A prize anchor

Greg Wyatt • April 11, 2024

This post is somewhat of a thought experiment.

While negotiation can be many things other than price, price is what most of us jump to when we think about ‘negotiation’.

Price is the prize, particularly in the convoluted set of negotiations such as a recruitment process.

By which I mean salary.

Watch this educational video highlighting the dichotomy of the candidate/employer salary negotiation:

Looooool.

Chris Voss talks about setting an extreme price anchor in a pricing negotiation, low if you’re buying, high if you are selling.

Do this and you set the tone for the negotiation, especially if it seems you are doing so for good reason.

The rationale is that negotiations typically meet in the middle, a form of compromise.

The middle point ends up being better than both your budgeted price, and even ideal price. So the compromise is really from the other party, and not a compromise at all for you, because you’ve created room to negotiate.

This tactic takes understanding the salient facts, calibrated questions to gain insight, and chutzpah to keep to the course.

And the goal isn’t to screw other the other party, but to reach an agreement they can commit to and feel they’ve got a good deal.

The funny thing is that elsewhere Voss contradicts himself by saying extreme anchors can deter negotiations.

Certainly, I’ve been put off from further discussion by a price that’s so out of whack I send them on their merry way.

He also talks about emotional anchors and the non-money-related attributes that can cement a deal.

In a career, that might be flexible working, a clear career path, or simply a nice boss doesn’t bully you as much as your last one did.

The contradiction comes from nuance, rather than forgetting himself. Every situation is different, and people negotiate differently or don’t think to negotiate at all.

It’s also fair to say that a rotten apple spoils the whole barrel, and bad experiences tend to inform our assumptions going into similar scenarios.

My question is this.

If the video hilariously shows that negotiation without data is just hot air.

If people rely on salaries to meet their life requirements, making it an essential negotiation point that is often the first point they look for.

If good negotiation requires clear data to reach a satisfactory outcome for all parties.

And if candidates assume ambiguity suggests an extreme anchor in the wrong direction (a lowball).

Why would you rely on vague and negotiation-centric words like

  • competitive

  • negotiable

  • ‘depending on’?

And only disclose the details at the offer stage?

Irrespective of any other discussion point around salary disclosure, as a negotiation statement when attracting candidates - it makes no sense.

From a negotiation standpoint as part of this series, why wouldn’t you lead with clear information on your total compensation? Or at least an explanation of your compensation strategy?

If they aren’t able to see a way to reach a satisfactory outcome from the outset, why would they even apply?

Because the decision to apply is a negotiation with five outcomes -

  • yes

  • no

  • reflect

  • no for now

  • seek more information.

You don’t get a say in that negotiation beyond the words you’ve used.

(Yes, there are many other factors on salary non-disclosure - I go into more detail here.)

While you might not want someone who is money-motivated, money allows us to reach our physiological and safety needs - the base of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

If a reader can’t see how they can meet those, then personal, cultural, psychological fulfilment may not be a negotiation to be had - those emotional anchors Voss describes.

While in any preview of an advert, you may only see Job title, Salary and location. The same adverts that are the basis of most below-the-line communications.

In a transactional, automated world where we complain about the applications that lack accountability…

it’s the people who read with accountability, we most want to appeal to.

The very same may have a hard stance on salary disclosure, prepared to do the boldest of negotiation plays - to walk away, often without you ever knowing.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. if pt 5 is your first read of this series, I’m using Chris Voss’ “Never Split the Difference” as a lens to look at different aspects of negotiation in recruitment. It’s a book worth a read, particularly if you are new to negotiating.

p.p.s. feel free to buy my recruitment things - filled vacancies, better adverts, process audits, strategic consulting. The price will be very expensive, but I’m happy to haggle.

