Brief encounters

Greg Wyatt • November 26, 2023

It was a software company of note, i2, based just outside of Cambridge.

We sat in reception waiting for the internal recruiter to usher in for a group briefing on their Trainer vacancy.

I smiled cordially at one of the competitors who sheepishly looked away.

In we went to their meeting room, to be given a 20 minute brief on the role and their expectations.

“Any questions?”

<yes do you have parking on site?> asked another of the competitors, who I vaguely recalled had gotten out of their Mini at the company’s large private car park.

We all scribbled away our notes, including answers to each other’s q’s.

I left my question to the end, “May I grab five minutes with the hiring manager?”

I like to think they all looked at me begrudgingly as they left the room, leaving me to have a proper chat with the Training Manager.

Probably not, they may have thought I hadn’t listened.

Anyhoo, a day or so later I checked out their adverts and it was the classic rigmarole of

My favourite client is a notable software company on the outskirts of Cambridge which has parking for a Mini.

To be honest, mine wasn’t hugely different in the intro - Tracy always laughed at my myclient opener although she could never tell me why it was funny.

But where mine did differ was that I took care in describing what the role actually was, instead of pasting the JD, and why I thought it was a good career move.

Not because I expressly thought a better advert would attract better candidates, but because I was distilling what I felt were the important parts of the brief into words.

I bumped into David a few years ago, and he’d gone from being a Trainer there to a senior sales guy - exactly the opportunity for career development I’d described and he’d hoped for.

At the time my fill rate was around 50%, IIRC, which isn’t bad for contingency.

Chatting to my Director, she was pleased with my progress and felt a lot of it was down to how I qualified companies and candidates.

Looking back it’s easy to see the path that’s developed me into the recruiter I am now.

When I didn’t do work right at the top of the process, the consequences only magnified the further on we went.

Such as companies I was keen to work with, but when they gave us the chance to send CVs, the only information you could access was their job description.

How are you supposed to gain any insight on a Job Title vacancy, if the only information you have is what a candidate might be able to tell you from that job title alone?

If they already know what the job is and it broadly looks like what they are doing now - why would they go through the stress of changing jobs?

Might as well just say “Software Trainer, Cambridge, free parking, £35k” and leave it there.

On the flip side, often the companies I was most effective in recruiting for were ones I’d recruited for over a few years.

I got to know them, their context and culture, what they really need in their candidates, who would thrive there for the right reasons, and who would leave early.

In other words, my quality of information was better. Information that could be better gained through quality of brief, and iterating over time as we cut through their pitch to the truth of their business.

At the end of my 5-year tenure at Whitehill Pelham, my fill rate was around 70%, a good improvement in a couple of years. But I also know my retention had gone up, and, more than that, anecdotal feedback was that candidates were delivering better than expected.

The quality of work you deliver is defined by the quality of information you gain.

You may call it a brief or a job intake meeting. I call it a consultation.

Whatever you call it, that meeting is key to providing good service.

Otherwise, you’re only measured by the quality and quantity of CVs sent.

CVs that may or may not be viable candidates - who can say?

In 2008, I had an account management meeting with PPD, a large clinical research organisation near Cambridge.

I worked principally on HR roles for them, placing 15 people in 3 years at their centralised head office.

Doug, the HRD who I’d also placed, told me that they took metrics of all their suppliers, and based on the quality of candidates, CVs to interview, vacancies to placement, and retention - I was their most effective recruiter. This was a company of 3,000 staff in Europe, growing 30% YOY, who recruited mainly through agencies.

I didn’t do anything special for them. I just got to know the business and who would or wouldn’t enjoy working there. It was the quality of my brief that distinguished my results.

And yet they were very hard to get meetings out of, and I don’t think they saw the correlation between the quality of the brief they enabled, with the outcomes they could expect.

As we come into the AI era in recruitment, the next few years will automate many transactional steps.

Recruiters that take JDs without a brief, post a job description as an advert, and send unqualified CVs - how many will be replaced by low-cost automation?

AI will be able to give a better experience to candidates unburdened by the challenge of volume - live updates on applications, chatbot-style conversations, efficient interview arrangements and guidance, automated paperwork and onboarding.

These are features of software to be launched next year - Cielo. And it’s only the beginning.

The impact won’t be immediate - Blockbuster hung on for a few years after the advent of Netflix. The delay will be adoption, not technology.

By 2028, I expect the recruitment landscape to be very different - if our AI overlords let us do any work that is.

So to have longevity and add value it becomes incumbent to do the things AI can’t - gain specific situational insight, challenge false assumptions and bias, build trust and engage stakeholders on a human level.

You can’t do these without an effective consultation, whether you’re talking to an employer or a candidate.

Just some thoughts that came to mind having beta tested Mitch Sullivan’s new course on Taking the Job Brief.

It’s going to be a great intro for recruiters who want to move away from a transactional approach, and who want to make more of an impact with their customers.

Good process, enabled by technology, should be a win for everyone.

Sorry, I thought this would be a brief newsletter.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. I’ve now been writing these newsletters for 13 months. Over 100,000 words of content. Should I publish them as a book?

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.