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:

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.

The double empathy problem.

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”