something quickly. If you happen to be reading this, new to a job search, indeed you might. Many people in this market quickly realise that a significant number of adverts do not represent jobs that exist. A double whammy in your emotional rollercoaster of recent weeks. There are a few categories to go through, but the outcome is the same: an advert that, at best, wastes your time. The recruiter perspective When we advertise a job, we allow time for applications to come in before assessing them and starting the interview process. Let’s say the volume is manageable and the outcome is not guaranteed - for example, when a candidate you want to offer decides to take a different job instead. There are no villains in this scenario. It’s common enough that risk is a factor when advertising. If a recruitment process takes six weeks from advert to offer, it can make sense to leave the advert up in case you need more candidates in your pipeline. What about if your process takes three months? Illness, holiday, lack of availability, unexpected deadlines - all can delay a process. There are many tools and suppliers which support a hiring process, one of which is the job board. Often features are developed to support ‘what happens if things go wrong.’ These same tools can lead to issues you may experience: Scraping Scraping is when one website takes content from another and relists it. This can happen as an affiliate / aggregation / commercial arrangement, or to drive traffic to the scraping website. The idea is that this increases eyeballs on the content. In the context of job adverts, you can see this everywhere. Indeed and LinkedIn have both relisted adverts from elsewhere at various times. It's changing because some job boards have now secured high volumes of traffic and want to monetise that traffic while keeping control of the adverts. An indication that this happens is when you click ‘apply now’ and it takes you to another website other than the employer’s. This can happen multiple times. Every time a job is scraped, there can be parsing errors where data from fields are incorrectly transferred. If the original advert is updated, the scraped adverts won’t necessarily be updated. Scraped adverts can give inaccurate or outdated salary, location, or even job information. They can also stay listed when the original has closed without the employer ever knowing about it. This is a form of 'legitimate' scraping intended to benefit the employer through additional applications. There is a second type of scraping. As of 2nd February 2026, one of my vacancies has been scraped, without my permission, by apparently two different organisations. In the first you can only apply by signing up. It lists a salary that I haven't disclosed elsewhere is not commensurate with role responsibilities. If you click on my Company Name, it will tell you I am a large multinational recruiter, employing 51-100 staff. Which is 51-100 more people than I employ, if you don't include me. Let's ignore the AI word soup company profile they've lumped on me for now. Some of my other adverts this website shares are slop summary overviews. Including the same job at 40% to 60% of the salary in the first advert. It's the same for the second, except here the salary invented is well above the hypothetical top budget. Looking deeper at both companies, on Trustpilot, both offer subscription services to access jobs that are hard to cancel. While one offers what appears to be bait and switch CV writing services. Several reviews are from employers who have experienced similar to me, with instances of outdated vacancies that no longer exist. What a sham. Relisting As a feature for advertisers, many job boards allow an automatic relisting of adverts to ‘bring it to the top of the pile.’ These relists can occur throughout the lifespan of an advert. Six weeks in, an advert may appear new, even though a candidate might be about to be given a job offer. The vacancy is live, but your application may not be considered because the process is too far along. This can also happen manually for many reasons. I’ve taken down a job after a couple of weeks to rewrite it based on fine tuning from an interview process. Or when a candidate has declined an offer put forward to them. Or when a vacancy has been put on hiatus. The reason for a manual relisting might be unknowable if it isn’t stated in the advert. It isn’t necessarily for a bad reason. If I were to relist an advert, it would only be because I need more candidates, in which case your application would be read. In many situations relisting can encourage an application that won’t be assessed. Laziness Adverts can remain listed because someone forgot to take them down. This is more likely to happen if there isn’t a cost per advert, such as on an employer website, or if there is an unlimited contract. Evergreen vacancies Some vacancies are perpetually advertised to enable a candidate pipeline for a specialism. There might be no vacancy now, with anticipation of vacancies in future. This is more common within larger employers or a specialist recruitment agency. I spoke with a Talent Acquisition Manager recently about the positive side of an evergreen vacancy. She told me for that vacancy they are always recruiting, having mad eight hires in six months - it's a business as usual vacancy. I would hope this is made clear in the advert. Fishing Sometimes adverts harvest applications on the off chance that a related vacancy comes up. I