So What? A Recruitment AiDE, pt 1

Greg Wyatt • October 23, 2025

An introduction


Welcome to the first edition of A-nt—I Recruitment.


If you stuck around with me on substack over the past three years, some of this will be familiar. I’ll be curating my most popular series of

writing, for a new audience on LinkedIn.

I've stopped writing on that substack for now, but feedback is that it's engaging and helpful, which I hope you find the case too.


What can you expect? These are series that I've already published - around a year's worth of content.


  1. The AiDE framework for attracting ideal hires
  2. Innovation from iteration – how other industries can improve recruitment
  3. No problem – recruitment problems that drive opportunity
  4. Recruitment reflected – how candidate experience and resentment can improve our work
  5. Negotiate this – how 'Never Split the Difference' by Chris Voss applies to hiring
  6. The art of recruitment – Sun Tzu because of Ross, and because humans don't change
  7. Selected others


These were tremendous fun to write and, through sharpening my ideas, have made me a better recruiter. I’ve also seen recruiters I respect adopt my ideas, such as “reciprocate the care your candidates take” as a fair balance in a volume marketplace.


Why the tremendously stylised name?


You’ll see the capitalised AI, straddling nt, spelling out anti. But this isn’t about hating AI and recruitment – I love the opportunity both have. We all love an em-dash too.


It’s because the opposites in recruitment aren’t what we do, it’s why we do it.


Are you driven by systemised, scalable, profitable recruitment?


Or do you always want to put people first, with a candidate-centric approaches that delivers long-term outcomes?


I’d wager you can do the first without the second, and the second without the first.


The real win is when you nail the philosophy of human first recruitment, and enable it through technology.


It needs to prioritise on the needs of ideal candidates, so that everyone benefits. Instead of the typical employer first approach.


And so here we are with the first article, and part of the series on my AiDE (Attention ikigai Definition Experience) framework.


It’s called:


So What?


A couple of years ago, I ran an experiment on LinkedIn to see what meaning readers would take from this post:


“Today I ran 5km in 33 minutes. I am 42, 6 ft 2, 200lb and have a resting heart rate of 50bpm.

What does this say about me?”


The plan was to analyse the commentary, look for themes, and use these for further content on advertising, CVs and what people take from social media.


Across the 100 or so commentators, only one person rightly said “nothing at all”.


While the other commentators said anything from “don’t beat yourself up” to “well done” to “that resting heart rate indicates a high level of fitness” and questioned the running time.


One kind gentleman took it upon himself to describe his fitness journey and how I should be proud that I’d started running in my 40s.


He also took offence when I explained the rationale for the post, in a subsequent one.


The reason for the wildly different responses is that this post lacks context.


What kind of background can you imagine that would have given relevant substance to this post?


If all the post had said was that first line, a rational response would be:


"So what?”


It’s a post rife with ambiguity, where the only meaning is that which is taken from it.


And 99 people found their own meaning.


I did inadvertently lie though.


My 6 ft 2 height was confirmed by a doctor in 2008.


I went to the hospital a couple of weeks ago, and now I’m a smidge under 6 ft 1!


The gravity of the situation hasn’t passed me by, nor has the nature of subjective truth.


Does it matter more what we write, or more how others read those words?


Recruitment is an industry where ambiguity, clichés and clever-speak hide meaning from its consumers.


Take this classic first line in an advert:


“My favourite client is a market-leading employer of choice going through rapid growth.”


I think it’s only natural for an recruiter who knows no different to write this and both believe it and believe that readers will believe it.


What follows will typically be something like -

“Their friendly, innovative and progressive team is looking for a Retro encabulator designer with these responsibilities: <insert anonymised job description>”


Before the grand finale of “We act as an employment agency, don’t do isms and if you haven’t heard from us in one week, you are dead to us”.


It’s a natural thought process, and symptomatic of a transactional recruitment system.


Without a full brief, without insight, without training or an inclination to learn copywriting, and with a need to advertise, how can you do any different?


If it were the only advert to say exactly this, it wouldn’t necessarily be a problem.


Except that adverts commonly do read like this, making it pointless to actually read their content. You might as well just go off the job title, salary and location.


And if you do bore yourself dense reading them, can you come away with any response but “so what?”.


So – so what?


As well as a natural reaction to piffle, it’s a handy editorial tool, used by anyone that wants to strip away ambiguity and show both context and meaning.


It’s much like 5Y, an iterative question that lets you peel back onion layers to find meaning.


So what, “market-leading” – what does that look like in practice?


Why are they growing rapidly – is it because they’re full of hot air?


What does innovative and progressive look like in their team? What is friendly?


Ask ‘So what?’ of your content and you’ll give better meaning.


Better yet, ask others what they make of your content.


Does your advert actually have any meaning?


Can people tell what your job is from your job description?


Do your interview confirmations regularly get questions asked of them?


Back to that post at the top. I did follow up with some good posts (IMO) showing the problem of ambiguous meaning. Here’s one of them from last week:


“What your CV says: ▪ 2021-2022, Sales Manager - achieved £500k in sales

What a reader might assume: ▪ sacked after 12 months falling 50% short of a £1m account management target

What you meant: ▪ achieved 125% against a £400k new business sales target, completing a 12-month maternity contract

Ask 'So What?' of the responsibilities on your CV. Give better meaning to your words, so that we don't have to find our own.

Unless you were indeed sacked, in which case ambiguity may work in your favour.

Agree, thoughts?”


I don’t think it’s much of a leap to find wildly different meanings from the ambiguous words you may find you use.


Ask So What, and do yourself a favour.


Thanks for reading.


Regards,

Greg


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).