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.

It might seem like the AiDE framework is about better advertising, but really that depends on what you think an advert is. While it's clearly intended to attract ideal employees, particularly for context heavy key hires - it's consequential, not standalone. Because you can't attract ideal hires if you don't know specifically who 'they' are or what good looks like. The definition of which is also a consequence of what the role actually is. Get these points wrong and you might have a compelling advert that attracts a great person, who buggers off in 4 weeks because they were never the right person to start with. Yet another reason why those dynamic, market-leading adjectives are entirely the wrong way to go about it. So, this edition introduces the D in AiDE - definition. May, 2023 I first came across ‘Minimum Viable Product’ when I recruited a product management role a few years ago (I love product management roles – they are super contextual and allow my process to shine). MVP is the simplest version of a product that allows it to be tested for commercial viability and market demand. It’s the most basic version of the intended product that is fit for purpose. In recruitment, the principle of ‘minimum viable’ might be the sporting MVP for any part of your process that requires definition, with meaning to the right people – if you apply suitability and sufficiency . It’s the foundation on which ‘Definition’ is built on in my AiDE framework. Let me share a LinkedIn post which shows a jobseeker’s reaction to a recent interview: "Today I had a fantastic #interview." Can you see the ikigai of their experience? More than that, this excellent experience is a consequence of a skilful process, as any good candidate experience should be. What might be the benefit of doing this for the employer? Part of her experience is how the process has been defined in advance. Before they apply, most candidates want clarity both on what a role is, and why they might be a good candidate for that role. They likely already know the general duties of any given job title – we neither want them to learn to suck eggs, nor to wade through volumes of irrelevant content. We know that many demographics may pre-select themselves out if they don’t sufficiently meet the ‘required criteria’ set out in a job advert, even if those criteria aren’t actually required. Some of these demographics suffer from isms – do we really want to be precluding potentially great candidates just because of poor use of language? Better accessibility in language used benefits everyone. It goes to follow that we might aim to describe both the role and person requirements in a way that has meaning to the widest relevant reader base: minimum viable. For the role – the immutable truth of a vacancy that defines what it is, without ambiguity. For the person requirement – the immutable set of skills, qualifications, attitudes and/or experiences that any successful employee in this role has to have. Everything else can be stripped away. You can use So What? and Why does it Matter? to help edit these down to size. What’s left should be no more than 3-4 bullet points – fewer, if you can do so without introducing ambiguity. If you disagree, tell me why you can’t trim your requirement down and I’ll be happy to explore this with you. These definitions give clarity to readers, open up access to the widest pool of possible candidates and help you in establishing what you actually need. Simplifying to minimum viable takes work and requires you to challenge habit and accepted process. If you’ve always ‘done it this way’, it can be hard to see past your blind spots. Much like the rest of an advert, the content should be the consequence of the work that’s led to it. In this case, the job description and person requirements. These have a different part to play than the advert, including both assessment and performance elements. Yet if you apply minimum viable to these, you shouldn’t lose any of the necessary elements, while giving better clarity to both candidates and your own hiring process. Any advert will flow from this clarity, or lack of. I wonder what would happen to those job adverts that require “4 years experience in tech invented 1.5 years ago” were smacked over the head with this approach. Remember Sebastien Ramirez ? ‘Definition’ isn’t just about advertising, it can be used everywhere. “What is the minimum viable definition that is both suitable and sufficient?” A question you might ask of every step in your process, including expectation management - If your offer process takes 6 days from point of verbal acceptance to generating offer paperwork, and there is no way to shorten it, this should be clearly explained to the candidate at the point of verbal offer. “We’ll generate the paperwork asap” is not a minimum viable definition for the candidate. Might they get cold feed during your 6-day-asap? Or how about a minimum viable interview process ? What if you defined your interview process at the earliest opportunity? How might this benefit both you and your candidates? Minimum viable doesn’t mean as little as possible. It means establishing concrete candidate needs from each step in your process, and giving them the definition and experience that helps bring them forward to the next step. From there you can layer on additional information, if needed, to get an optimal result. Give better definitions in your writing, and you’ll help everyone involved. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg 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: - UK key hire recruitment - manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis - outplacement support  DM me if you want to discuss.

