Begin again (redux)

Greg Wyatt • July 4, 2024

I remembered this article the other day, reading some thoughts on upcoming ‘AI’ recruitment solutions.

We’ve a ways before seeing a transformative impact in the recruitment sector, but some of the forthcoming products show a sign of what’s to come.

Even when it’s released, any technology has to be adopted, implemented, and then entrenched - think about how long it took for the Netflix concept to eradicate Blockbusters.

The problem with tech though is that it’s typically built on what’s underneath. And if you’re building layers upon layers on top of cracked foundations, the root problem may never be addressed.

That’s the danger of chasing after shiny to find a fix.

What if we tore the entire thing down and started from first principles?

How might we develop smart automation to enhance recruitment for everyone, including those who suffer the sharp end of it, in candidates?

Here’s the article from last year:


When my Dad’s business imploded I found myself out of work in a competitive market.

It was around 2002, with the Cambridge market reeling from the effects of the Enron scandal, 9/11 and the dot com bubble bursting.

I found myself a nice stop-gap job at the Pickerel Inn, a spit and sawdust pub with the heritage of being the oldest traveller’s inn in the UK.

The landlord said one of the beams harked back to Roman times. Mind you he was full of fibs, so who knows?

While I used job boards, in my early career I found best success from walking into shops, pubs and receptions and asking for a job.

When I walked into The Pickerel, John was amenable to employing me and asked one killer question:

“Can you pour a pint of Guinness?”

Of course, I went straight onto LinkedIn and complained about recruiting from experience not attitude… oh hang on, no.

I said I never had, to which he said Great!

His preference was not to employ people who’d learned bad habits from other pubs, in how not to pour that magnificent stout.

Better to learn from scratch than copy the poor ability of others.


A thought experiment.


Let’s imagine you’ve been tasked with recruiting a key hire.

You work for an innovative and progressive market leader.

Before now you’ve lived in a cave, with no experience of recruitment.

While this is an important vacancy, you’re not allowed to learn anything about HR or recruitment.

You aren’t allowed to speak to anyone with experience of recruitment or HR.

You aren’t allowed to outsource any part of your process.

You aren’t allowed to look at how other people recruit.

You don’t have a job description.

You are allowed full access to the business and a budget to fill the role.

What steps would you take to fill this key vacancy?

How might that help you learn to pour a better pint of Guinness?


Funnily enough recruitment is an industry built on copying what others do, often without intentional work.

Even ChatGPT type AI does exactly this in generating words for use in recruitment.

Same same, from poor first principles.

So what might recruitment look like without the legacy of others?


This is what I’d do.

1/ Speak to the person giving me the task and ask them what they can tell me about the vacancy.

2/ Speak to the line manager of the vacancy. What do they want to achieve? Why has this come about? Is this a one-off or ongoing need? What does the job entail?

3/ I’d want to understand what success is. Do we have people already doing that? How did they achieve it? How were they rewarded? Where did we fall short?

4/ Speak to other people doing this job. If not in this business, then others. What are their day-to-day duties? What do they like about the role? What not? Why did they join the company? Why might they leave? Do they know anyone I can tap up?

5/ If this is a replacement vacancy, I’d want to understand why the previous person left. Is there something we should be doing differently?

6/ I’d want to understand if our package is right for filling the vacancy.

7/ How would I recruit it??

8/ Since we don’t have access to recruitment knowledge, I’d think about what parts of the business have a common process. Recruitment is about people who make a decision to come on board. Is that like a customer?

9/ How do we win customers?

10/ I’d talk to our sales and marketing teams and learn the steps they take to gain customers.

11/ How can I emulate those steps in recruiting this role?

12/ The sales and marketing team rely on inbound and outbound activity, such as advertising and outreach.

13/ I have the budget to do both. What does that look like in recruitment? How can I advertise our role to attract the right people? What will they find appealing? How can I get my message in front of the right people?

14/ Is the 7P product marketing process relevant? What advertising strategies, tools or frameworks can I use? Would AIDA, PAS, They Ask You Answer, Before After Bridge (Your job sucks; imagine how it could be better; here’s our job!), or AICPBSAWN be effective?

15/ When we’ve found good people, how can we both confirm they are suitable and give them good reason to join us?

16/ I’d think back on my own buying journeys for something that takes commitment, investment, qualify that it is right for my needs, and proof that I am the right buyer. House buying could be one such thing. How could I do that in recruitment?

You get my drift. Recruitment from first principles.

How is it different from common approaches to recruitment?

Is it better in any way, or simply reinventing the wheel?

That’s how I’d do it. How about you?

