A proactive listener

Greg Wyatt • March 27, 2024

In ‘Always Split the Difference Unless it Relates to Cake’, or summat, Chris Voss describes active listening as a key principle in any negotiation.

Active listening relates to working to understand the meaning and intention of words you hear in conversation, rather than listening to respond.


I talk about this in my meandering epic ‘Train of Thought’ , where our typical passive listening cycle resembles:

  • Greg starts speaking

  • Voss anticipates how Greg’s sentence is going to continue

  • Voss starts formulating his response based on his extrapolation

  • Voss responds at the appropriate moment

  • The cycle repeats

But if you’re always listening to respond, you’ll always miss out on at least part of the message. Especially when the other person may not have articulated meaningfully if caught by the passage of their thoughts.


Voss talks about two principles of active listening:

  • Mirroring reciprocates the language used to show we’re paying attention, and confirm understanding, often in the same language - to show you’re singing from the same hymn sheet

  • Labelling identifies and acknowledges the feelings of the other party so that they feel heard

Through this, we can build empathy and understand how to tackle our negotiations.


There’s only one issue with this, which may, in fairness, only be a Greg problem.

It feels slimy when it’s done to you.

I’ve come across mirroring many times in my career, simply out of the sheer volume of candidate conversations, some of whom are NLP (neurolinguistic programming) practitioners. You can read about their version here: NLP Mirroring.

It’s a technique grounded in relationships - have you ever noticed you sometimes copy the body language of those you are closest to? I always step in sync with those I am with, unconsciously.

Knowing that someone actively mirrors my style makes me immediately think they have an agenda. Of course, they do, given they have applied a negotiation technique for a reason.

The more popular a technique is, the more likely the other party is to know of the technique. Can it therefore backfire?

Nonetheless, my qualms aside, what would you say most long-term jobseekers (those who have felt the most pain from the recruitment system) want most, outside of a job?


From my experience of talking to a few hundred long-term job seekers, they hope for decency, to feel they are heard, for their concerns to be addressed, and for a resolution. This is backed up by all the discussion we see on socials.

Given job seekers have been trained to bear the pain of poor process, they are likely more forgiving than a sceptical passive candidate, who may vote with their feet without us ever knowing.

However if we treat the illness we can see, it has the byproduct of benefitting the least patient too.

So it would seem there is an opportunity to apply the principles of active listening systemically, by listening to Candidate Resentment and providing an experience that does the opposite.

If you accept that a systemic approach to active listening can be effective in dealing with problems, can we do the same in how we appeal to the specific people we want to employ?


At the start of any robust hiring process, two things need to happen:

1/ Confirm that the job description to be hired against is suitably and sufficiently accurate to the needs of the vacancy, team, business and context

2/ Clearly establish what good looks like in our candidates

That second doesn’t just relate to suitability criteria, but also aspirations and psychological fulfilment.

After all, if they don’t want to do the job, it doesn’t matter how good they are, does it?

By doing these two steps we can establish the voice of our candidates.

And if we have proactively and robustly identified what their voice is, we can proactively listen to determine how we attract them.

Through mirroring their situation, context, and minimum viable good.

Through labelling their problems and desires.


That’s called speaking in the language of your audience.

Irrespective of whether it’s in a job advert, an email, a DM or a phone call.

Or whether it’s in an interview confirmation, the interview itself, or any feedback.

Whether it’s offer stage, resignation, preboarding, onboarding or induction.

Everything is negotiation, even when built on empathy.

Proactive listening holds the key to attracting the right people, and ensuring they are retained. By building empathy they may respond advantageously.

And it’s why putting your candidates’ needs above your own, is one of the best ways to achieve the outcomes you want, the crux of an outside in approach to recruitment.


Oh and if you want to negotiate a job offer, you’d do well to actively listen to your desired employee, so that you can give them what they think they want to get you what you need.

Might even help in briefing, consulting, qualifying and interviewing.

Thanks for listening.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. I’m still open to your buying my stuff, but a bit less open than last week, so don’t dither if you need anything

p.p.s. This newsletter is a day early, due to the Easter Break. Have a good one!