I'm writing an advert for a "Engineering Manager - Product, Design & Leadership" vacancy in Suffolk today. Part of my process is considering how AiDE might apply, while also looking at previous adverts for the same employer, which have led to successful placements. I quite like the two from last year. I'm using them as a building block for this advert, while trying to improve missed opportunities. Though this job is very different, the context, including their culture, is a key dimension that many adverts miss. Here's my first stab at the opening, the A, and a bit of the i, in AiDE: Simplified design; machines trusted for tough work. A leadership role where you can make your mark, bring your people forward, and leave the politics behind. It will probably look quite different when I'm finished. Perhaps just by not using "My retained client is a market leading industrial machinery manufacturer now looking for an Engineering Manager", it might stand out from the majority that do. Experience influences thoughts. Thoughts inform decisions. Which might be, here, making an enquiry, rather than deciding not to update a CV or send a cover letter. Or simply to continue reading the advert, rather than make an uninformed decision. How often do experiences in recruitment evoke a feeling that makes you want to experience more? Too often it's the opposite - jobseekers persist despite the misery in the hope of a better outcome. Would the passive candidate do the same? What happens if your recruitment process intentionally creates the small delights that are ikigai at each and every step? A surprisingly appealing advert that gives all the information they might want How can your LinkedIn content build trust with potential candidates? How can your website and other materials give readers what they need? Communications that don't just manage expectations, but answer their questions before they ask them Interviews that allow them an objective decision Timely constructive feedback for successful and unsuccessful candidates Documentation that comes through as expected, written in easily digestible English, from job descriptions to offer letters Appropriate contact before their start date, getting them ready for a new role in the right way How might you feel if you experienced these things? How much more likely are you to stay in process compared to others that don’t? Ikigai isn’t about a big singular purpose – it focuses on the experiences that define us. The small moments, the seemingly trivial, those that fulfil. It’s about experiences as much as drive and purpose. Candidate experience. See, ikigai can be found everywhere, sometimes unexpectedly, but always about filling a need, and if applied well in recruitment will serve to draw the right people forward for the right reasons. I mentioned “Someone unexpectedly replying to your 99th job application, the first of none.” as an example of ikigai a little while back. I get back to every candidate, reciprocating their level of care and effort. An interviewed candidate gets suitable and sufficient feedback. An applicant with wholly unsuitable experience gets a template reply saying thanks, but no thanks, at that initial stage. Of those rejections, I often receive replies showing how unusual it is to get any reply from an application, sometimes that it validates their tough job search. Partly it’s about decency, but it’s also because I know people are likely to reciprocate how they are treated – ‘treat others as you would have them treat you’. Who might they know, how might we work together in future? I do it because it answers “How can we fulfil this person’s needs?” without being detrimental to mine. In that example right at the top, I try to speak directly to an ideal readers interest, and something that may be holding them back. Think about that question of any step you take in recruitment, and you might change how you approach that step while serving to improve your odds of meeting your own needs. Steps that aren’t just administrative burdens – they’re commercial opportunities. What might candidates hope to gain from any recruitment touchpoint? How can you meet their scepticism? What bad experiences have they had, and how might you help them change their minds about your intent? How can your content encourage the right action? When you see the benefit from ikigai-focused words, how might that influence your actions and how you work with your candidates? The benefit should be to meet your own needs, in hiring and recruitment. Anyway, that’s enough about Ikigai, the i in AiDE. The next edition is about the D, Definition. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg 

What follows is Chapter 20 from A Career Breakdown Kit (2026 edition). If you've joined me and Simon Ward on our weekly LinkedIn Lives, you may have seen me wildly gesticulating with my hands interlaced, madly shouting Inversion! Inversion! while spouting conspiracy theories about the Hidden Jobs Market and ATS Compliance not being what you think they are. For good reason, given your job search inverts the recruitment strategy for best filling the same role. (I've received the proof copy of the Hardback today - first impressions are great, I'm really pleased. I'll check for errors, then will hopefully click publish by the end of the week. If you're interested, click Visit My Store on my profile at the end of the week.) 20 - An inverted job search So, your broad approach to looking for a job is based on a product marketing strategy. How does this link to your job search and how companies hire? The next step