remember a Cambridge agency that used to scrape employer adverts, list them as their own, then submit those CVs speculatively to the same employers - without a commercial arrangement in place. Make of that what you will. Is there any way to check for fishing? Probe the advertiser for relevant information and what their relationship is with the hiring process. That’s not proof of bad behaviour because of how the contingency model works. When multiple agencies work on one vacancy, it’s common not to provide company information until later in the process. If an agency is fishing only to build a bank of CVs, it’s unlikely they’ll admit to it. Scam jobs It sickens me that advertising and job scams are on the rise. If it doesn’t feel right, if they are asking for payment, if they do a bait and switch (this job isn’t right but here’s our CV writing service or access to a system beating framework), if they ask for ID that can be used for other purposes: beware. These may be in public advert form. They may also be from direct messages - LinkedIn DMs, WhatsApp messages, or phone calls. Often from ‘recruiters’ that appear to work for big corporates, yet have no connections and use a gmail account. One scam last year cloned a legitimate company website and job seekers lost many thousands of pounds. My scraped example above is, in my book, a likely scam too. It’s worth reading through www.jobsaware.co.uk , which is a great resource on scams and employment exploitation. The disappearing act This last category may or may not be a fake job. Here’s the scenario - it looks like a vacancy, it sounds like one in discussion. Perhaps you even interview there on site. You may even go so far as to do a 5 hour presentation at final interview on your 90 day strategy. Then it disappears - either permanently, or it reappears with no further communication from the employer or agency. I hear this happening a lot, particularly at a senior level, in the UK market. There are a few reasons it can happen: Company had budget to recruit; changes in the business, or external factors, mean the vacancy isn’t viable at least immediately Company didn’t have budget to recruit and only realises there is no budget later in the process Company runs an interview process to get free consultancy in the form of a final interview presentation (scumbags) Company dipping a toe in the market to see what’s out there, with no intent to hire Company benchmarking an internal hire for future planning purposes Agency finds out there may be a need for an employer to hire and runs a speculative process that doesn’t get approval I’m sure there are many more reasons this can happen and there isn’t a huge amount you can do, given the appearance is of a real vacancy. You can ask if budget has been approved, research the business on Glassdoor, or speak to alumni. It’s unclear what proportion of job adverts are fake. It is a notable problem, and one which takes attention away from legitimate adverts that can put you closer to employment. For the adverts that are real, Part Three of the book will help you assess which you are best suited for and how to effectively use job boards. 

May 2023 You’ve heard the phrase, I take it – “jump the shark”? It’s the moment when one surprising or absurd experience can indicate a rapid descent into rubbishness and obscurity. When it’s time to get off the bus. Typically in media. Jumping the Shark comes from an episode of Happy Days in which the Fonz does a water ski jump over a shark. 👈 Aaaaay. 👉 A sign creators have run out of ideas, or can’t be bothered to come up with fresh ones. In movies, sequelitis is a good example of this – an unnecessary sequel done to make some cash, in the hope the audience doesn’t care about its quality. Sometimes they become dead horses to flog, such as the missteps that are any Terminator film after 2. It’s an issue that can lead to consumers abandoning what they were doing, with such a precipitous drop in engagement that the thing itself is then cancelled. Partly because of breaking trust in what was expected to happen next. And because it’s a sign that the disbelief that was temporarily suspended has come crashing down. If you don’t believe that your current poor experience will lead to further, better experiences, why would you bother? Once you’ve had your fingers burnt, how hard is it to find that trust in similar experiences? It doesn’t have to be a single vein of experience for all to be affected. Watch one dodgy superhero movie and how does it whet your appetite for the next? You didn’t see The Eternals? Lucky you. Or how about that time we had really bad service at Café Rouge, a sign of new management that didn’t care, and we never went again? Just me? Did they sauter par-dessus le requin? Here’s the rub – it matters less that these experiences have jumped the shark. It matters more what the experience means for expectation. So it is in candidate experience. It’s not just the experience you provide that tempers expectations – it’s the cumulated experience of other processes that creates an assumption of what might be expected of yours. If you’re starting from a low trust point, what will it take for your process to ‘jump the shark’ and lose, not just an engaged audience, but those brilliant candidates that might only have considered talking to you if their experience hadn’t been off-putting? Not fair, is it, that the experience provided by other poor recruitment processes might affect what people expect