Should I Customise My CV? Jobseeker Basics XVII

Greg Wyatt • February 16, 2026

In tomorrow's LinkedIn Live, Simon Ward and I will debate the merits of customising applications.


Simon is mainly on the side of customisation, whereas I feel it's often relied on as a crutch that detracts from more effective action.


I'm not against it by any means, yet it falls much lower on my priority list than you might think.


You can join us tomorrow at 1pm GMT, by clicking on this link:

https://www.linkedin.com/events/shouldajobhuntertailortheircvfo7427656161476415488/theater/


You can generally see my views on customisation in three chapters of A Career Breakdown Kit.


I've shared two of them in this newsletter already:


Hierarchy of Pain, which explains why the real essential requirements of a vacancy aren't always articulated or even defined, in which case customisation can actually work against you.


De Facto Automated Rejection and You, in which I explain why the ATS isn't the real problem, and what you should consider instead. Given customisation and 'ATS Compliance' go hand in hand, this is a must read.


The third chapter is shared below and answers the question more directly.


But if it's all far too TL;DR, then you should only customise your application if you answer yes to these questions:


1/ Is my core CV good enough? Good enough is your minimum acceptable level - not the goal - and I'm sorry to say the vast majority of CVs do not meet this threshold.

2/ Do I know the hierarchy of decision making in the hiring process, and what each stakeholder needs from the application?

3/ Does the advert speak to me personally? If it's a generic document, you can bet your customisation will look precisely the same as every other person taking the good advice to customise their application.

4/ Could the employer or agency have further vacancies, now or in future, that I am better suited to?

5/ Does my customised CV resemble my LinkedIn closely enough that it doesn't appear to lie?

6/ Am I articulating applicable skills, direct qualifications and relevant experience in the language of the vacancy?

7/ Does the time taken to customise outweigh the speed needed to apply?

8/ Am I 100% focused on the jobs that best meet my strengths?

9/ Is this a better use of my time than the harder activity I've been putting off?

10/ When applying through a job board, is this CV optimised to be findable for my ideal role through their CV database?


I'm sure there are more, but these are a good start. The three chapters explain why you should ask these questions first, so you can make sure your strategy works for you.


And these are the basis for my side of the discussion tomorrow.


34 - Should I customise my CV?

 

It depends.


Am I qualified?


Strip away bad behaviour, laziness and discrimination, and ask any hiring manager what they want from an application.

I’d wager the most common answer will be -


‘Qualified candidates’


Qualified goes beyond capability.


Can we identify any insurmountable nos?


This might be experience, qualifications, assumption of salary level or commutability, availability, or a lack of work permit.

Often it comes down to assumption. Fair or not, it’s their assumption to make.


All we can do is show how we qualify.


Ask these same hiring managers what proportion of applications aren’t qualified enough, and the answer will be anywhere between 75% and 100%.


Many of these will be wing and a prayer or automated applications. White noise that detracts from qualified candidates.


If you truly are a best-fit candidate for a vacancy, how would you feel if unqualified applications took attention away from you?


In a world where job seekers are often told to ‘shoot your shot’, is it possible that you’ve been an unqualified candidate on occasion?


When looking at any advert, ask yourself -


Am I qualified to do this job?


If yes, ‘How will my application demonstrate that I am qualified?’


This informs whether and how you should customise a CV.


Most jobs are learnable, using transferable skills.


If everyone can learn and has similar transferable skills, neither of these is a remarkable quality. They don’t stand out and they don’t inherently qualify you for a vacancy.


I expect that a significant proportion of what are considered to be unqualified candidates could ‘do that job’ with sufficient support.


It’s just that the expectation is other applicants can do the job better or achieve sufficiency sooner.


This may be perceptual and unfair. It is how many people make decisions when recruiting.


Instead, the onus has to be on the applicability of what we offer.


What’s in it for them?


Can you show how each facet of your candidacy applies in the context of the vacancy?


If you can’t, the decision is likely to be against you in a competitive market.


If you strongly believe you are qualified for points you are always rejected for, you have to articulate why.


This may be for as simple a reason as living 70 miles from their office.


They assume it’s too far and say no.


You’ve been commuting 75 miles for 10 years, and you know you are qualified. Say so.


Same with salary. They judge you were probably on £70k and their budget is £60k max - it’s not going to work.