is to recognise a job search is an inverted recruitment process. Whatever you can learn about the actual workings of recruitment, the better armed you are to navigate them. The first way in which this is true is around the routes to market employers take to fill a job. Employers want to fill vacancies in the most economical and efficient means possible. Sometimes they’ll rely on external advice, sometimes they’ll figure out their own way, and sometimes they’ll employ people to do it for them (such as a Talent Acquisition Manager or internal recruiter). When they rely on external advice, it may not surprise you it’s as varied and contradictory as job seeker advice. Take this nugget of wisdom: 80% of suitable candidates are not actively looking for work. By advertising, you’ll only have access to the 20% that applies to adverts. Hang on a minute! Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the hidden jobs market? Of course, candidates aren’t hidden - much like hidden jobs, the priority is to understand the channels through which candidates are found. These channels directly mirror the channels through which you look for that job: Job boards; LinkedIn; Recruitment agencies; Confidential headhunting; Internal promotions; Secondments; Temp-to-perm hires; Consulting-to-perm hires; Referrals; Networking; Speculative approaches; Careers pages; Talent pools; Candidate databases Every job is different, dictated by principles like supply and demand, confidentiality, reputational risk, wherewithal, budget and capacity. The hiring process of a Software Developer is different from that of a Sales Director. If an employer only hires through an advert - this means if you don’t apply for adverts, there’s no way in which you can be considered for that vacancy. A second way it’s accurate is the notion that what’s true for one may not be true for others. This relates to candidate resentment . You may read online that some recruitment behaviours are signs of a bad employer. Yet, you should always follow the instructions given when applying for an advert or through an agency. They may instruct you to: 1/ Write a CV, cover letter and duplicate it on their ATS 2/ Tell them your salary when they don’t list theirs 3/ Do 17 interviews before reaching a decision 4/ Deliver a 6-month strategy plan by presentation 5/ Or any other request deemed unreasonable by Career Coaches, Job seekers, or people otherwise uninvolved in that process What some consider red flags, others will deem acceptable practice. It becomes your choice to play the game or not. Either follow their instructions or step away. You don’t have to apply if you don’t want to. In a similar vein, if you hear a hiring process has a preference, or if there are gaps in their employment armoury - these might be biases you can lean into. The hiring manager loves Arsenal Football Club and is biased towards people who love the same? Now might be the time to switch allegiance, if you can fake it or make it. They love a one page CV? Apply with a one page CV. You know the hiring manager of an advert with 400 applications? Give them a call - they might give you an unfair advantage. Poor practice from the employer, yet these are problems you can turn into opportunity. A third way in which this is true is by comparing inbound and outbound activity Outbound activity is where you go to your prospect (phone calls, messaging). Inbound activity is where the prospect comes to you (job adverts, content). Yet an outbound activity for a recruiter is an inbound activity for you (you receive phone calls and messages). While an inbound activity has you getting in touch because of their advert or content. When we talk about optimising your work, whether your CV, profile or interviews, it has to give the process what it needs. How can you be more discoverable, so you receive more relevant calls and messages? How can you improve your return on applications and your outbound messages? What about inverse non-recruitment? A brilliant, if strange question, with the same answer. When networking, going direct, seeking to become a referral, doorknocking, or other, what is the inverse of that activity? How does that person find or recommend people, if they become aware of a vacancy? How might they see you as a person to solve their problems, even if it isn’t a vacancy? You do these activities because of how they might help you and because of the benefit the other party experiences. What’s in it for them? If there isn’t anything in it for them, why should they help you? For each and every stage in recruitment, there is an opposed force, as candidates and the hiring process meet each other. It’s rarely an equal force, because every vacancy has supply and demand, resource, skill level, biases and intent at play. This is why each type of role has a different method of looking for work. Executive vacancies typically prioritise headhunted candidates, with fewer public adverts. Here the priority shifts towards building relationships with, and being discoverable by, Executive Search recruiters. If executives rely mainly on job boards, they may never think to focus on more suited channels. If you can learn what the other needs for that process to be successful, you can deliver the same. Speak to peers, speak to hiring managers you know, speak to recruiters, speak to former job seekers. How have they found work, and how would they recruit for your roles? Research your market to find viable employers, to identify recruiters and to build your network. Then execute an appropriate strategy to access these channels. 