Candidate resentment and you

By Greg Wyatt • August 18, 2026
Yesterday I came across one of many posts from job seekers expressing exasperation of the hoops they are asked to jump through. Within this list of Asks that would not be tolerated were questions that tackle social mobility and diversity monitoring. They are commonly used to check that recruitment outcomes broadly reflect the availability of candidate demographics. And where there is a mismatch, this is an opportunity to make their processes more accessible and inclusive. Additionally, they are data that is collected separately from the recruitment process, and is private and confidential, with no visibility to hiring teams. The only problem is that of perception: What is your date of birth? What is the highest level of education of your parents? Questions so unrelated to capability it seems there is a game being played. To the extent it can make out of work job seekers decide not to complete their application. This is candidate resentment distilled, and why I want to share Chapter 16 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . A chapter on the assumptions that may be holding you back, and one which employers should consider too. 16 - About candidate resentment Over the past few years, a phenomenon has come to the fore in recruitment - candidate resentment. It’s the notion that the experiences candidates have of a recruitment process, and of their wider job search, informs their actions. Some examples: You’ve been lowballed a few times having applied for a job that advertised £competitive salary. Therefore, you won’t waste your time by doing so again ‘Hitting the ground running’, ‘a resilient approach’, ‘able to cope with ambiguity’ are red flags in a job advert An interviewer who asks silly questions shows a dodgy employer A protracted interview process shows a company that can’t make decisions ‘I will never apply to a company that uses Workday!!!!!!?!!!! 1!’ A high number of visible applications makes it pointless to apply for an advert. On an individual basis, employers won’t see this as a big deal, especially if they’ve filled the vacancy. However, we live in a connected society where experiences are shared widely, which can create a wave of resentment. Employers would do well to recognise this phenomenon and deliver a process that does the opposite. This would stand out for candidates and reduce the possibility of candidates stepping away from a recruitment process. The sale of hope Candidate resentment is driven by strong emotion and common experience - something that’s easy to take advantage of by the cynical. How often have you read a promotional message, which said something along the lines of: How annoying is it when you’ve spent two hours applying for a job and the ATS rejects you instantly? ATS won’t even look at you if your CV / resume isn’t compliant! Buy my ATS compliance writing service Apply for 100 jobs with no replies? Try the hidden jobs market! Buy my services and I’ll show you the way Worse, these messages feel true and are widely spread, irrespective of any basis in fact. And this resentment informs your actions. Actions which may cut your nose off to spite your face. What employers do Recruitment is a rare function that has no continuing professional development and little in the way of best practice to guide employers. Because there isn’t a north star for the profession, employers often make it up as they go. We don’t have the equivalent of CIMA, ACCA, CIPD, CIPS or any other chartered body in the UK. We’re an industry that looks at what others do because starting from first principles is hard. If others have a suboptimal process, it’s likely we do too. It’s one reason why ChatGPT type tools are becoming popular - they allow adverts to do exactly the same as everyone else quicker, and perhaps more engagingly. Even if it does nothing to help those adverts sell or stand out. Where there is a formalised approach, it’s typically because recruitment is contained in another function - such as within HR or Administration, or in the role of a founder. These are functions which have other priorities, leading to recruitment being seen as an administrative burden rather than a commercial opportunity. When times are busy, it’s easy to either do recruitment habitually (rather than intentionally) or fit it in where you can (rather than strategically). Of course, some employers are rubbish at recruitment in the same way they are rubbish at employment. It’s easy to assume that anyone who gives a poor experience in recruitment will be that kind of employer. This isn’t true. Herein lies the problem with candidate resentment, for you, as a job seeker, in a job search that has no doubt created much resentment. I speak to many employers who do exactly the things people resent yet are great employers for the right people. Sometimes £competitive salary is stated due to a compensation philosophy that is generous but not fixed. Perhaps not ideal, but not necessarily a lowball. Some use Workday because of its Accounting and HR functions with the ATS being a bolt on. And so on. Real life has nuance that socials don’t show - because nuance reduces engagement. You are less likely to read them, and dopamine hungry writers are less likely to write them. And you? Assume nothing. Where possible, gain insight. A bad hiring step might hide a great employer. If you find yourself reacting emotionally to something on socials - stop, breathe and look at it logically. Look for evidence and always ask ‘where is the money?’ The answer to that question may show why a post was written. Do people want to be popular as hero employers / recruiters / career coaches? Or do they have something to say that’s helpful? Treat low effort processes reciprocally and invest your energy in the ones that matter. But you also want to put yourself in a position where you have the best chance of saying no, rather than the employer doing that for you. You may not like £competitive salary - you can always apply and state your salary expectation. Take note of the application (in case they contact you) and move on. In some ways resentment is helpful, even healthy - it can protect, it can help you cope, it can help you heal, it can flag danger to others. Take care not to let it define how you act or who you are. 

