Black swan

Greg Wyatt • March 21, 2024

When everything else is known, it’s hidden context that completes the puzzle.

I’ve written about the importance of context in recruitment on a number of occasions. It’s the basis of what, who, how, when and why you should recruit.

You can read one such article here.

And I was reminded of its importance by listening to Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. (incidentally narrated by Michael Kramer who also narrates Wheel of Time)

He describes that one of the defining aspects of a complex negotiation is the Black Swan: a high-impact event that is difficult to predict under normal circumstances, but in retrospect appears to have been inevitable.

In recruitment, finding the black swan means looking at reasons you wouldn’t or couldn’t otherwise have considered that have led to undesirable outcomes.

This article shows a number of ways in which you can find the black swan, so that you improve both how you recruit and the outcomes of your efforts.

You may have also come across the same theme in ‘known unknowns’ and ‘unknown unknowns’ terms made famous by Donald Rumsfeld when discussing the invasion of Iraq in 2002, in which it is accepted you have to make pivotal decisions without full information.

Yet, in any negotiation, which can be any interaction, known or otherwise, with a candidate, full facts are the only way to predict, with confidence, the outcome.

You are right negotiation isn’t just about persuasion and influence, conversations and offers, it’s also about how you negotiate the journey beforehand.

An example.

Let’s take the Chief Operating Officer (COO) position in a company.

Typically this is the role that oversees all operations of a business and is the right-hand to the CEO.

This week I’ve been talking to a number of COO job seekers.

Let me tell you all of their CVs are pretty much identical.

And they all express dismay at having breadth and depth of transferrable skills, yet not being able to have a look-in for the various COO vacancies they go for.

If you look at the COO vacancies they apply for, they typically look pretty much the same:

  • Company info

  • Job responsibilities

  • Essential and desirable requirements

  • Benefits (often only the contractual ones)

  • £Competitive salary

  • Diversity statement

Compare the responsibilities and requirements, and the terminology is often pretty much interchangeable both between themselves, and the CVs of the many excellent COOs out there.

None of these vacancies stand out, nor do any of the COOs.

Yet are any of them in any way identical?

Of course not.

What’s missing is context.

When everything else is known, it’s the hidden context that completes the puzzle.

A COO of a bootstrapped £1m business has a similar CV to the COO of a multinational’s division.

A COO vacancy for a downsizing business in turnaround has the same advert as a COO for one in maintenance mode and another growing rapidly.

While all are market-leading progressive innovators.

If employers and candidates thought to show suitable and sufficient context, everyone would find recruitment a lot easier.

An obvious point, yet not one most people think to show.

Because it’s an unknown known.

In a sense, all these unknowns and knowns are like playing Jeopardy (you know that game show where they give you the answer and you have to ask the right question).

Answer: You haven’t shown suitable and sufficient context

Question: Why are all these applications completely unsuitable?

Answer: Candidates consistently ghost us.

Wrong question: What’s wrong with candidates? Why can’t they behave?

Good question: Why are candidates ghosting us?

Better question: How can we find out why candidates ghost us?

Right question: What can we do systemically differently to reduce the risk of candidates ghosting us?

Ghosting, counteroffers, bad behaviours - yes candidates are people who can change their minds. But for every strange decision is a black swan that is their hidden context.

Which might be as simple as trained distrust from widely bad recruitment experiences.

So while this is a simplified example, it’s used to show that problem solving can find unknown unknowns, by looking at known issues, finding their root cause, and then applying learnings against future events.

Another opportunity to find the black swans that can improve recruitment is to check your blind spots.

A wing mirror and shoulder check works well enough in driving.

Why not in recruitment?

Recruitment is a business where candidate and employer activity directly reflect each other.

Indeed a recruitment exercise is a reverse job search and vice versa.

Which makes learning from candidates a valuable exercise in improving recruitment.

But not just the candidates you know about, those in your process, but the ones you’ve rejected, ignored and even the ones who read your advert and chose never to get in touch.

I write about this in my 11-part Recruitment Reflected series, part 1 of which is here.

Of course, the problem with blind spots and bias is that often you aren’t aware you have them, which is why they are unknown unknowns in the first place.

But if these same are also black swans, then there is a significant opportunity to find improvement in recruitment by identifying them.

One such opportunity is through Diversity.

But not just the diversity of your people, but the diversity of problem-solving.

In this way retaining consultants who have insight you don’t is advantageous for many companies.

And a good recruiter can do the same at the outset of a recruitment project, by asking the right questions.

After all, if each unknown unknown has a simple question at its root, you need simply ask the right questions to find the black swan that can lead to the best recruitment outcomes.

Unfortunately, the opposite of this notion is why much recruitment is the way it is.

Companies who don’t proactively challenge their own assumptions, biases and unknown unknowns, will believe that’s just how recruitment should be done.

It’s the illusion of explanatory depth.

And so, any improvement is only down to skill or good fortune, rather than better principles and process.

But while you can always build skill and find luck from the right principles and process, you can’t do it the other way around.

How do you fix shoddy foundations once the house is built?

Perhaps the cracks you have in your walls are the symptom not the cause.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. buy my stuff - recruitment, writing, projects. I can be your black swan.

Jump the shark. A Recruitment AiDE, pt 13

By Greg Wyatt • January 29, 2026
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

How To Network For A Job - Jobseeker Basics XIV

By Greg Wyatt • January 26, 2026
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.