Happy New Year! What follows is about putting ikigai in practice, and how what fulfils your people can also attract capable new hires. Does your team say this to their friends in the pub when asked how their job is going? "I'm passionate and excited about working for a progressive market-leading employer of choice." Not unless the brainwashing has gone well, I'd wager. May, 2023 Why do your people enjoy working for you? Why might others leave great jobs to work for you? Why would they stick around? Share the answers to these questions, with meaning, in your messaging, and you’ll attract better-suited candidates if they aren’t ready to apply. Offer them an appealing reason to take their first step – which might simply be a conversation. While ‘apply now’ can be your first experience of an applicant, it may not be their first experience of your process, especially if their CV is outdated or they hadn’t been considering a move. What will encourage further consideration, perhaps an application, a 2nd interview, accepting a job offer, declining a counteroffer, or starting a job successfully? That final step doesn’t happen without the first, and all those in-between. A first step that may not happen, if you haven’t given good enough reason to do so. It’s all very well grabbing attention, but why should anyone seriously consider engaging with you? Fail to do the latter, and you’re left with clickbait. That’s what ikigai is for. It can be found in every touchpoint in your process and it’s closely tied to the experience of your candidate. For now, let’s focus on attraction. Many employers have a kernel of truth about why they are a great place to work. But it slips away when they start describing that truth because they focus on what it means for them. Our company . Our culture . Our values . Our vacancy . Our needs. That’s no advert. It’s a boast. Most adverts lead with company info first, presumably for promotion purposes, yet why should a candidate care? If it matters, show why. If it doesn’t, strip it out. “We’re a high-growth market leader” You’re growing through acquisition? Growing because the world demands a sustainable product only you can provide, creating opportunities for career development? Growing because you work your team really hard, and pay them through the nose to compensate? Get to the root of your statement to give meaning. “We’re innovative and disruptive.” So is every other company. What does it mean and why does it matter? If there’s no benefit for the candidate, will they care to read about your company? And if they don’t, why are you writing about it? Values are a great example of truth being lost in words. “We value honesty, fairness and respect” Ah, so you don’t hire narcissistic criminals? I’m pretty sure most people believe they fulfil these, even if they don’t, because they read it from their perspective. Words that are both universal and ambiguous, letting readers find their own meaning: it might mean “we make fact-based decisions, based on impartial research, and no BS” or it might mean “we work openly and toward a common goal, we have each other’s backs, without politics. What is the story of your personal values? Learning from success and failure, giving the world more than I take, and helping others improve their lot - a few of the things I aspire to, even when I get them hideously wrong 🤣. If your perfect candidate is fed up with the corporate rat race and wants to contribute their experience in a more meaningful way, with honesty, fairness and respect… isn’t that something to appeal to? Culture is often described from intent, not from the experience of performing a role in a team. “We have a brilliant culture of learning, teamwork, and bringing people forward” But what does Alan in Accounts experience or Mandy in Marketing? Harry in HR? Alan at one company might love the quiet time he spends with Excel. Another Alan might help his manufacturing leadership team make better decisions by establishing cost variances. How are they brought forward? Mandy may be thrilled by automation, or maybe she’s totally into creativity. What does teamwork look like for them? Harry might find delight in telling agencies to PSL off, or perhaps he wants to make a difference and not be trapped by firefighting ER issues. What part does HR have to play in a culture of learning? All might fit into a single definition of culture while being very different candidates, experiencing their roles very differently. Some who would make great hires, and some who are great people yet not the right employees. What does the culture of your vacancy mean to the right candidates? Maybe candidates don’t care if your culture is toxic, they just want money for their habits. Flexi-time to care for the horses. Working from home because they’re better team players when they don’t have to hang around humans. Working from the office because that’s how ideas are inspired. Joining a friendly team who all like crochet. Knowing that their professional development will be invested in. Earning money to pay the bills, because work is just a transaction. Everyone’s different. So talking about you, as an employer, makes much less sense than appealing to their needs, inclusively, in the way your vacancy inherently offers. Culture, values, pay, working arrangements, career development, commute – what matters to them, and why. What you can offer that meets their ikigai. Why not spend time with your teams and find out what their roles are really like, what makes them tick, and what frustrates them? If they genuinely want a career with you, might it be that their ikigai is the same as those you want to attract? Look at why people leave your business. Is it because their new roles are actually better, or is it because you no longer meet their needs? Is that something you can change, have everyone benefit from, and show a new attraction point to candidates? What makes your ideal candidates tick? If you’ve established what good is, in your candidates, you should also have established what motivates them. How can you make their life better? What problem does working for you solve? Why not give them a good reason to start a conversation with you, by distilling the ikigai you can offer into a simple concept or two that makes them want to learn more? Just be mindful if you notice homogeneity in your team - a lack of diversity can hold you back, in which case the right question to ask is "How can I access a wider talent pool?" The next post is about how you can provide ikigai to candidates at every step in your process, and how it can benefit you. Regards, Greg 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: - UK key hire recruitment (available for no more than two vacancies) - manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client - outplacement support  Just hit reply to check if my approach is right for you.

