Ricky Business. Innovation from Iteration, pt 3

Greg Wyatt • March 19, 2026

How do you argue at people?


For any assertion I make, I try to achieve two thresholds.


Is it true and fair?

Is it suitable and sufficient?


You may have picked up on these, if you've followed my content, but they aren't just hyperbole. They're a fundamental way in which I think, because I hate ambiguity.


I'll explain why and how in the next two editions of Anti Recruitment:



February 2023


‘Suitable and sufficient’ is a health and safety definition that can and should be adapted into recruitment.


In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) owns and enforces the majority of legislation around ensuring people go home in the same condition they arrived. And their health too.


Employers must, as a minimum, take care in understanding the risks their people face at work and put in place measures to prevent any issue covered by legislation.


Relevant risks should be assessed and appropriately documented.


This risk assessment is at the heart of health and safety and is a formal document that needs to meet the definitions of ‘suitable and sufficient’.


The HSE declares:


“The law states that a risk assessment must be 'suitable and sufficient', ie it should show that:

  • a proper check was made
  • you asked who might be affected
  • you dealt with all the obvious significant risks, taking into account the number of people who could be involved
  • the precautions are reasonable, and the remaining risk is low
  • you involved your workers or their representatives in the process


The level of detail in a risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk and appropriate to the nature of the work. Insignificant risks can usually be ignored, as can risks arising from routine activities associated with life in general, unless the work activity compounds or significantly alters those risks.


Your risk assessment should only include what you could reasonably be expected to know - you are not expected to anticipate unforeseeable risks.”


Safety glasses might be a suitable measure when working with chemicals – no one wants corrosive chemicals splashing in their eyes. But it isn’t sufficient if, instead, you splashed the same chemicals on your hand.


While a full body suit with a face mask might be sufficient, they may not be suitable for long periods of time, such as our utterly exhausted Doctors working with Covid patients.


Checking both directions is a suitable and sufficient dynamic risk assessment for crossing the road.


Isn’t it interesting how balanced and practical this definition is, rather than fear-mongering?


The greater the risk the more importance you place on getting it right, first time.


You can apply this definition word for word in replacing ‘risk assessment’ with ‘job description’, and the spirit of it to every other step in a recruitment process.


The crux of it is to understand the shape and impact of any step in your process and ensure it is both suitable and sufficient.


In recruitment, the ‘greater the risk’ typically relates to level of seniority, opportunity for transformation, or consequence of things going wrong.


Or it might be legally non-compliant processes that put you at risk.


Conversely, ‘low risk’ recruitment is proportionate.


If roles are easy to fill and it doesn’t really matter who gets them, as is the case in transactional vacancies, your level of care can be more generic and commoditised.


You probably don’t need to wear safety glasses at interview – it’s a negligible risk that they are a spitter.


Is a fifth technical interview really suitable for a mid-level role?


Are references sufficient testimony to employability?


Is your interview confirmation suitable and sufficient?


Some of these are role-specific, and some are systemic recruitment good practice.


What a great way to differentiate how you can look at different types of roles, different steps in your process, and how many resources you should invest to get them fit for purpose.


Spending 120 hours on a retained multichannel campaign for an Administrator is not suitable. It’s certainly way more than sufficient too – maximum overkill!


I’d find you a damned good administrator, to be fair. And it wouldn’t take me 120 hours. Or be that expensive. Okay, bad example.


Sticking a copypasta job advert up for a Chief Operating Officer is neither suitable nor sufficient, with transformational risk if you get it wrong.


Working with a recruiter when you could be promoting internally can be sufficient and unsuitable.


Getting both suitability and sufficiency right is the best way to make your recruitment ship shape.


Suitable and sufficient ensures your processes and documentation are fit for purpose in managing your internal risk with new and existing employees.


Next week, I'll explain how and why True and fair ensures documentation is fit for purpose for third parties – your candidates, agencies, or hiring managers.


A true and fair approach that is suitable and sufficient will give you the best likelihood of a good outcome.


Thanks for reading.