Regards,

Greg

p.s. I read from time to time that fresh salespeople are sometimes more effective at opening doors than those who are experienced. Because they are curious, ask loads of questions, and don’t have an expectation of how things work. That’s kind of how I was in my first sales role.

p.p.s. Begin Again is a brilliant, beautiful, brilliant film. You should watch it, and if you disagree, maybe we can still be friends.

By Greg Wyatt March 30, 2026
What follows is Chapter 39 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's 10 months old, so surely the algorithm has moved on right? Indeed, my own content performance has tanked if you compare 2026 to 2025. Around 12 million views of my content last year, while if I extrapolate my year to date performance, it looks like a little shy of 640,000 views. My LinkedIn feed is quieter, yet real life relevant conversations go from strength to strength, many of which stem from my content. Look, I don't love the term, but I am a fan of putting your message out there, across multiple means, so that your most relevant audience might become aware of you. And perhaps your relevant audience is an audience of one, a person who can put you nearer that job. Which is the only algorithm you need. This is a three part series, with part 2 on " Content strategy and philosophy " and part 3 on " A flair post ". Click on the links for the unedited versions on Substack. 39 - Introduction to personal branding Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a free marketing platform, where you can build a reputation through the words of your posts, comments and messages. Personal branding is a viable tactic as part of a multi-channel approach to your job search and it can bring opportunities to you. I'll start off by saying I'm not a fan of the term personal branding. It can lead to make-work which can even get in the way of what you should be doing. Writing and using content to create experiences that support a job search is a great idea and calling it personal branding - as a discrete activity - isn’t a bad thing. I expect there are many mediums through which you can build a personal brand. I'll focus on LinkedIn because of how entrenched it is in other job search activities. What a personal brand is For businesspeople the idea is that by building awareness of your personality, lifestyle and what you're promoting, you also build trust. So that when people are ready to buy, they'll buy your products. The brand might be personal. The goal is sales. When you see personal branding on LinkedIn it’s often a business that promotes their services through the account of the author. ‘Here’s my puppy, buy my stuff.’ Take note that the target audience for these advice posts is the businesspeople above. And these posts often seek to part them from their money. Your goals are similar. If there’s a commercial outcome you want, it’s likely a single job, not a throughput of leads. You’ll also see that controversial content gets huge engagement and can also repel readers. If you need a job, what’s the danger of writing overly spicy content? Could a reader make a decision against you based on your words? How much you need any job should inform the experience you want to create for your readers. How it sits in your wider job search Publishing content is about raising awareness and starting conversations with the right people. This can be your profile, written posts, newsletters, (bestselling) career breakdown kits, videos, you name it - anything you can become known for. In many ways the hierarchy of relationships your content appeals to is the same as with networking. Content can be publishing posts, commenting on the posts of others, sending direct messages. I’d argue even your applications and interviews are part of your personal brand. I think of LinkedIn posts like a plumber’s van driving around town. Most of the time you’ll disregard the van unless it cuts you up with noxious fumes. When you have a leaky pipe, you’ll surely take note of their number. It can support an application if a hiring manager decides to surreptitiously stalk your profile. And it can work against you if it suggests problem behaviour. A good balance for content is the poster in my daughters’ primary school from a few years back: THINK. Is it True? Is it Helpful? Is it Inspiring? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind? Achieve those five points and content will rarely work against your job search. Content should be consistent with your wider activity. Which means that everything people (potential employers) experience of you is a complementary and non-contradictory message. Content that contradicts your CV or cover letter may lead to red flags, whether that’s fair or not. Content should be intentional. HOW TO GO viral, and why you shouldn’t Anyone who writes content will enjoy the sweet, sweet flow of dopamine when you see reactions and comments trickle in. Such as that first flair post announcing you are available to help your next employer with examples of your achievements and what you are looking for. Do that and you’ll get loads of engagement. Why haven’t you done it yet? Tag me in and I’ll support you. Or you can do what most people do and say, ‘I’m sorry to announce I’ve lost my job, please help’ and that will get loads too. Because it is relevant and relatable to fellow job seekers, recruiters and sympathisers. Then you feel the soul-crushing defeat of a well-thought-out post, highlighting a problem in your industry, with tumbleweed to follow. Both types of content have a place. That tumbleweed post is relevant and relatable to a niche audience. I try to take a land and expand approach to content - job seeker advice, recruitment advice and stories, ponderings and satire, which I use to tackle topics from different directions. Over the past three years I’ve had between 3m to 11m views of my posts and I’ve gained a bit of business through them too. What I don’t do is try to go viral anymore. Because when I have gone viral with a few 1m impression posts, it’s taken weeks to extricate myself from them and there hasn’t been real benefit. I find my tumbleweed posts start better conversations from lurkers - those that never engage publicly. I promised you I’d show you how to go viral. Here you go. Relevance + relatability + readability + entitlement. Maybe add a selfie. If that seems too simple, search for this sentence on LinkedIn: “An employee asked me if he can WORK from HOME permanently.” You’ll need to use the double speech mark to search on the phrase, and rank by Posts. ‘Does it really work?’ asked Charles. I told him to try it as an experiment. He rarely got more than a few hundred impressions per post. 170,000 impressions, 2,000 reactions. Pretty viral for a first timer. It is the wrong path. What do these posts actually say? Who are they aimed at? And if they don’t appeal to people who can help you reach your objective, what’s the point? 