Seeing as it's Christmas, I thought I'd break the flow of AiDE and break our minds, instead. This is one of my favourite Substack articles from December 22nd, 2023. It relates to a line I've been using in my job search advice - "the step isn't as important as how the step is achieved" - and also relates to the assumptions we make when we consume social media. Challenge everything! - The logic of it is addling my brain. But it’s a concept worth considering when you think about probable outcomes in recruitment. Imagine you are a contestant on “Let’s make a deal,” presented by Monty Hall. In front of you are three closed doors, behind which are two goats and a precious prize, let’s say a shiny Chevrolet. Monty tells you to pick one door, but instead of opening it he gives you a boost. He opens one of the other two doors with the requirement it has to reveal a goat. Then he asks if you want to switch your choice. What do you do? Hold or switch? It’s simple probability, right? A 50% chance between one door or the other that you’ll win your Christmas Car. Wrong. If you choose to switch doors, your odds of winning increase to 66.67%. Such an outrageous proposition that when Marilyn vos Savant described it in Parade magazine in 1990 there were a few complaints. 10,000 of them. From readers, including world-renowned PhD Statisticians, who were happy to correct her Gambler’s Fallacy. The mistake they all made was that she wasn’t wrong. The crux of their error, and why this is so confusing, is that it’s not quite the simple probability problem it appears. It’s a question of quality of information. Monty Hall makes the decision, once a door has been chosen, to open a door hiding a goat. He cannot open a door with a car. And that affects the odds of switching being in your favour. If you run it as an experiment you’ll see a switch works in favour of you two-thirds of the time. There also multiple in-depth explorations of why it is true online. This is an example of a veridical paradox , which proposes absurd results that prove to be true. The link includes a video explaining the Monty Hall Problem in more detail. When dealing with information in a volume-based process, it’s easy to neglect the importance quality of information has. Not just the information itself, but how it has been derived and its context. If you feel you are 50-50 on a candidate, the temptation might be to see what else is out there. “Keep them warm.” A logical decision that suits you yet neglects key elements of the overall puzzle: how realistic your requirement is how thoroughly the candidate marketplace has been searched how your decision impacts the candidate’s interest in your vacancy how time kills deals Rather than fishing elsewhere, why not establish the full picture first? Another example might be the comparison of CVs. Let’s say you advertise directly, do outreach to your network and ask multiple agencies to send you CVs. Surely this is the best way to fill your vacancy? It might be, if candidates aren’t turned off by a fragmented approach that seems to indicate anyone will do you correctly prioritise the quality of information based on how those candidates have been qualified, assessed and vetted; that they are all interested for the right reasons your suppliers have your best interests at heart rather than their own An intuitive approach may work against you. Look at the journey a candidate has taken in becoming a CV on your desk, and you’ll get a better insight into their likelihood of being the right hire. Or how about advertising? If 95% (generous) of adverts follow the same form (Company info, what the job is, what we need, apply now with an up-to-date CV and cover letter), then it makes sense that’s how you advertise. Except that isn’t what appeals to readers. Why follow the crowd who profess of too many irrelevant applicants, when you could do something different that better fills vacancies with people who stick around longer? Write for the reader. Give them what they need. Show what’s in it for them. Invite them to get in touch. Adverts become more effective. Odds and statistics feel scientific and trustworthy, especially when common sense supports their conclusions. But when you need a different outcome, challenge that common sense and look deeper - that’s often where the wins are. Two-thirds of the time. Regards, Greg p.s. Merry Christmas. p.p.s “Lies, damned lies and statistics”