You’ve done the maths. It’s a great job, the salary is fair, and it’s affordable. Say so.


Or those career gaps.


‘This person’s unemployable - no work for three years!’


‘When I was made redundant, I had the opportunity to support my ailing mother. She passed away in March, and I’m ready to work.’ Say so (and I’m sorry for your loss).


When we talk about being qualified, it’s often more about the skills and capability required to do a job.


If you know you can do the job, show how in your application. This should be the core part of your proposition in words a reader will accept to help us make the right decision.


If you can’t achieve this in your application, you may not be seen to be qualified.


‘Core part’ is important, because you may be someone who has an excellent track record, and a small part of your expertise relates to the core of a vacancy.


You may be able to show this in your application.


However, if you are competing against candidates whose main expertise is the core of the vacancy, you may be perceived generally as a weaker candidate.


An exception might be if you can demonstrate specifically how your wider experience solves problems the vacancy will have.


How can you glean that from a generic advert?


If you aren’t getting any return from customising CVs, it’s because you aren’t seen to be a qualified candidate (if your CV is even seen at all).


And if you can’t provide suitable and sufficient evidence that you are a qualified candidate, you should save your time by not applying.


Whenever I talk to job seekers frustrated by spending hours on customising CVs only to be knocked back instantly, I’m equally frustrated to say they probably never had a chance with those applications.


Strip those applications away and focus on the ones you can show qualified candidacy for quickly.


You’ll save a lot of time and frustration and you’ll IMPROVE your odds, by giving you more time to focus on what matters - more suitable vacancies and different job search activities.


You’ll also improve the odds for more qualified candidates.


Customise to beat the ATS!


Okay, if you’re worried about beating the bots - reread the ATS chapters (p29).


Worry more about being human optimised with a ‘good enough’ CV - it will be implicitly ATS compliant because of what an ATS is.


Yes, solutions are changing all the time, yet as ‘AI’ evolves on recruitment platforms, it will emulate how humans parse documentation.

Appropriate human optimisation is still key, our warts and all.


Not keyword bombing and ‘93% ATS compliant’ piffle.


Good enough


The argument that you should customise your CV against every application to maximise your odds seems to make sense.


Yet, it neglects one key principle. That your starting CV is good enough.


In many applications I see, they are not.


I don’t mean that they haven’t been customised, I mean that they aren’t fit for purpose.


And if that’s the case with your CV, customising only covers over the cracks in a weak document.


CVs in general are weak in specificity, context, applicable skills and readability.


Because people in good times often get by on weak documentation. Jobs are aplenty, suitable candidates competed for - you can succeed with less.


In bad times, good enough has to be a minimum, and most fall short.


I had a debate with a career coach recently who challenged me that ‘good enough’ will never get you a job - why would you always want to be sixth place?


Yet if CVs aren’t good enough to start with, there’s little point in chasing perfect - the most subjective of principles.


If you don’t get past the first sift, you won’t even get to sixth place.


Get the objective principles right and build from there.


Besides, everyone has an opinion on what good looks like in CVs. Perfect for one may be rubbish for another. Quite the stinger when you’ve paid for perfection.


Good enough is about reaching an objectively good CV-state for your context, which depends on all those factors unique to you - your skills and candidacy, the state of your market, the volume of competition and vacancies.


Good enough shows you in your best light, highlighting your candidacy for the role you are most suited for.


You can’t be all things to all people - good marketing is about leaning into what makes you, you.


Get your CV right, and it’s the basis for non-application activities:


  • Your LinkedIn profile (given it should be consistent with your applications)
  • A document you share in networking (there’s no point customising here)
  • A CV that may be found on CV databases (read Better Use of Job Boards - p211)
  • A CV you’ve used for an application you were rejected for, then logged onto an ATS which is visible to the hiring team for more suited vacancies they may not even advertise
  • The basis of how you describe yourself in personal branding, elevator pitches, doorknocking and any other commercial-type activity that can put you closer to a job


A CV isn’t just an application tool, it’s the anchor of your professional identity.


It isn’t just an outbound document, it can attract inbound interest.


And if you get it good enough, any customisation should be minimal, allowing you to apply for suited vacancies more quickly.


Quality of information


Let’s face it, most job adverts and job descriptions aren’t fit for purpose either.


Your experience of generic, misrepresentative job adverts mirrors how recruiters experience generic, misrepresentative CVs.


