Interpret a porter

Greg Wyatt • April 26, 2024

I read a brilliant post on LinkedIn the other day, which I foolishly let disappear into the ether.

It was from a job seeker and went a little like this:

Recruiter calls me: “I came across your CV on a job board. Are you still looking for a new role?”

Me-thoughts: I’ve been out of work for months. I’m knackered. I hate this.

Me: “Thank you for calling. Yes, I am on the market for the right role”

Recruiter: “What are you ideally looking for?”

Me-thoughts: I need to pay the leccy bill on Friday. Then the mortgage. Anything. Anything will do at this point.

Me: “I’m hanging on for the right role. It will be…”

I’m sure you get his drift.

In the same way that everything is a negotiation, according to Voss’ “Everything’s a negotiation I will win*”, so too is everything a negotiation for jobseekers.

Their internal monologue belies the public image shown to take positive steps forward.

Considering jobseekers are likely more open-minded than passive candidates, can you imagine what internal monologue those might have?


It seems impossible to know what others may think before we even engage them, but that’s the task we can face up to in negotiating the candidate marketplace.


Some years ago I had a minor epiphany that was both forgiving and disappointing.

We aren’t unique.

We might come together in ways that make us as individuals unique.

But our components are generic.

For example, in my job seeker calls, I was somewhat surprised to find out two things:

  1. that knowledge common to me was uncommon to pretty much every skilled job seeker

  2. that the experiences they took as unique to them were common to many job seekers

Another example. In my work/prattingabout on LinkedIn, I actively look for different domains to break into, for networking and learning purposes.

What struck me last year, as I came to know many biotech and software people, was that their challenges, issues, needs and aspirations were equivalent.

Yet they’d invented differing terminology to describe the same points in how these intersected their industries.

While both sets, and many more, had incorporated philosophy and process from other industries - such as the Toyota Way.

The scientific process, problem solving, plan-do-check-act, Stoicism, Buddhism.

We perpetually reinvent and iterate the same themes, from the same places, to solve the same problems.


On a macroscopic industry scale, our thoughts come from the same places to go to the same places. A place one might call London, and another Londres, but the same nonetheless.


On an interim candidate scale, we can use the thoughts and feelings of job seekers to inform our strategy.

Whether that’s lessons from ‘candidate experience’ or those from ‘ candidate resentment’.


On a microscopic scale, we can do the same per vacancy.

That’s the whole point of the briefing/consultation process.

To understand why ideal candidates should be interested, and translate the language of the vacancy into one that has meaning to them.

You can do this by asking the current team what they enjoy about their roles, and it’s likely a new colleague will enjoy the same if you’ve hired the right person.

You can do this through asking the right calibrated questions and finding black swans that may be ikigai of the people you want to employ.


If you can’t, you’re left with software engineers/employers talking at biotech scientists/candidates, unaware they are arguing about the same concept in agreement.


While if you make candidate engagement about them, in their language, those who are attracted to the right message, come forward for the right reasons.


How would you adjust that recruiter line at the top if you knew full well it’s a tough market, full of bad experiences?

Let’s assume the candidate has been contacted for good reason.

How would you adjust your messaging to discoverable passive candidates, if you knew automation allows many recruiters to bombard them with messages?

AI will allow this at scale.

Or would you instead find ways to uncover undiscoverable candidates, who are less likely to suffer from bad pitches, in which case a generic message might land just fine?


Or you can cut and paste your job spec, and hope they don’t have an inner monologue at all.

Me-thinks: wow a progressive, dynamic market-leader that wants someone to do my job for them!

Me: I need a job so I’ll just apply to all of them that say this.

It’s a good thing none of us are competing for candidates.

Thanks for reading.

Greg

p.s. *it’s still “Never split the difference”

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).