This is a new chapter in the 2026 edition of A Career Breakdown Kit . I find I've had some cognitive dissonance this year in considering the advice I share that often contradicts the experiences job seekers have. It's not because either of us is wrong - it's because we're discussing different layers in the conversation. So while the amendments to the book are primarily around technological updates, the additions are around adding substance and reframing experiences, to help readers understand what happens, why they happen, and what can be done differently. But also why the narrative of 'the ATS is rejecting you' is smoke and mirrors, and why it can set you back from actions that matter, by focusing on the wrong things. The article remains a work in progress, as I do the final edits before book publication. Chapter 4 - De facto automated rejection and you When there’s any discussion over Beat the Bots, job seekers often assume they are unfairly treated, while people from the recruitment profession deny it happens at all - “that’s not how the ATS works”, “we don’t use AI that way”, and so on. The best objection I see to the common recruiter stance is, “What does it matter how we are rejected, if we were never fairly considered? ” That question is the heart of this chapter, and to answer it, I need to propose a new term: De facto automated rejection. Definition: where an element of a recruitment process leads to an application being either rejected or not considered, irrespective of capability, contribution, or potential alignment. That may sound an awful lot like Automated Rejection, yet it isn’t the same thing. Examples: No application after number 100 considered Illegal discrimination Legal discrimination - location, salary, industry, qualification, etc - legally permissible decisions driven by assumption Relying on configured ranking within an ATS to prioritise applications Not considering candidates who aren't picked up by a Boolean search (sourcing) Filter questions at advert stage (e.g. do you have a work permit?) Applying after the vacancy is at interview stage And many more All de facto automated rejections have one thing in common, and it isn’t automation - it’s human decision-making, including shortcuts and assumptions. Some of those examples above are cited when talking about 'genuine' auto-rejects. However, these are all consequences of human intervention and the choice not to intervene. There is an increasing number of AI products that automate these steps (see The truth about the ATS / Try for yourself ), with the requirement of human oversight - I've yet to speak to a recruiter that wholly relies on them, and few who don't view every application. This is one reason why ATS Compliance and Beat the Bots are a red herring. The advice fails not because it’s wrong, but because it optimises the wrong layer. The system is only a component in the process, governed by humans. If you misdiagnose de facto automated rejection as a technical problem, you’ll keep trying to outsmart systems instead of changing how you’re seen, found, and prioritised by people. Understanding how recruiters handle their process and giving them what they need in an application has to take priority. While the same steps that “optimise human compliance” are implicitly system-compliant. The challenge is that human compliance relies on what makes us individual: our skill level, our insight, our psychology, our biases, our resources and the time available to us. As well as how you navigate these. Without forgetting that we are people like you, often trying to do too much with too little. It’s no wonder our frustrations mirror yours, with the difference that we earn a salary for our experiences. Whereas ATS Compliance feels more comfortable, because it gives a clear direction, even if it’s the wrong one. It is true we use filters and keywords to prioritise how our applications are presented to us. We do the same when we look for candidates, whether on LinkedIn, job boards, our ATS or other means. All this does is present results in a way that allows us to spend more attention on those that meet the criteria we have set. When we review those results, the way that information is presented informs whether we progress them or not. To be human compliant, your application has to be discoverable, then it has to convert interest. Fail on either front and you’ll either be rejected or you won’t hear at all. If humans are the reasons you are rejected for reasons unrelated to capability or contribution... well, I think that’s rather more problematic than technology. Beat the Bots and ATS Compliance aren’t just a red herring - they can actively hold you back. Because they place the wrong priority by presenting a strategy, rather than simple hygiene. Your wider strategy should encompass far more than applications - getting found, starting conversations, doorknocking, networking and all these other opportunities that can get you closer to a job: These are fundamentally covered in a human compliance strategy. I just happened to call it A Career Breakdown Kit instead, and how to do these is covered in Parts 2 and 3 of the book. I realise this can create a feeling of overwhelm, when you realise there is much more to a better application than the transactional steps of ATS compliance. Yet these same steps will improve every aspect of your job search and some are straightforward to take - DM me on LinkedIn and ask for the free CV template that is an easy starting point - and others which will improve every aspect of what you do.