Those carefully written adverts that appear to speak to you directly… well those are good enough adverts to spend time on.


For the rest, would it make much difference if you relied solely on the job title, working arrangements and salary? Perhaps industry and product type, too.


‘Here at Bircham Wyatt Recruitment, we are a market-leading progressive innovator of fast-paced all-level communication.’


A lot of words which say nothing at all.


And because everyone uses them, they lose meaning - as with transferable skills.


Strip all the twaddle away, and if those top-level points are adequate, I expect you’ll go straight to Essential Requirements to see if you are qualified.


The problem with generic adverts is that these Essential Requirements may also lack Essential Specificity. What’s misrepresentative?


What’s missing? What are they really looking for?


This is often hidden pain that is key to unlocking a vacancy – something I write about in more depth, in the next chapter.


If you aren’t certain on these points, what are you customising against?


Could it be you accidentally edit out what makes you most suited to a vacancy, if what they leave unsaid is the most important piece?


Sometimes this is down to carelessness by the employer - sometimes it’s deliberate:


I once placed an HR Manager at a ‘rapidly growing’ company. They didn’t tell me or her that the thing they needed most was her mass-redundancy experience, which was what she was tasked to do on day one.


The truth was the opposite of their job description.


And sometimes different stages of the hiring process have different priorities, which may never have been articulated in the advert:


Administrator, Recruiter, Line Manager, Head of Department, Director...


A messed-up perfect storm


If you’ve made it this far, you’ve probably been looking for work for a while, in a competitive marketplace with too many qualified candidates, far too many applications, and too few viable vacancies.


Plus, technology that encourages speed and volume.


And under-resourced, over-worked hiring teams, many of whom don’t do hiring as a day job.


Have you ever spent an hour customising a CV only to learn you were application number 232? Without knowing they’d closed applications at 200. And you received an instant rejection?


Sometimes, it may be a question of speed over quality.


How do you find the right balance?


Reciprocity in action


For advertising, the balance is simple.


Invest as much time in your application as their effort in the advert.


For a transactional generic advert - apply transactionally, diarise a follow-up, move on.


Keep these in a transactional fire-and-forget pile.


For the adverts that speak to you personally or take time and care to accurately articulate what the role is and what it offers you, reciprocate this effort in your application.


Keep these in a non-transactional pile.


Measure your return separately.


You’ll find a higher hit rate in the second, with the virtuous circle of your added investment.


While the lower hit rate of the first is mirrored by not needing to have put so much of yourself into it.


What about AI?


There are many wonderful AI tools available, and if you want to take the time out of customising CVs, automating seems a great opportunity.


What exactly are they customising against?


Because the quality of information you can convey is based on situational insight, it seems to me that AI can only tweak terminology or regurgitate what others have already written.


If everyone uses AI in this way, the output is generic resulting in same-same messages and CVs at scale.


This is what I’m hearing from people who are recruiting - reams of identical looking applications that lack punch.


It doesn’t help; it works against you.


For ideation, research, analysis, it’s an effective tool. Ask it which areas of a job description you might focus on selling your experience against.


For applying at scale, for now, it’s part of the noise.


Should I customise my CV and how?


It depends.


If your CV is already ‘good enough’, it shouldn’t take too much time to show how you meet the essential requirements of an advert.


If an advert sings to you and you feel inspired to put your best foot forward, you should (maybe check it’s still live first).

  • Use relevant impact based achievements. ‘I did x by y resulting in z’
  • Show relevant context - if your last employer was a context fit, show how. E.g. Rapidly growing scale-up, 50 to 250 in one year, t/o £24m. Or 500 staff, manufacturing of precision components for aerospace, significant downsizing programme
  • Align your language to theirs - they say PDCA, you said CI. They say S&OP, you said integrated business planning. Don’t fabricate
  • Remember - what’s in it for them? How will you solve their problems or help them reach their desired outcomes?


For other situations, I’d question whether the marginal gain of customisation should be set aside for what may be the maximal gain of what you don’t want to do:


Networking, doorknocking, personal branding, and all those other inbound and outbound activities that might get you closer to a job.