A passive opportunity

By Greg Wyatt • June 18, 2026
What follows is an updated Chapter 32 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It examines the nonsense argument that passive candidates are better than active candidates. It also examines why that perception happens, and what you can learn from it to present yourself as a more compelling candidate. Because, after all, recruitment is psychology. And the hardest psychology to master is your own. 32 - A passive opportunity Speak to headhunters and many will say that passive candidates are inherently better than active candidates. Active means you are actively looking for another job. Passive means you aren’t yet may be open to conversation. The argument goes further stating that something like 80% of the candidate marketplace is passive, while only 20% actively apply for adverts. Therefore, if you recruit only through advertising, you will miss out on a huge chunk of viable candidates. This isn’t a terminology I like - I use ‘ problem awareness ’ as a differentiator instead. It doesn’t help that, in the market we are currently in, adverts can receive 100s of applications, few of which are viable candidates. If an employer doesn’t think adverts are effective, and that candidates are likely to be passive, they may not even advertise, instead relying on activities like headhunting. If all you do is rely on active channels such as adverts, you limit your opportunity. There are two elements to the active / passive argument that are worth talking about. The first is how you come across the vacancy. The second is how you are assessed for the vacancy. How recruiters look for passive candidates Recruiters take an inbound and outbound approach to filling vacancies. Using the argument above, only Active candidates are inbound, whereas Passive candidates are found through outbound work such as headhunting. Outbound work is more controllable because the recruiter only contacts candidates who meet their specific criteria, typically through LinkedIn, CV databases (job boards and agency), networking, referrals and headhunting. I differentiate headhunting from LinkedIn, because anyone can headhunt on LinkedIn using recruiter licence, but proper headhunting should work across multiple channels and involve more rigour throughout. I know because I trained in a headhunting firm that enjoyed a strong reputation well before LinkedIn was invented. And those additional channels are just as effective today - if not more so because of how democratised LinkedIn has become. To be found like a Passive candidate you have to take advantage of the channels used by recruiters. I take a whole of market approach across all inbound and outbound channels where appropriate. Early last year, I had a Talent Acquisition vacancy that went live, although we hadn’t finalised the job description. We agreed that I would only speak to out of work TA folk in London (of which there are many), because the ambiguity of the brief would be less problematic. I didn’t advertise for the same reason. I took the same approach I would to target passive candidates, only concentrating on out-of-work active candidates instead. We had a shortlist of 6 qualified candidates, and another 6 on the backburner. No one else would know this vacancy existed due to its lack of visibility. I recruited it by ordinary means, without advertising. Of course, that vacancy was cancelled, such had been the way of 2025. How to get found like a passive candidate This is simpler than you might think and comes down to understanding how we look for candidates, then optimising your visibility in kind. I call this principle inversion. I’ve written advice on each in part three (edit for this newsletter: you'll see many of these chapters published for free in previous editions). Each of these reflects how I might look for candidates without advertising: optimising for LinkedIn Recruiter licence, CV databases and other data repositories; asking for referrals in thin markets; networking; direct research into incubator companies; industry events and so on. Not all of these are replicable, and the balance of what is effective relies on your specific market conditions. Why passive candidates can be more appealing at interview Passive candidates are already in a suitable job that is at least adequate. To move would have to be for good reason. Which means they may only interview for roles they are closely aligned to and have the freedom to walk away from. This combination of detachment and alignment makes a compelling proposition. Passive candidates are typically in fewer recruitment processes than active candidates, often only one, which allows employers better odds of them accepting an offer. How many recruitment processes are you in? If you had the nice problem of having two or more offers to choose between, how many could you accept? This is a real and quantifiable risk for employers - is there an argument to reduce this risk by only offering candidates who are only in one process? This risk links to the emerging situation of automated AI optimised applications. When employers have a high volume of homogenous applications designed to 'beat the ATS', the entire application base loses credibility. A candidate found through headhunting immediately has the semblance of being more real, even if all they did was optimise their LinkedIn profile. Yet another reason why the myth of 'ATS compliance' will work against you, given passive candidates haven't even read those articles and get hired with CVs that look similar to the ones you used to use. There is a more cynical side to the passive argument, which is that ‘only headhunters can access them.’ These uniquely skilled professionals sometimes rely on an obfuscated process. It’s a boon that employers don’t understand how they work. It can be advantageous not to represent active candidates at all. I choose to lay my process bare and it’s only one way in which I look for candidates. The passive candidate features that improve your odds Detachment. If you are out of work, typically you need a job, which can involve a number of compromises, rather than solely being interested in that one job for what it is. Detaching yourself from the outcome of an application makes you a better candidate, because that freedom to walk is a strong negotiating position and informs the rest of your approach. This same detachment can make knockback less damaging. Read up on detachment and Stoicism for more - some of which is covered in A resilient job search. It's a classic quality of a successful salesperson. Alignment. It's completely understandable that you'll go for jobs that aren't strong fits if you need to get back into employment. For every compromise you make, there will be candidates for whom that compromise is an attraction point. Compromises which typically move you away from a core fit to being a candidate with transferable skills. Like for like, a less suitable candidate than those above. Yes, employers could have the imagination to see how out of box candidates with transferable skills can be brilliant. Something that's out of your control. If a role is of strong interest to you, articulate how your skills and aspirations apply to make you a core fit. If you can't, your odds will be lower. This informs how you communicate throughout the process. Accountability It's easy to compromise on your requirements and expectations in a job search. Such as widening your salary band, and the jobs you'll apply for. Unless you are in a skill short industry or have a connection that can refer you to a role, your odds drop the further away you move from ideal fit roles. Stick to your guns. Don’t use up time and energy on unhelpful activity. Intermediary representation That's what we are as recruiters. An effective recruiter does work behind the scenes to manage expectations, concerns and objections. Something that can improve your odds as a job seeker. If you are in the fortunate position to be working with a recruiter that has your back, trust in the process. The interview How you execute your interviews is key. Read the interview chapters in Part Three. Note: I've made a rare inclusion for the newsletter in this chapter, given others published are verbatim from the Summer update coming out soon. But I'm conscious some of these chapters rely on, lead into and are interconnected with other chapters in the book. It's why if you find these chapters helpful, you'll find the book more-so, as a reference kit for your career.