This edition is the heart and soul of the AiDE (Attention ikigai Definition Recruitment) framework for better recruitment. Rather than grandstanding promises, it's about the small moments that matter, and why people do what they do in their careers. In a world of market-leading innovators and employers of choice with progressive cultures, it's these small descriptions of realness that can stand out and appeal for the right reasons Unless you prefer hitting the ground running while communicating at all levels, that is, all for a £competitive salary. May 4th 2023 It’s 9.08am and I’ve just logged on to write this. I’ll clock off again around 11am to make my daughter’s birthday cake, although we didn’t actually call her Leia, unlike the original text to my colleagues 13 years ago. This is my ikigai. Part of the sovereignty running a small business allows, and why I’ll likely decline an approach about working for someone else, no matter how brilliant that opportunity might be. Of course, if you knew that, you might appeal to it in how you contacted me. With sovereignty comes accountability too. But ikigai doesn’t always have to be about the positive - one of my most evocative recent memories is standing in a field with the Border Terrier, during the first part of the pandemic. Half a mile away, my wife was in week 4 of a severe case of Covid, back when the Daily Mail was vomiting headlines about 41 year old healthy mums dying from it. My business had vanished over night, leaving me to fill my days with helping job seekers find jobs that didn’t exist, while trying to pretend everything was fine with children who were going stir crazy. But those allowable dog walks were an oasis, in a storm of worry and uncertainty. They too were my ikigai, finding fulfilment in the smallest of moments, despite what was going on elsewhere. If you’re familiar with ikigai, you are likely familiar with the Westernised version of it - one that has little to do with the Japanese concept it derives from. You may know it better as the Purpose Venn Diagram - the intersection of what you are good at, what you can earn money for, what you love and what the world needs. It seems a worthy and lofty goal, to have all these elements come together. Yet while it feels important, it can be knobbish and condescending, leading away from a concept that can change how you look at candidate attraction. What about people who hate their jobs, and do it only to pay the bills and feed their children? Are they not achieving something worthy? I think about that when I get a bad experience with the market checkout attendant. What’s going on in their lives? Indeed they likely have an ikigai in the real sense of the word, fulfilment in knowing they have looked after their loved ones. That’s a goal to write home about. In Japan, ikigai isn’t a big deal. It’s hardly a deal at all, it just means ‘what makes life worthwhile’ and what you get out of bed for. It’s a conversational notion found in both the small and big things, which can change over time as our priorities change. A cup of coffee on a Spring morning. Watching your daughter perform at the Christmas play. Your end-of-year bonus. Someone unexpectedly replying to your 99th job application, the first of none. The joy of brow-beating an underperforming team with the threat of mass dismissal (the people we hate have things they thrive on too). Commuting 90 minutes each way, listening to an audiobook, so you don’t have to think about work or home. Ikigai. Because it’s these moments that appear trivial, indifferent or even damaging to others, which define who we are and what we want from our lives and careers. Moments that can delay, prevent, facilitate or drive decisions. And if we know the ikigai of our ideal candidates, we can appeal to them. Typically they will relate to why people leave jobs for others and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. But they will also relate to the ikigai your vacancy fulfils, whether the role, the culture, the compensation or the seemingly trivial. Define the ikigai of your role with meaning for your candidates, and you’ll appeal to people whose own ikigai is a match. And write it like you were talking to a friend, not with the veneer of advert speak. That’s the principle of it anyway, the ‘i’ in AiDE: Attention ikigai Definition Experience. I’ll write about the practice, and how to apply to every touch point, from a job advert to an offer letter, in the next edition. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you’re curious about the title of this article, it’s from the exceptional novel by Arundhati Roy. The title has a few meanings. One is that seemingly small things shape our lives, while another is that our society shapes how we enjoy the small things. It’s the perfect title for this post. p.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, finance, HR and key hire recruitment - manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client - outplacement support  DM to check if my approach is right for you.