Better use of job boards

By Greg Wyatt • April 20, 2026
On Tuesday 28th April at 1pm BST, Simon Ward and I will be joined on our weekly LinkedIn Live by CV Library. I'll share the details of this free interactive session as soon as the event link is available - bring your questions. If you don't know CV Library it's one of the main job boards in the UK. While they might sit behind others in terms of coverage, I find them easy to work with and helpful - they are responsive, they have fewer fake jobs than LinkedIn, they have a CV database I can search across that is in many ways more effective than #OpenToWork. They'll be showing how to get a better mileage from their CV database, as a job seeker, and many other helpful things - points you can apply to LinkedIn too, as an inbound sources of recruiter searches and the principles we use to look for viable candidates. It seems timely to share this updated chapter from A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) , which I will no doubt update with learnings from the session. 38 - Better use of job boards Job boards are often the first port of call when new to a job search. It’s a natural inclination that they are where vacancies are to be found. Quickly followed by disappointment, anxiety and frustration when you get close to 0% hit rate. And not even a single reply. Let’s take a step back, look at the overall picture and make a plan. There are many job boards in the UK that sell their systems to employers and recruitment agencies. You may be familiar with Indeed, Reed, CV Library, Jobsite / Totaljobs, LinkedIn (yes, it is a job board, disguised by being a social media platform). Aside from the generic, there are also many sites specific to your niche. As well as ATS platforms themselves. Job boards sell two things to their clients - advertising and access to their CV database. Although LinkedIn differs in how it is wrapped up with content and networking, it does have a form of CV database in how we can use the Recruiter Licence to search profiles (we can even make do without through more advanced techniques such as X-ray searching and programmable search engines). There are also aggregator websites which scrape content from one job board to their own or a third party. You can often tell because when you click apply it takes you to another website instead of properly starting an application. Job board priorities and what that means for you Job boards want to sell their services and make money, which is entirely sensible. To support their argument they use all sorts of metrics such as the number of CVs on their database and the number of applications made (by job or month). It’s to their advantage that adverts receive as many applications as possible - their advice on improving advert performance is geared around volume. Rather than around suitable candidates. This disconnect happens because clients often lie about how effective adverts have been by the measure of vacancies filled - because of concern it will affect renewal prices. This is feedback given to me from account managers at two different job boards when researching job search advice. Job boards can only prove the number of applications, so that becomes the target. The most effective job adverts have fewer applications and a higher number of suitable candidates - what I aim for in mine. To maximise the number of applications they do things like scraping, aggregation and affiliate arrangements. They offer services like automatic relisting where an advert is reposted as new once a week throughout the term of the listing (could be up to 6 weeks by default, or longer by choice). These are sold as benefits to employers which might help when there are limited candidates, yet often hinder when there are too many candidates for jobs. You may remember the same from Fake jobs (p81). They make it as Easy as possible for you to Apply for these jobs, so that you can be an additional metric. As Goodhart says, ‘When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.’ The consequence for you as an applicant is twofold. You are encouraged to be one of the numbers of applicants to purposefully generic adverts you are not the most suitable for. When you are the most suitable, you are in competition both with people from the line above and people who are wholly unsuitable. I should point out I don’t think job boards do this cynically. They do so because they think high numbers are best. It’s also a problem for recruiters who may find it impossible to deal with this volume unless through automation or by finding ways to manually eliminate applications at scale. Job boards, employers, agencies and candidates are all wrapped up in this cycle of speed and volume. And with use of AI-style automation, so too are many job seekers. Where's the specificity and accuracy? Though it might be the best way to make money. Job seekers are accountable too, partly because of how they have been trained to apply. Don’t blame recruiters. Don’t blame employers. Don’t blame unqualified applicants. Blame the system we are all part