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

By Greg Wyatt February 26, 2026
So here were are, the start of a new series. This series may be around 10 editions, looking at the things other industries do that we can implement into recruitment. These were written 3 years ago, right at the start of the AI zazzle, and in some ways have dated quite a bit. In others, the way in which they haven't dated at all, because the principles of how we live our business lives can be universal. So, I'm not sure yet, how much editing I'll do, whether there will be any inclusions, or whether I'll leave articles intact, as a moment in time. I've learnt all of these notions from candidates and clients, as I came to understand the function of their vacancies. Hearing about the daily practice from people doing jobs, I couldn't help but notice the same relevance in recruitment. So while these articles are hardly comprehensive, perhaps they'll make you look at your candidates differently, in what we can learn from them, and how that might improve our recruitment. Why five? December 2022 Ask anyone involved in active recruitment what their key problems are, and they’ll likely talk about skills shortages and candidate behaviour. On the face of it, problems which are out of our control, worthy of complaint with little opportunity to find improvement. But what if these were issues that weren’t entirely out of our control? What if we could apply a replicable process to understand what’s really going on, and how we can make a difference? Fortunately, we needn’t invent the wheel, as other industries have already done this for us. One such is 5Y, or Five Whys, a problem-solving technique that was developed by Toyota in the 1930s. It's part of the Toyota Management System that has inspired much of my work. Five is the general number of “Why?”s needed to get to the root of a problem. Often you can get to the heart of the issue sooner, sometimes later. Often there are multiple root causes. More than just solving problems, it’s about establishing practical countermeasures to prevent these problems from coming up in future. 5Y is an example of Toyota’s philosophy of “go and see”: working on the shop floor to find out how things work in practice to find ways for iterative improvement. This isn’t a theoretical idea to try out on a whim – it’s based on grounded reality and almost always works. There are two costs – time and accountability. Here’s a practical example, then a recruitment one. (Names have been removed to protect my identity) Problem 1 : The children were late for school. Why? Traffic held us up. Why? We left the house late. Why? The children weren’t ready on time. Why? Their school uniforms weren’t prepared. Why? We hadn’t set them out the night before. Here the countermeasure is to get everything ready the night before, rather than blame traffic for being late. Perhaps we might have gotten to school on time without heavy traffic, but that is an element out of our control. Of course, here there is another root cause – very naughty children – but better to focus on the simple changes. And sometimes traffic is the root cause after all, once you’ve ruled out other elements in your control. (2026 note: my eldest now often drives my youngest to school. A time laden solution I hadn't considered three years ago. Now I don't care if they're late 😆) Problem 2: Candidates keep ghosting us. Why? They weren’t committed to responding. Why? They didn’t accept my requirement for a response. Why? They saw no value in my requirement. Why? I didn’t create an environment where this requirement has value ( root cause 1 ). Or because they are very naughty candidates, with a bad attitude. Why have we allowed someone with a bad attitude in our recruitment process? Because we didn’t prequalify them well enough ( root cause 2 ) The first root cause is something we can work on by giving candidates what they need, building trust, and working to mutual obligations. There are many ways to do this – I’ve already talked about examples in previous newsletters. It comes down to good candidate experience and reciprocity. The second root cause requires us to work harder at understanding candidate needs, aspirations, behaviours and attitudes at the outset of a recruitment process. There’s a reason for their behaviour. We can be accountable for finding it. That’s no mean skill to develop, yet an essential one for anyone whose core responsibility is recruitment. And it’s hard to do in a transactional volume process, so the question then becomes, does your process help more than it hinders? You can apply 5Y to any issue you come across, as long as you are prepared to be accountable. At worst you may find that the things that were out of your control are at fault. In this case, you are at least armed with good information to report to your stakeholders, by ruling out other possibilities. What’s the point of doing all this? For me it’s continually improving how I recruit, with the consequence, in the example above, that I am rarely ghosted at all. And you can 5Y any issue you come across. Are poor agency CV submissions their fault, or in part down to your briefing and process? Are skills genuinely scarce, or is your requirement unrealistic? Is it true that your agency hasn’t listened to you, or do you engage the right partners in the right way? 5Y has the answers. Regards, Greg
By Greg Wyatt February 23, 2026
What follows is Chapter 21 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's a good example of how a job search is an inverted recruitment exercise, but also how the same principles from recruitment can be applied in a job search. Market mapping is one of the first steps of a search process in what is often called headhunting. Here though, instead of an exercise that helps find a person for a job, you help find a job for you. This can be in one chunk, at the outset, and iteratively, as you learn more information. It's a great example of how LinkedIn can be used as a data repository, given the vast majority of professionals are present here. And if they are present here, the insight that is their careers is too, allowing you to identify potential viable employers, who works there, and therefore where else they may have worked, with further potential hiring managers. The snake that eats its own tail. Try doing the iterative work above, every time you come across someone new, whether in an application or in networking . You can use this to build out your network, identify companies to contact proactively. Simon Ward and I will talk more on this in our LinkedIn Live on Tuesday February 24th at 1pm GMT. You can join us, and view the full recording afterwards, here: Is The Nature Of Networking Changing for Job Hunters? If you happen to read this as a hiring authority, market mapping is one of the invisible processes in a structured search. It can often take me 80 to 100 hours to fully map a role for potential viable candidates, given I try to find non-traditional candidates as well as those that are easier to find through sourcing. 21 - Map the market Market mapping is a common activity in executive search. Why wouldn’t you adopt the same approach in your inverse of a recruitment exercise? The idea is to fully understand your market, so that you are better able to navigate it. This is a summary chapter because market mapping is both a strategic and a tactical exercise. I’ll cover some of the How of mapping in Part Three. There are three ways in which to map the market. The vacancies you are qualified for This is about determining which vacancies you should focus your attention on. In which domains does your capability directly apply? This could be context related, if your expertise is in start-ups, growth, downsizing or other contexts. It could be industry related - your process manufacturing expertise might directly apply in food, plastics or pharmaceuticals. It could be job related, with the right applicable skills. Establish where there is a market for you, and if what you offer is needed by that market. Advice on the transferable skills trap (p55) and whether you are qualified (p178) to apply will help. The geography of your job search Where are all the employers and vacancies that you can sustainably commute to? A geographical map can help you target opportunities by region. What resources are available to help you with this map? Searching online for local business parks, even driving around them, can give a list of viable companies to contact. Directories and membership hubs. Local newspapers, social media stories. If you see a company you like the look of, say from an advert, search on their local post code. Who else might be there? The chapter on doorknocking (p241) has more ideas. The people of your network Every time you come across someone you might build a relationship with, connect with them on LinkedIn. Then check out their career history. Who else have they worked with? Where else have they worked? This works for peers, hiring managers, and recruiters - a headhunter in one company may well have worked in a similar domain in a previous one. Is there anyone at these previous companies you should introduce yourself to? What about their listed vacancies? Building out a map of relevant recruiters to develop relationships with (if they answer the phone) can lead to vacancies. Treat it as an iterative exercise. Check out the chapter on networking (p236). This map isn’t just about potential opportunity. It’s also about information that might be helpful now and in future. This might be for job leads. It might be industry insight you can share through content. It may even be topics for conversation in interviews or with peers. Make sure you track it in the right way, whether through Notion, Excel or other resources you have available. With any information, check it is accurate, then prune appropriately. Prioritise on degrees of separation (closest first) and context fit (where what you need is most closely aligned with what you offer).