Bad data

Greg Wyatt • May 9, 2024

Key to any negotiation is a solid understanding of the facts at hand.

Facts typically relate to the individual, their context, or the part they play in the situation you’re negotiating through.

But if the facts are inaccurate or based on unprovable assumptions, those negotiations are built on a house of cards, prone to collapse for the most minor of reasons.


You see it everywhere in recruitment.

“If you do w, there will be a x% chance of y happening in z time frame.”

“Only x% of the market is visible”

Numbers which can feel real in discussion:

“Don’t accept counter-offers. 90% of people who accept them leave within 6 months”

“Only 20% of the candidate market is visible”

“Only 20% of the jobs market is visible”

Facts which are stated to try and change the mind of the other, so that they see things differently.

But the problem with these facts is that they are developed to serve an agenda, rather than having specific meaning to the person you are negotiating with.


Let’s look at the counter-offer argument.

What’s the problem here?

It’s that you’re employing a quantitative (numbers) line to a qualitative (relationship) situation.

The truth is that the right decision for a candidate might be to accept a counter-offer if the employer makes a genuine change that addresses their reason for leaving.

It’s when the counter-offer is cynical that those people leave in short measure - because those underlying reasons aren’t addressed.

When you look at it this way, the next questions become - what are the underlying reasons for leaving, and are they something the candidate should broach before thinking about moving jobs?

The answers to those questions are the real facts of the situation, rather than a popular line that is commonly accepted yet has little substance for the individual.

5 Whys everything to find better answers.


How about the 20% lines for hidden jobs and invisible candidates?

These come down to what we mean by both.

Jobs aren’t actively hidden. If they aren’t filled through an advert, they are filled through other means job seekers can take advantage of.

If you’re interested in why this is a misleading notion, have a read of this article.


The same can be said of invisible candidates.

What do we actually mean by this?

In most situations, it boils down to the principle that the number of applications to an advert represents only 20% of available candidates .

However, again, it’s a quantitative argument for a qualitative discussion.

For example, a candidate from an advert is necessarily an applicant, but an applicant is rarely a candidate for employment.

Indeed most recruiters who talk about advert efficacy say that 90% of applications are immediately unsuitable.

Let’s say you have 100 applications, 10 of whom are candidates.

How many invisible candidates are there?

Is it another 400, or another 40?

What about if none of the applicants to an advert are candidates?

Does that mean there are 0 candidates anywhere?

This statement ignores that an advert's quality will impact the applications' quality.

In my adverts recently, my percentage of candidates has ranged between 20% and 40%. And these are employable candidates.

Do we really need to look at an additional 4x that number. Is that reasonable or practical?

What about that 80% figure that are the invisible candidates?

Why are they invisible?

Is it because they don’t apply to adverts, because they didn’t like an advert, or because they are only accessible through sourcing and proactive contact?

And if it’s the last point, how many of these 80% are discoverable by recruiters who don’t have excellent sourcing skills?

I wrote my first guide to boolean sourcing in 1998, for my Dad’s company, as I was midway through a maths degree. I work on my sourcing skills, and I accept that candidates don’t always know how to be discoverable to traditional sourcing methods.

I find candidates others miss, yet I am no more than an 8 out of 10 in sourcing skills. It’s an opportunity for improvement.

How many of the 80% of invisible candidates will a typical recruiter not be able to find?

And if they don’t find them, does that mean they don’t exist?

Of course not.


A final example, and then the point.


In a LinkedIn post today, a contact of mine was excited to share the fact that there are 120,000 more vacancies than before the pandemic.

An exciting fact for job seekers.

Yet how do these vacancies correlate to job seeker availability?

The answer is they don’t.

The majority of these are vacancies which candidates won’t find attractive, and which don’t reflect the skills of available job seekers.

It’s not an exciting proposition. It’s the path to disaster as we move into The Great People Shortage.

The numbers alone may be exciting for some, and an opportunity for those that drive the benefits of diversity, but it is surely ominous of things to come in an ageing population with reduced childbirth.


At last, here’s the point.

If we use facts to support arguments, and these are not facts at all, how does that support our credibility as an industry?

Or are we guilty of ‘well, you would say that’ creating suspicion that works against effective negotiation?

Isn’t it better to get to the root of these numbers, understand where they come from and what they actually mean?

So that we can present real solutions to real problems.

Or shall we just use them to support our own goals?


Stats without evidence are just bad marketing.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

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).