of. And if you ever find yourself a hiring authority - be the change you hope for. Better use of job boards Let’s go back to that point about applications. In the current market, it’s not uncommon to see hundreds to thousands of applications per vacancy. Rarely are those applications qualified candidates. For a typical job description templated advert you can expect the high majority of applicants to be wholly unsuitable. What do I mean by wholly unsuitable? People who require work permits when a role doesn’t sponsor them. People who don’t meet the minimum requirements set out in an advert. People who are clearly unsuitable for this role. When you see a number, don’t be disheartened by the number alone. As a job seeker, your minimum requirement to apply for a vacancy should be that you can logically prove to yourself you are qualified based on the evidence provided. Read back through Should I customise my CV? (p178) for more on this. … tips and bits Finding vacancies is as important as applying for them. Collect those synonyms you’ve been tailoring your CV with and use these in your searches. If you find an obscure term which represents what you can do, why not search solely on that term? You might find a horribly written advert whose only correct word is that term. It’s a trick we use to find candidates too - occasionally I might search on something like ‘egnieer’ because typos don’t make a bad candidate. Location is a key search criterion. Most people search from their home address. How about running tight searches where you are prepared to work - e.g. 1 mile from CB4 0WZ (a hub for business parks in Cambridge where I worked many moons ago). How to optimise for CV databases When you apply for a vacancy on a new job board they will likely have a CV database tethered to your application. Your permission to have your CV added may be hidden in their terms and conditions. A CV database is an opportunity for you to be found. Sometimes this will be for vacancies that are never advertised, such as the example I wrote about earlier. You have an opportunity to leverage CV databases to improve the number of inbound enquiries you receive. Log all the job boards you’ve applied through Make a list of all that have CV databases, including login details Ensure your CV is up to date containing the keywords for the job you are most suitable for Check your contact details are correct Check all the details on your account. Salary details, location, preferences should all be current. Register your postcode for where you want to be found. If you plan to move to Scunthorpe in April, that should be your current location. It’s where we will look for you Update your CV and profiles once a week. It shouldn’t take long. If you are active in the past week, this will show up in recruiter searches, assuming a recruiter only looks at activity from the past 14 days The CV databases at the back end of job boards are one of the resources I use to fill roles whether advertised or not. They’re a good marginal gain and may bring you leads you’d never hear about otherwise. A note on the ATS Whenever you come across an advert linked to an ATS like Workable, many companies will use that ATS. These may recruit for relevant vacancies in a commutable location. Try this command in Google - site: workable.com London “Marketing Manager” Site: directs the search to a particular website. Change the location and job title to ones relevant for you. Some of these vacancies may never make it to a job board you are aware of. Why you should hack LinkedIn advert results URLs (website page addresses) are a funny thing - they often contain commands for a website related to your requests. Changing certain points can have interesting results. For example, here’s a URL for a job search for Marketing Manager near me over the past 24 hours: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search-results/?f_TPR=r86400&keywords=Marketing%20Manager&origin=JOBS_HOME_SEARCH_BUTTON Don’t worry about the bulk of the URL. Take note of the bold - r86400 which matches seconds in a day. Let’s say you log on at 9.30am and you want to check jobs posted in the last hour. This feature isn’t available as standard in the search tools. However, you can edit the URL from a standard search to: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search-results/?f_TPR=r3600&keywords=Marketing%20Manager&origin=JOBS_HOME_SEARCH_BUTTON Because there are 3,600 seconds in an hour. Try it and see what happens. (Edit: in error checking for this article, originally updated in January, this particular ‘hack’ no longer appears to work. Why not try it yourself on a job you’re interested in and let me know if it works for you? I’ll update this properly for the next book update. I've left it here to show how this kind of tactical advice can change so quickly as to make it obsolete. Next week's article is on Content Strategy & Philosophy for promoting yourself on LinkedIn. Call it personal branding, call it copywriting - expect some people to jump on with strong opinions without reading the article) 