By Greg Wyatt February 26, 2026
So here were are, the start of a new series. This series may be around 10 editions, looking at the things other industries do that we can implement into recruitment. These were written 3 years ago, right at the start of the AI zazzle, and in some ways have dated quite a bit. In others, the way in which they haven't dated at all, because the principles of how we live our business lives can be universal. So, I'm not sure yet, how much editing I'll do, whether there will be any inclusions, or whether I'll leave articles intact, as a moment in time. I've learnt all of these notions from candidates and clients, as I came to understand the function of their vacancies. Hearing about the daily practice from people doing jobs, I couldn't help but notice the same relevance in recruitment. So while these articles are hardly comprehensive, perhaps they'll make you look at your candidates differently, in what we can learn from them, and how that might improve our recruitment. Why five? December 2022 Ask anyone involved in active recruitment what their key problems are, and they’ll likely talk about skills shortages and candidate behaviour. On the face of it, problems which are out of our control, worthy of complaint with little opportunity to find improvement. But what if these were issues that weren’t entirely out of our control? What if we could apply a replicable process to understand what’s really going on, and how we can make a difference? Fortunately, we needn’t invent the wheel, as other industries have already done this for us. One such is 5Y, or Five Whys, a problem-solving technique that was developed by Toyota in the 1930s. It's part of the Toyota Management System that has inspired much of my work. Five is the general number of “Why?”s needed to get to the root of a problem. Often you can get to the heart of the issue sooner, sometimes later. Often there are multiple root causes. More than just solving problems, it’s about establishing practical countermeasures to prevent these problems from coming up in future. 5Y is an example of Toyota’s philosophy of “go and see”: working on the shop floor to find out how things work in practice to find ways for iterative improvement. This isn’t a theoretical idea to try out on a whim – it’s based on grounded reality and almost always works. There are two costs – time and accountability. Here’s a practical example, then a recruitment one. (Names have been removed to protect my identity) Problem 1 : The children were late for school. Why? Traffic held us up. Why? We left the house late. Why? The children weren’t ready on time. Why? Their school uniforms weren’t prepared. Why? We hadn’t set them out the night before. Here the countermeasure is to get everything ready the night before, rather than blame traffic for being late. Perhaps we might have gotten to school on time without heavy traffic, but that is an element out of our control. Of course, here there is another root cause – very naughty children – but better to focus on the simple changes. And sometimes traffic is the root cause after all, once you’ve ruled out other elements in your control. (2026 note: my eldest now often drives my youngest to school. A time laden solution I hadn't considered three years ago. Now I don't care if they're late 😆) Problem 2: Candidates keep ghosting us. Why? They weren’t committed to responding. Why? They didn’t accept my requirement for a response. Why? They saw no value in my requirement. Why? I didn’t create an environment where this requirement has value ( root cause 1 ). Or because they are very naughty candidates, with a bad attitude. Why have we allowed someone with a bad attitude in our recruitment process? Because we didn’t prequalify them well enough ( root cause 2 ) The first root cause is something we can work on by giving candidates what they need, building trust, and working to mutual obligations. There are many ways to do this – I’ve already talked about examples in previous newsletters. It comes down to good candidate experience and reciprocity. The second root cause requires us to work harder at understanding candidate needs, aspirations, behaviours and attitudes at the outset of a recruitment process. There’s a reason for their behaviour. We can be accountable for finding it. That’s no mean skill to develop, yet an essential one for anyone whose core responsibility is recruitment. And it’s hard to do in a transactional volume process, so the question then becomes, does your process help more than it hinders? You can apply 5Y to any issue you come across, as long as you are prepared to be accountable. At worst you may find that the things that were out of your control are at fault. In this case, you are at least armed with good information to report to your stakeholders, by ruling out other possibilities. What’s the point of doing all this? For me it’s continually improving how I recruit, with the consequence, in the example above, that I am rarely ghosted at all. And you can 5Y any issue you come across. Are poor agency CV submissions their fault, or in part down to your briefing and process? Are skills genuinely scarce, or is your requirement unrealistic? Is it true that your agency hasn’t listened to you, or do you engage the right partners in the right way? 5Y has the answers. Regards, Greg
By Greg Wyatt February 23, 2026
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).