By Greg Wyatt March 26, 2026
I was tempted to use another Tom Cruise AI image for this article, but his hands ended up looking like feet, which wasn't a true representation of him. Probably not fair to use AI in this way either, stealing copyrighted material without permission. And so I use this AI 'stock image' instead, which is probably also highly unethical, but feels more suitable and sufficient . Anyway here's an article about why the same principles are crucial for good recruitment: ‘True and Fair’ is an accountancy concept that lies at the heart of reporting, and can be applied effectively in recruitment. Its meaning is that any financial statement made about a company should accurately and completely represent its financial position and performance. The role of auditing is to confirm that documentation meets this definition. Do so and everyone knows what they are dealing with. HMRC, shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees – useful, and in many cases necessary, to have access to a true and fair view of a company’s accounts. Can something be true and not fair? In 2001, Enron went bust, a huge scandal with real-life repercussions that led to new legislation in the US. Their accounts were true, in that they conformed with the required laws and standards. However they had an incredibly complex reporting structure which made it impossible to see the overwhelming debt they had. Poof! Bye-bye a $100bn company when this all came out in the wash. How about fair but not true? This can happen if a situation is described which gives a fair picture but lacks accuracy. An example here could be the UK politician who HMRC deemed behaved fairly but made errors in his tax reporting. Only a few million quid plus penalty. What types of recruitment documentation does this apply to? Three key ones that spring to mind (although there’s no reason it can’t be applied everywhere): The job description. The job advertisement. The CV. If these three documents were always a true and fair representation of either a job or a candidate, you’d interview and hire better candidates who stick around longer. With the caveat that these documents should also be ‘suitable and sufficient’, if you remember last week's edition. Documents are the first step in a recruitment process, relating to a decision to apply and the decision to interview. Is it not the case, that the second most common complaint in recruitment is “not what we expected”? Therefore, if we nipped this complaint in the bud, with true and fair documentation, wouldn’t life be better for everyone in the recruitment process? What does true and fair mean in recruitment documentation? I think it has to cover three points. 1/ factually correct 2/ shows context suitably 3/ describes sufficiently An immediate objection might be that job descriptions are always true and fair, but I’d argue this is actually rarely the case. If you recruit for a new role, do you audit your job description against the current context? If you have a generic job family description does it show the specific day-to-day duties of a role? Have things changed in the current role that makes it different to the last time you recruited? A common scenario in recruitment is that Greg resigns, and the hiring manager says “we’d love someone just like Greg”. Yet if Greg resigned, wouldn’t someone just like Greg be at risk of resigning for the same reasons in future? Would now-Greg have applied for the same role that then-Greg applied for? Which definition of Greg is the true and fair one you’d hire? It feels strange writing my name like this. There are lots of different situations in which a job description that was true and fair a few years ago is no longer so. The only way to ensure it is true and fair, is to audit documentation prior to going live. You may think a fully representative and accurate contextual analysis is too time-consuming for most vacancies, especially where it doesn’t actually matter if there is some inaccuracy. “Oh yeah, that’s not relevant anymore”. But if you have a key hire that can make a difference in your business, ‘true and fair’ should be the starting point, each and every time. If you have a systematic process that finds truth and fairness, you’ll see the benefit of applying the same across any vacancy – for the reason that the time invested at the outset is offset by interviewing fewer unsuitable candidates and wasting less time and resources overall. And what should be the more important reason of better recruitment outcomes. For any project I take on, this is the first step – getting the documentation in order. Get it right and everything flows from there. It’s a key reason behind my nearly 100% fill rate. It’s also one of the reasons my average tenure is over 4 years for key hires. These achievements don’t come down to chance. They come from my process. If you've forgotten why suitability and sufficiency is the other pillar, here's an example that isn't suitable: Nineteen experiential bullet points might be true and fair but will also encourage ideal candidates to run away screaming. See you next time. 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: - commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment (available for no more than two vacancies) - manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client. This can be a large as end-to-end delivery of a programme of vacancies, or as small as writing one job advert for a key hire- recruitment strategy setting - outplacement support