Regards,

Greg



By Greg Wyatt August 18, 2026
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
By Greg Wyatt August 11, 2026
What follows is Chapter 49 in A Career Breakdown Kit (Summer 2026) . It's like many other chapters in that I've tried to make it stand alone, yet it's deeply connected to the rest of the book. For example, if you accept your job search is equivalent to launching a product to market - where you are the product and your next employer the buyer - then a sensible strategy is also equivalent. You execute an appropriate multichannel sales and marketing plan, where you focus on the steps in your control, with considered action and follow up. An interview process is an ongoing negotiation, with each interview equivalent to a consultative sales meeting. And like any good sales professional, you know that the steps preceding, the steps in-between, and the steps after all have a part to play. In my last three offers these have all been contributing factors: The relationship nurtured by the hiring manager led to their new employee hitting the ground running The private information withheld by the candidate that led to an offer rescinded because she could never have fulfilled the role in the first place The enthusiasm shown by a candidate in post interview communications tipped a decision in their favour Recruitment is risk, filled with bias - that doesn't mean you can't make that work for you. 49 - After the interview In a tough job search, getting to an interview can feel a real achievement. If you’ve been accountable in your applications, only going for roles where you are a strong fit, these are tangible opportunities to secure employment. The interview itself isn’t the be-all and end-all. It’s better to see them as the start of a conversation, one that’s only complete when you either have an acceptable employment contract in your hand, or if it’s an unequivocal no. Continuing this conversation in the right way, and in ways other candidates may not think to, can bring hoped for and unexpected gains. A few weeks back I filled a vacancy which had a strong shortlist. The final three were all employable, and the company would have taken all three had they been able to. The second choice candidate was disappointed and took it well, responding professionally. I worked hard to give all three a good experience with regular updates and constructive feedback. I too was genuinely disappointed for the ‘unsuccessful’ candidates. Two weeks after accepting the offer and returning the signed contract, the first-choice candidate withdrew. She’d received a significantly improved offer having been headhunted. Within two hours of passing the news on to the hiring team, the 2nd choice candidate was offered the role and accepted. How she had responded to her initial disappointment was a key element in this offer being put forward. The same was true of her experience with us in her decision to accept the offer. In many ways an interview is like a sales meeting. One party pitches their offering which might be customised against the questions asked. The other party makes a decision on whether and how to proceed. In an interview both the candidate and employer act as both seller and buyer. As a job seeker you get the final say on whether you say yes, no or something in between. Your decision is influenced by factors you may not divulge to the employer, such as an unexpected intervention (illness, accident, family), personal circumstances or other offers that may come up. It’s the same for the employer. They may have a hierarchy of decision-making, changes in the business and changes outside of the business - many things that can influence an interview decision or time frame, different from what was initially agreed. In sales we know that a deal isn’t agreed upon until the invoice is paid. Even if there is an initial ‘yes’ in a meeting we follow up suitably. Follow-up email to confirm details of the conversation and next steps. Thank you for your time Follow up at the appropriate time to check progress If it’s ‘no right now’, follow up over time to build a relationship until they are ready to buy If it’s ‘no answer’, find appropriate reasons to follow up, ending in a breakup email What this actually looks relates to what their sales (hiring) process is, playing to their rules and breaking those same rules in an appropriate way. In the UK, 61% of private sector employers are SMEs, whereas the vast majority of money is in the corporate space. The differentiator in recruitment is that the more corporate you get, the more transactional and matrix-led recruitment often becomes. Some of the rules of the game will be different. This illustrates how and why things are different depending on the context. Public sector, charities, geography, bias, habit, strategy - these all affect the rules of what appear similar processes from the outside. It’s important not to be cynical or come across as coercive. Respect the process and any rules you learn about. Thank you notes Most of the employers I partner with are interested in candidate feedback and interest post-interview - to help them reach their decision for the right reason. Were you applying directly, their interest in your view would be the same. A naturally written thank you note sent appropriately should not work against you. It might work for you and it’s a situation where someone’s bias can be a