Blanket statement

Greg Wyatt • February 29, 2024

I propose the removal of generic diversity statements from job adverts and recruitment marketing collateral.

You know the ones I mean -

“Here at YMMV we do not discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, gender, age, religion, political affiliation, disability, contingency recruitment, or favourite TV programmes except for Only Fools and Horses. We seek to foster an inclusive society where everyone can perform loudly on world awareness day”

I’m sure I’ve missed something.

There are simple reasons to move away from this rote paragraph.

One is performativity.

Have you ever spoken to anyone from a marginalised group fed up with performative showings in whatever public domain, that have no substance behind them?

Another is diversity washing.

How many companies that use diversity statements discriminate against people on the same list?

In which case, how might readers of these statements become sceptical?

A third is word blindness.

When was the last time you applied for a job, when you took a moment to read that statement and thought “Wow, this is the one for me?”

What about hypocrisy in action?

When diversity statements are attached to content that excludes without reason while providing barriers to entry.

Such as 12 points of essential requirements that only the boldest will take a punt on.

So if you accept that diversity statements are a flawed notion, and you are passionate about the need for and benefit of diversity, what can you do?

Rather than talk about it, be it at every opportunity.

Through a holistically accessible and inclusive approach.

Given how most candidates first experience our recruitment digitally, a good start is to follow the accessibility guidelines set out by W3C:

W3C says there are 4 pillars to build on - perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. POUR.

While much of this relates to the technical aspects of websites, such as job boards and the ATS (applicant tracking system), the onus is on how it’s used and experienced.

In written content, this boils down to using simple, clear, concise non-ambiguous language, transparently and accurately explained, and which is easy to navigate.

What are the needs of your readers?

How might people from different backgrounds struggle with transadapting what you’ve put forward?

How can you include people who may have individual needs they don’t want to express?

How can the same points help everyone?

A lot of my work in recruitment focuses on accessibility and inclusiveness.

My rationale is two-fold.

1/ because good candidates can be anywhere, and so I should gain the widest access and make my work as accessible as possible

2/ because it’s the right thing to do

Consulting on, ironing out the issues with and finding the commercial messaging for vacancies and candidate journeys leads to

  • challenging biases, assumptions and cultural competence

  • a job description that accurately reflects the operational requirement and context, without ambiguity

  • a minimum viable set of requirements in what good looks like in candidates

  • adverts that contain as little twaddle as possible

  • as simple language as the vacancy allows

  • showing suitable candidates why they might be interested, which includes elements that demonstrate diversity

  • making it straightforward to apply, pose questions or ask for help

  • appropriate transparency in key details such as salary, working arrangements, interview process and format, and timelines

  • commitment to feedback

  • championing the individual for their strengths

When looking at the wider recruitment process, from the employer perspective, this also includes

  • understanding and optimising ATS applications for candidates

  • looking at pay structures that are equitable and fair

  • recognising candidate challenges and accommodating them into the interview process

  • keeping in touch to proactively address concerns

At every touch point, put the needs of the candidate first. Yet in a way that serves your recruitment too - these steps are one reason I am an effective partner in both filling key vacancies and improving recruitment.

One of the placements that fulfilled me most last year was a guy with cerebral palsy in an early careers IT role. He was an excellent candidate, with great skills and achievements anyone would be pleased with.

He got the job because he was the best candidate and for no other reason.

I asked him what support he’d need at work, and the one thing he can’t do is stand on tables to change lightbulbs, in his words. I’m not sure that would be great lightbulb-changing practice for anyone, but there you go, that was his request for a reasonable adjustment.

That I was able to introduce him to a role he has gone on to excel in, with a hiring manager who saw his capability, when no other employer would touch him, was pretty fantastic.

Not one other employer in 10 years of applying for jobs.

It’s their loss.

I’m sure the employers I partner with can tell you about the diversity of candidates I present for their roles, and those I place. But it’s not the goal, it’s a consequence of my approach.

Accessibility and inclusiveness should benefit everyone.

If, for example, you are willing to provide interview questions in advance to ND candidates (something currently recommended as good practice in the UK), you could do the same for everyone.

Don’t forget that many people who fear discrimination may not be willing to ask for assistance that highlights the same.

Some may not be aware they would benefit from an accommodation. Such as the many people who will go on to gain a formal diagnosis of neurodiversity in future.

Wouldn’t they benefit from your support now, before they have an answer for the issues they find challenging in a world built for the typical?

If you interview fairly and robustly, this simply allows honest candidates to portray their candidacy more accurately.

Which helps you make better decisions.

So wouldn’t you allow the same opportunity for everyone?

If you have flexible working arrangements, a creche, or celebrate Diwali as well as Hanukkah - these are the things that show your diversity more than a statement does.

Moreso than tacking a generic statement at the end of an advert.

Instead, if you still want to make a statement, show why it is so important to your business individually.

How does it align with your vision to be something genuine to aspire to?

I’d be surprised if, when presenting such a true statement, it wouldn’t appeal to your ideal candidates, whoever they might be.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. I am pleased to share I am available to fill two key vacancies and work on one recruitment project. That second might be auditing your ATS as a candidate or your adverts to see exactly how accessible and inclusive they. Get in touch.

Introduction to personal branding

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? 

Nothing but the truth. Innovation from Iteration, pt 4

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