A social superpower - the big truth about little lies

By Greg Wyatt • April 16, 2026
(With luck she won't sue me for copyright infringement) I was reminded about the imperative to lie at times, when commenting on a post about namism this week. Namism is discrimination against uncommon names, with proof that a change of name improves the likelihood of getting an interview from an application. A lie that mitigates the worst behaviour in a recruitment process seems reasonable behaviour to me. What follows is an article released around the same time as my sister's book, as a tribute to her fine work. At the time I planned to call it "Nothing but the truth" the name she refused to use, because her publisher told her negative titles don't sell - he clearly hasn't seen a Bond film. Instead, I went for a House quote, "Everybody lies", because like it or not, everybody does. June 2023 At the end of her speech, my sister made a simple request: “Put your hand in the air if you’ve lied today.” Only one person didn’t put their hand up – me. Lying’s not in my nature, except in a couple of specific situations where no harm is caused. You can believe that or not, up to you. The earlier part of the speech touched on all those little moments in our lives where we tell a little lie, either to ourselves or someone else. Sometimes it’s to protect feelings. Sometimes to protect ourselves. Sometimes it’s to keep up the narrative of how we are perceived because we don’t want to share our secret selves. It was a great launch for a book on how society doesn’t just put up with lies to function, it may even rely on them. She interviewed a wide range of experts on lying including spies and toddler scientists, showed how the face can lie, and talked about her amnesia and what it was like to be in the closet. She didn’t interview me about recruitment, so I’m putting that right today. Lies are rampant everywhere you look in recruitment. In a survey last year, 51% of respondents admitted to lying on their CVs. I expect the true number to be higher, considering some won’t even admit a lie to themselves. It’s common to extrapolate behaviour from what we experience. One lie may lead to more, and that may be the only reason you need to reject a candidate. Not all lies are born equal. Broadly I differentiate them between lies of impact, lies to protect, and lies of inconsequence. A lie of impact is one which leads to a decision based on that lie. Here an example would be John Andrewes , who lied about his experience and qualifications to land a top NHS job. He was jailed for 2 years and required to pay £100k, the remainder of his assets. Fraud. Or lying about reasons for departure – they say redundancy, they meant gross misconduct. Misrepresenting capability and qualifications. Mispresenting a role to make it more appealing. £Competitive salary, when you meant lowball to get a deal. The lies we should find and cull at the earliest opportunity. A lie to protect can be many things. I remember an HR candidate early in my career who changed her name twice. It was highly suspicious to me at the time. “Apunanwu Oluwayo” became “Apunanwu Roberts” became “Judith Roberts”. This first change suggested a marriage or divorce. The second I couldn’t fathom. What a liar, 2005 Greg thought. Of course, now I know better. It’s likely she changed her name to a British one because she suffered from namism – one report indicates candidates are 60% less likely to receive a call-back with a foreign-sounding name. Despite my ignorance, I gave Judith the benefit of the doubt and invited her to interview. You can see why blind CVs are a fair measure to prevent this happen, although I wonder if it’s better to treat the illness rather than rely on palliative measures. How about not disclosing identifiable education for the same reasons? What about disability and neurodivergence? If a condition requires an accommodation to fulfil a role, is non-disclosure a lie by omission? Another could be lying about reasons for departure – they said ‘left to focus on a job search’, they meant they couldn’t put up with a harmful environment any longer. A lie of protection, which isn’t one of impact, should be clarified but, in my opinion, not penalised without investigation. The lie above is one of protection – I changed the names to protect the individual, one of the situations in which I will lie deliberately, with good reason. How about a lie of inconsequence? By this I mean a lie that doesn’t impact employability, reflect capability or have any bearing on what that person is like to work with. Examples here might be fudging employment dates to prevent the question “Why were you unemployed for 2 days in 2012?” Or perhaps they might say People Business Partner on their CV, which they fulfilled functionally, yet had a misrepresentative job title of Operations Manager. Sometimes what seem to be lies of impact, might be lies of inconsequence: I once had a candidate withdraw from an interview. Aladdin said his father had passed away, and he had decided to suspend his job search. I spoke to the hiring manager, Jaffar, and said “This smacks of lying” principally because of a change in behaviour that didn’t seem related to grief, and the very high mortality rate candidates sometimes experience throughout recruitment. It was a tough vacancy to fill, so we made a plan. Jaffar would contact him directly a couple of weeks after, to check in and see if he fancied a pint. We put our suspicion aside, while also considering how he might have perceived his relationship with me. Long story short Aladdin took the job and was there for eight years. He gave me a lovely recommendation too. I’m pleased to say his father made a full recovery. While this appears to be a lie of impact, it’s actually one of inconsequence. He lied because he didn’t feel safe telling me he was having second thoughts. That’s on me, because it is my job to create a safe space for candidates so that they trust me and tell me inconvenient truths. It’s not dissimilar to the hilariously high rate of car breakdowns in recruitment. Have we considered our part in that lie? These three types of lies are a gross simplification to paint the picture. Our perception of lying is highly subjective, and there is no one right answer. I think it’s understandable to feel a lie is a dealbreaker. For lies of impact, this should be the case. For other lies though, perhaps a judgment call is better than an assumption. Why did that person lie? Could it even be something we did? Does that lie really matter? And if it does matter – how many times have you lied in the same way today? The next eminently-an-epistole is on technical debt in recruitment, and why we should consider the long-term impact of a short-term compromise.  Regards, Greg P.s. if you’re interested in Kathleen’s book, you can read about it here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Superpower-Truth-About-Little-ebook/dp/B09MDWNL44