Intention intervention
You may think this newsletter is about disability and diversity - it isn’t.
I don’t know the lyrics to many songs.
Even some of those I really like.
Indeed, sometimes it’s because I really like those songs that I don’t process the lyrics.
You see, one curiosity about my minor hearing challenges is that I can either listen to a song, or I can listen to the words - I can’t do both.
One time, at company camp, my old MD thought I was really drunk when I didn’t take part in a group singalong on the final day.
That was a strange getaway for many reasons, not least of which was the goal of reducing our services, because of the notion posh restaurants offer fewer options on their menu. But the outcome was we came away with a doner kebab shop style offering.
Anyway I wasn’t that drunk, it’s just that I can either enjoy the singalong by listening to it, or I can take part in it and try to get my voice to coincide with words I’m lagging a couple of seconds behind.
Of course, any protestation that I wasn’t actually sozzled just made it seem like I was swimming in the murk of booze.
I find it interesting thinking back on that moment - his experience of me was different to what I said, and my experience of that time was defined by circumstances unique to me.
In some way he is a very compassionate man - he has a photo of his brother, who is disabled, on his desk, which drives a lot of his passion - while in others he is blind to how others’ experiences may differ.
I’m a dichotomy too, no doubt, with bags of compassion yet sometimes lacking in empathy.
In larger groups, I can come across as introverted, because I lag behind a conversation, while in smaller groups I take energy from others, and often the lead in what we do.
Equally, I prefer phone calls to video - it’s a question of lag.
There are many terms that we now commonly use that show our understanding of the different requirements people may have just to get one with life.
Reasonable adjustments.
Individual accommodations.
Typically they are from demographics that otherwise can suffer from isms.
But then if we can level the playing field for them, shouldn’t that be a consideration for others? How can we help everyone achieve their potential, sustainably?
The irony is that in many situations where a reasonable adjustment is provided, that individual has to declare why it’s needed. Yet many of those same individuals might fear a declaration because it might preclude them.
Many situations wouldn’t be perceived to allow a reasonable adjustment because they are not openly discussed enough.
Mental health.
Menopause.
Grief.
Or how about the many people who suffer a world built for the typical, without realising they fit a different definition?
I often wonder how many candidates I speak to are ND, for example, who don’t realise it, and just feel they are a little bit broken. How might I help?
But this isn’t a post about disability or diversity - it’s about candidate experience and engagement.
The catalyst for much of my philosophy on recruitment is when I’ve challenged or been challenged on habitual practice.
The first time I can remember being held up for being a recruitment twonk, was when I had an anonymous call about a job advert.
“May I ask why you have used ‘red brick university’?”
She was right of course, and I hadn’t done so consciously, more that I knew the employer required people with top degrees.
Some years later that same company changed their requirement to ‘good A levels’ because they realised life sometimes prevents, and it was intellectual clout they wanted, not bits of paper.
I didn’t think to challenge them at the time - might I have made a difference?
Why even is a degree needed? thought 2006 Greg, without following through on that question.
Everything we do and say is how we actively engage the market.
Yet how often do we consider how those individual touchpoints are experienced?
Or the individual circumstances of someone who isn’t yet a candidate might inform their thoughts and actions when they intersect with our engagement?
Candidate resentment is on the rise, and it’s because as an industry we have trained the candidate population what to expect.
Have you had many conversations with candidates who were sceptical of your offering because you are a recruiter?
Not because of you necessarily, or even your message, but because you’re Another Bloody Recruiter (tm)?
Makes you wonder about the people who don’t reply, and what they think.
What about the ones who don’t apply, and you never even knew existed?
We’re making our jobs harder, because of how the majority works.
But of course, everyone has unique circumstances, needs and aspirations.
And those same are being trained on what to expect from the industry.
How, then, should we engage to improve the odds of getting what we need?
I think the first step is to identify what we actually need, which is typically to gain commitment, whether that’s an updated CV, an application or a yes to a job offer.
That’s what we want, yet my belief is what we need is for that candidate to make the right decision. Which might even be a ‘no’ - because if it is objectively the right decision to decline, it’s rarely going to work out.
While the second step is to make everything about the candidate, and not about us.
What might be their problems? What might be their hopes and dreams?
How can we communicate to accommodate them individually, to help them reach their potential?
This is what I mean when I say outside in, not inside out. It’s not just pithy spitballing Ross, it’s fundamental to how recruitment might work.
Put candidates and individual experiences first, and recruitment will see better outcomes.
I do this on an individual basis for key hires, and it’s not so hard to change direction in this way.
Challenge habits with intention, and we can always improve.
At scale though, that will take a systemised shift that is contrary to the whole industry.
Right now, the development of AI solutions would be the right time to make this kind of intervention.
Yet if its development is led by people, it will only drive forward what we think effective recruitment is - employer first.
And that will make those adopters think it really is the candidates that are the problem.
Which will be the biggest of missed opportunities.
Thanks for reading.
Greg
