Depth charge

Greg Wyatt • May 16, 2024

As I sit here typing away at my keyboard, I know full well how words appear on my screen.

First I type with a satisfactory clunk on a mechanical keyboard.

Signals travel from each key through the USB cable into my laptop.

Tiny elves transport the signals via miniature paintbrushe… wait.

Oh, never mind, I don’t really need to know how it works, it works well enough.

Until something goes wrong, and turning it off then turning it on again doesn’t do its job.

Time to get the experts in.

This is the Illusion of Explanatory Depth - our belief that we understand the world more fully than we do.

Until we’re asked to explain its workings and find the limit of our understanding.

Until things go wrong and it’s on us to fix them.

It’s a definition that has an important place in recruitment.

Especially for hiring processes that think they know how to recruit, yet aren’t accountable for their part if things go wrong.

Where there isn’t sufficient knowledge to ask the right questions, to get to the root of what happened, and find solutions to problems not known to exist.

Typically represented by the assumptions such as ‘all recruiters are the same’, ‘adverts don’t work’, ‘we give a great candidate experience’, and all that jazz.

“We work with specialist recruiters.”

What is a specialism in recruitment?

Is it knowledge of a market vertical, where your expertise can probe to establish what right is and bring them forward for the right reason?

Is it doing the same type of vacancy over and over, where you obtain a density of keywords, without the wherewithal to ask substantial questions?

Is it horizontal expertise in recruitment marketing, copywriting, consultation and advocacy?

If you rely on the specialism of your recruiters, how do you challenge their expertise to see if they specialise in how you need, not what you think you want?

“We provide an excellent candidate experience.”

To whom do you provide that?

Is it the type of candidate who you may wish to employ?

Is it suitable applicants who aren’t right for your vacancy?

Is it unsuitable applicants who see themselves as a candidate for employment?

Is it the people you’d love to employ, who actively chose not to engage, sometimes without you being aware of them?

Is it the people you’d love to employ, who you haven’t discovered, and who can’t discover you?

If the answer isn’t yes to all, and you aren’t measuring it, how good a candidate experience are you actually giving?

Clue: “If you don’t hear from us within one week, please assume you were unsuccessful,” means you can’t provide a holistically good candidate experience.

What impact will that have?

“There are no USPs in recruitment”

A unique sales proposition. Is that so?

What is it that we are selling? Is it CVs? Is it a CV database? Is it candidates (and what is a candidate)? Is it process? Is it philosophy?

Is it automation in the guise of AI? Is it more, quicker, better? Is it fewer, more accurately, more specifically?

Is it fill rate? Is it retention? Performance beyond expectation?

How does that matter for your recruitment?

What problems do they solve for you?

Are your problems unique to you, in which case shouldn’t it matter what service you buy from a recruiter?

And if your problems are unique, how are you assessing which recruiters are suited if their proposition isn’t both unique and uniquely aligned to your problems?

“Adverts don’t work”

Is that so? What evidence do you have to show this?

Is it the evidence of your applications? The evidence of candidate availability in your marketplace compared to market conditions?

An analysis of employer-centric ( inside out ) adverts vs candidate-centric (outside in) adverts?

Do your adverts give candidates reasons to get in touch, let alone apply?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but my adverts fill around half of my roles, including skills short and ‘passive’/'‘problem unaware’ candidates.

While this post shared by Mitch Sullivan shows an A/B test for how language affects advert performance.

And given an advert doesn’t just mean a message shared above-the-line on a job board, but also those below-the-line in DMs, emails and phone calls, I’d be worried by anyone who claims they don’t work, without evidence it isn’t them at fault.

How do you know there aren’t buyers if you don’t actively sell through your words?

Do they know how adverts work, to say that they don’t?

“70% of candidates don’t apply to adverts”

Or whatever the latest stat is, to support the passive candidate argument. But is that even the right argument, considering an effectively written advert, in the right place, can appeal to passive readers?

These are my thoughts.

And if passive isn’t the right term, how about problem awareness ?

Or how about people who are problem unaware one day, and problem aware the next, when they are sacked by Zoom through no fault of their own?

Are these people who then wouldn’t apply to adverts?

What’s holding people back from applying? Is it status, awareness, or a reaction to what they read?

While if people don’t apply to adverts, why might they respond instead to a message, attractive or otherwise?

Or could it be a good thing, not to advertise, given the 200 good candidates who applied across 3 vacancies last week, with over 1,000 applications? Would a headhunt be less work, with the same outcome of filling those vacancies?

Isn’t the better question to ask where the candidates are that are likely to be suited to a vacancy, than talk about whether they might apply for a job?

Given the crux of marketing is the right place, alongside the right person, the right time, the right offer and the right message.

“AI can’t replace the human side of recruitment”

But what is AI? Is it automation dressed up as intelligence?

Is it technology now, in the public domain, which changed again yesterday with 4o?

Is it technology that is being worked on, under the guise of Moore’s law, that is ready but not released?

Is it the aggregation of different automation across the recruitment lifecycle that, if implemented well, provides a better experience for its users - candidates?

What is the human side anyway? Is it trust? We trust our devices with no end of sensitive data as we doomscroll our feeds and subscribe to another app.

Is it contextual insight? Perhaps so right now, but if AI becomes intelligent why couldn’t it gain that straightforwardly, given technology is iterative and can only get better?

Is that a genuine statement to rely on, or are we Blockbuster when we didn’t buy Netflix in 2000?

Development - release - implementation - adoption - entrenchment. There are yards to go before we even know what we are dealing with.

I don’t think the Valley of Despair was the right term for me sliding down from Mount Stupid.

It’s an exhilarating ride to discover all the things you don’t know and unpick the things you thought you did.

It starts with understanding there are no elves - only key press triggering circuit closure, sending a unique scan code to the computer for character translation and display.

And when you blow up illusory depth, there are learning opportunities, to get better at what we do, by cutting past assumptions and leaning into what we don’t know.

If you want to fix your keyboard that is.

Regards,

Greg

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.