benefit. ‘Dear Greg, I wanted to thank you for your time today and the opportunity to interview at ABC Corp. It was a pleasure to meet you and Gary and helpful to understand more about your role and environment. I remain keen and would be delighted to return for the next stage. You mentioned you’ll make a decision by the end of next week and I look forward to hearing from you. Do let me know if I can help with anything - my number is …. Kind regards,’ It’s an opportunity to build on or mitigate inconclusive points in an interview if there’s an example you neglected to share or if you didn’t convey information in the right way. Maybe they let slip they’d be concerned if the role would keep your interest in the long term - why not own this? ‘During the interview you asked if I could see myself in this role long-term. It’s a role I’d enjoy - taking on a hands-on role I can get stuck into is an exciting challenge, while my experience in xxx would be beneficial for yyy.’ Keep it more succinct than my email though. Write it in your own words in a similar tone to how you came across in the interview. Will it make a difference? Only marginally, in some situations. Is it worth doing as a natural way to continue the conversation? I think so. Don’t be disheartened if you don’t get a reply - they may have a policy to follow. And to that coercive point above don’t say ‘I’m the best candidate. You’d be a fool to miss out,’ or something more subtle that might suggest the same. Additional interviews In an ideal world you’d get a full view of the interview process before the interview. Unfortunately some employers enjoy playing a game of interview chicken, revealing more and more interview stages as you go through them. Most are somewhere in between. Try to establish the full process as early as possible in case there is anything that is non-negotiable for you. For example, I know some people categorically do not want to do technical tests or ‘business plan’ style presentations, having had their fingers burnt in the past. It’s your choice what might be a non-negotiable - for any reasonable employer these are typically used as a means for fair assessment. Treat any interview in the same way as the first interview: prepare as fully as possible and assume nothing. Unless you know their hierarchy of decision-making, that new person you meet at fourth stage for an informal chat might well be the person with the final say. Even a social get-together after an offer is put forward might be seen as an assessment. Appropriate follow-ups It’s a careful balance. You want to show you are interested, not desperate. You need an answer, not to be inappropriately intrusive - even if that’s not your intent perception holds weight. Following up in the right way is a good tactic. If you can gain an understanding of their time frames or process work to that. Anything and everything can happen behind the scenes, including unexpected absences. Things can slip in a way employers may not see as notable. A few work days after you were expecting to hear, drop them a polite line. ‘Hi Greg, I wondered if you had any news on how you want to proceed with this role. Is there any update you can share? Kind regards,’ You can play a bit of keeping up with the Joneses if it’s true - ‘I remain interested - I do have two interviews this week with other employers. Would you like me to keep you updated?’ Sometimes no news is no news and you might need to be patient. Eventually you may come to a point where you need a decision from them - such as if your 2nd choice company gives you a job offer. A breakup email can be a good thing. Even if this doesn’t prompt an update or decision from them, you give yourself agency to walk away with no ‘what ifs?’ And if they do come back later, you can make a separate decision on whether to revisit them. One such email might be: ‘Hi Greg, I enjoyed our interview on May 21st. You mentioned you’d reach a decision the following week. Can I assume you have moved forward with another candidate? I’ll draw a line through my application for now and will be happy to pick up our conversations at a later date, if appropriate. Kind regards,’ Written appropriately, there are three outcomes: You get a reply confirming they have appointed You get no reply and can move on You get a reply with more information That last point may be ‘no news’ or something actionable. Sometimes it might even prompt good news. Whatever the outcome, you can move forward. Keeping in touch long-term Sometimes a no might be a ‘no for now’, especially when you are later on in the process, such as being pipped to the post at final interview. If yours is a business as usual role where there are a number of employees fulfilling similar duties in the same company, you may well be suitable for other roles that come up in future. How can you keep in touch appropriately so that you help their decision making when another vacancy comes up? Find reasons to occasionally keep in touch (maybe once every couple of months). If they are active on LinkedIn you could follow their content and add constructive comments. It may come to nothing but it may give you early sight of a new vacancy. If you see another vacancy advertised check it out. Drop them a line directly rather than just apply given you are continuing a conversation rather than coming in cold. And if they reply to say ‘don’t bother’, at least you know.