of yours? Their experiences aren’t in your control, the experience you provide is. Of my 700 or so calls with exec job seekers, since The Pandemic: Lockdown Pt 1, many described the candidate experience touchpoints that led to them deciding not to proceed with an application. These were calls that were purely about job search strategy, and not people I could place. However, one benefit for me is that they are the Gemba , and I get to hear their direct experiences outside of my recruitment processes. Experiences such as - ‘£Competitive salary’ in an advert or DM, which they know full well means a lowball offer every time, because it happened to them once or twice, or perhaps it was just a LinkedIn post they read. Maybe it isn’t your problem at all, maybe your £competitive is upper 1% - how does their experience inform their assumptions? Or when adverts lend ambiguity to generic words, what meaning do they find, no matter how far from the truth? How the arrogance of a one-sided interview process affects their interest. The apparent narcissism in many outreaches in recruitment (unamazing, isn’t it, that bad outreach can close doors, rather than open them). Those ATS ‘duplicate your CV’ data entry beasts? Fool me once… Instances that are the catalysts for them withdrawing. I’d find myself telling them to look past these experiences, because a poor process can hide a good job. It’s a common theme in my jobseeker posts, such as a recent one offering a counterpoint to the virality that is “COVER LETTERS DON’T M4TT£R agree?” Experiences that may not be meant by the employer, or even thought of as necessarily bad, yet are drivers for decisions and behaviour. I can only appeal to these job seekers through my posts and calls. What about those other jobseekers who I’m not aware of, who’ve only experienced nonsense advice? What about those people who aren’t jobseekers? What about those people who think they love their roles? What about all those great candidates who won’t put up with bad experiences? The more sceptical they are, and the further they are from the need for a new role, the less bullshit they’ll put up with. What happens when an otherwise acceptable process presents something unpalatable? Might this jumping the shark mean they go no further? Every time the experience you provide doesn’t put their needs front and centre or if it’s correlated to their bad experiences…. these can prevent otherwise willing candidates from progressing with your process, whether that’s an advert they don’t apply to, a job they don’t start, or everything in between. Decisions that may stem from false assumptions of what a bad experience will mean. Instead, look to these ‘bad experience’ touchpoints as opportunities to do better: instead of £competitive, either state a salary or a legitimate reason why you can’t disclose salary (e.g. “see below” if limited by a job board field and “we negotiate a fair salary based on the contribution of the successful candidate, and don’t want to limit compensation by a band”) instead of a 1-way interrogation… an interview instead of radio silence when there’s no news - an update to say there’s no update, and ‘How are things with you by the way?’ instead of Apply Now via our Applicant Torture Sadistificator, ‘drop me a line if you have any questions’ or ‘don’t worry if you don’t have an updated CV - we’ll sort that later’. Opportunity from adversity. And why you can look at bad experiences other processes provide as a chance to do better. With the benefit that, if you eliminate poor experience, you'll lose fewer candidates unnecessarily, including those ideal ones you never knew about. Bad experiences are the yin to good experience’s yang and both are key parts of the E that is Experience in the AIDE framework. The good is for next time. Thanks for reading.  Regards, Greg

The following is Chapter 42 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . In a sense it's a microcosm of how any commercial activity can see a better return - which is to put the needs of the person you are appealing to above your own. It feels counterintuitive, especially when you have a burning need, but you can see the problem of NOT doing this simply by looking at 99% of job adverts: We are. We need. We want. What you'll do for us. What you might get in return. Capped off by the classic "don't call us, we'll call you." If you didn't need a job, how would you respond to that kind of advert? In the same vein, if you want networking to pay off, how will your contact's life improve by your contact? What's in it for them? 42 - How to network for a job Who are the two types of people you remember at networking events? For me two types stand out. One will be the instant pitch networker. This might work if you happen to be in need right now of what they have to offer or if mutual selling is your goal. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this but it’s a selling activity pretending to be networking. If you want to sell, go and overtly sell rather than disguise it with subterfuge. Lest we mark your face and avoid you where possible in future. The second is the one who gets to know you, shows interest and tries to add to your experience. You share ideas, and there’s no push to buy something. They believe that through building the relationship when you have a problem they can solve, you’ll think to go to them. It’s a relationship built on reciprocity. One where if you always build something together there is reason to keep in touch. And where the outcome is what you need if the right elements come together: right person, right time, right message, right place, right offering, right price. Job search networking is no different. The purpose of networking in a job search is to build a network where you are seen as a go-to solution should a suitable problem come up. In this case the problem you solve is a vacancy. Either because your active network is recruiting, or because they advocate for you when someone they know is recruiting. It is always a two-way conversation you both benefit from. Knowledge sharing, sounding board, see how you’re doing - because of what the relationship brings to you both. It is not contacting someone only to ask for a job or a recommendation. A one-way conversation that relies on lucky timing. That second approach can be effective as a type of direct sales rather than networking. If you get it wrong it may even work against you. How would you feel if someone asked to network with you, when it became clear they want you to do something for them? You might get lucky and network with someone who is recruiting now - more likely is that you nurture that relationship over time. If your goal is only to ask for help each networking opportunity will have a low chance of success. While if your goal is to nurture a relationship that may produce a lead, you’ll only have constructive outcomes. This makes it sensible to start by building a network with people that already know you: Former direct colleagues and company colleagues Industry leaders and peers Recruiters you have employed or applied through Don’t forget the friends you aren’t in regular touch with - there is no shame in being out of work and it would be a shame if they didn’t think of you when aware of a suitable opening. These people are a priority because they know you, your capability and your approach and trust has already been built. Whereas networking with people you don't know requires helping them come to know and trust you. Networking with people you know is the most overlooked tactic by the exec job seekers I talk to (followed by personal branding). These are the same people who see the hidden jobs market as where their next role is, yet overlook what’s in front of them. If you are looking for a new role on the quiet - networking is a go-to approach that invites proactive contact to you. Networking with people who know people you know, then people in a similar domain, then people outside of this domain - these are in decreasing order of priority. Let's not forget the other type of networking. Talking to fellow job seekers is a great way to share your pain, take a load off your shoulders, bounce ideas off each other, and hold each other accountable. LinkedIn is the perfect platform to find the right people if you haven't kept in touch directly. Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a conduit to conversation. It isn’t the conversation itself. Speaking in real life is where networking shines because while you might build a facsimile of a relationship in text, it's no replacement for a fluid conversation. Whether by phone and video calls, real life meetups, business events, seminars, conferences, expos, or in my case - on dog walks and waiting outside of the school gates. Both these last two have led to friends and business for me though the latter hasn’t been available since 2021. Networking isn’t 'What can I get out of it?' Instead, ‘What’s in it for them?’ The difference is the same as those ransom list job adverts compared to the rare one that speaks to you personally. How can you build on this relationship by keeping in touch? Networking is systematic, periodic and iterative: Map out your real life career network. Revisit anyone you’ve ever worked with and where Find them on LinkedIn Get in touch ‘I was thinking about our time at xxx. Perhaps we could reconnect - would be great to catch up’ If they don’t reply, because life can be busy, diarise a follow up What could be of interest to them? A LinkedIn post might be a reason to catch up When you look up your contact’s profile look at the companies they’ve worked at. They worked there for a reason, which may be because of a common capability to you Research these companies. Are there people in relevant roles worth introducing yourself to? Maybe the company looks a fit with your aspirations - worth getting in touch with someone who may be a hiring manager or relevant recruiter? Maybe they aren’t recruiting now. Someone to keep in touch with because of mutual interests. Click on Job on their company page, then "I'm interested" - this helps for many reasons, including flagging your interest as a potential employee Keep iterating your network and find new companies as you look at new contacts. This is one way we map the market in recruitment to headhunt candidates - you can mirror this with your networking The more proactive networking you build into your job search, the luckier you might get. While you might need to nurture a sizeable network and there are no guarantees, think about the other virtues of networking - how does that compare to endless unreplied applications? I often hear from job seekers who found their next role through networking. This includes those who got the job because of their network even though hundreds of applicants were vying for it. While this may be unfair on the applicants sometimes you can make unfair work for you. It can be effective at any level.