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

Introduction to personal branding

By Greg Wyatt • March 30, 2026
What follows is Chapter 39 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's 10 months old, so surely the algorithm has moved on right? Indeed, my own content performance has tanked if you compare 2026 to 2025. Around 12 million views of my content last year, while if I extrapolate my year to date performance, it looks like a little shy of 640,000 views. My LinkedIn feed is quieter, yet real life relevant conversations go from strength to strength, many of which stem from my content. Look, I don't love the term, but I am a fan of putting your message out there, across multiple means, so that your most relevant audience might become aware of you. And perhaps your relevant audience is an audience of one, a person who can put you nearer that job. Which is the only algorithm you need. This is a three part series, with part 2 on " Content strategy and philosophy " and part 3 on " A flair post ". Click on the links for the unedited versions on Substack. 39 - Introduction to personal branding Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a free marketing platform, where you can build a reputation through the words of your posts, comments and messages. Personal branding is a viable tactic as part of a multi-channel approach to your job search and it can bring opportunities to you. I'll start off by saying I'm not a fan of the term personal branding. It can lead to make-work which can even get in the way of what you should be doing. Writing and using content to create experiences that support a job search is a great idea and calling it personal branding - as a discrete activity - isn’t a bad thing. I expect there are many mediums through which you can build a personal brand. I'll focus on LinkedIn because of how entrenched it is in other job search activities. What a personal brand is For businesspeople the idea is that by building awareness of your personality, lifestyle and what you're promoting, you also build trust. So that when people are ready to buy, they'll buy your products. The brand might be personal. The goal is sales. When you see personal branding on LinkedIn it’s often a business that promotes their services through the account of the author. ‘Here’s my puppy, buy my stuff.’ Take note that the target audience for these advice posts is the businesspeople above. And these posts often seek to part them from their money. Your goals are similar. If there’s a commercial outcome you want, it’s likely a single job, not a throughput of leads. You’ll also see that controversial content gets huge engagement and can also repel readers. If you need a job, what’s the danger of writing overly spicy content? Could a reader make a decision against you based on your words? How much you need any job should inform the experience you want to create for your readers. How it sits in your wider job search Publishing content is about raising awareness and starting conversations with the right people. This can be your profile, written posts, newsletters, (bestselling) career breakdown kits, videos, you name it - anything you can become known for. In many ways the hierarchy of relationships your content appeals to is the same as with networking. Content can be publishing posts, commenting on the posts of others, sending direct messages. I’d argue even your applications and interviews are part of your personal brand. I think of LinkedIn posts like a plumber’s van driving around town. Most of the time you’ll disregard the van unless it cuts you up with noxious fumes. When you have a leaky pipe, you’ll surely take note of their number. It can support an application if a hiring manager decides to surreptitiously stalk your profile. And it can work against you if it suggests problem behaviour. A good balance for content is the poster in my daughters’ primary school from a few years back: THINK. Is it True? Is it Helpful? Is it Inspiring? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind? Achieve those five points and content will rarely work against your job search. Content should be consistent with your wider activity. Which means that everything people (potential employers) experience of you is a complementary and non-contradictory message. Content that contradicts your CV or cover letter may lead to red flags, whether that’s fair or not. Content should be intentional. HOW TO GO viral, and why you shouldn’t Anyone who writes content will enjoy the sweet, sweet flow of dopamine when you see reactions and comments trickle in. Such as that first flair post announcing you are available to help your next employer with examples of your achievements and what you are looking for. Do that and you’ll get loads of engagement. Why haven’t you done it yet? Tag me in and I’ll support you. Or you can do what most people do and say, ‘I’m sorry to announce I’ve lost my job, please help’ and that will get loads too. Because it is relevant and relatable to fellow job seekers, recruiters and sympathisers. Then you feel the soul-crushing defeat of a well-thought-out post, highlighting a problem in your industry, with tumbleweed to follow. Both types of content have a place. That tumbleweed post is relevant and relatable to a niche audience. I try to take a land and expand approach to content - job seeker advice, recruitment advice and stories, ponderings and satire, which I use to tackle topics from different directions. Over the past three years I’ve had between 3m to 11m views of my posts and I’ve gained a bit of business through them too. What I don’t do is try to go viral anymore. Because when I have gone viral with a few 1m impression posts, it’s taken weeks to extricate myself from them and there hasn’t been real benefit. I find my tumbleweed posts start better conversations from lurkers - those that never engage publicly. I promised you I’d show you how to go viral. Here you go. Relevance + relatability + readability + entitlement. Maybe add a selfie. If that seems too simple, search for this sentence on LinkedIn: “An employee asked me if he can WORK from HOME permanently.” You’ll need to use the double speech mark to search on the phrase, and rank by Posts. ‘Does it really work?’ asked Charles. I told him to try it as an experiment. He rarely got more than a few hundred impressions per post. 170,000 impressions, 2,000 reactions. Pretty viral for a first timer. It is the wrong path. What do these posts actually say? Who are they aimed at? And if they don’t appeal to people who can help you reach your objective, what’s the point? 

Nothing but the truth. Innovation from Iteration, pt 4

By Greg Wyatt • March 26, 2026
I was tempted to use another Tom Cruise AI image for this article, but his hands ended up looking like feet, which wasn't a true representation of him. Probably not fair to use AI in this way either, stealing copyrighted material without permission. And so I use this AI 'stock image' instead, which is probably also highly unethical, but feels more suitable and sufficient . Anyway here's an article about why the same principles are crucial for good recruitment: ‘True and Fair’ is an accountancy concept that lies at the heart of reporting, and can be applied effectively in recruitment. Its meaning is that any financial statement made about a company should accurately and completely represent its financial position and performance. The role of auditing is to confirm that documentation meets this definition. Do so and everyone knows what they are dealing with. HMRC, shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees – useful, and in many cases necessary, to have access to a true and fair view of a company’s accounts. Can something be true and not fair? In 2001, Enron went bust, a huge scandal with real-life repercussions that led to new legislation in the US. Their accounts were true, in that they conformed with the required laws and standards. However they had an incredibly complex reporting structure which made it impossible to see the overwhelming debt they had. Poof! Bye-bye a $100bn company when this all came out in the wash. How about fair but not true? This can happen if a situation is described which gives a fair picture but lacks accuracy. An example here could be the UK politician who HMRC deemed behaved fairly but made errors in his tax reporting. Only a few million quid plus penalty. What types of recruitment documentation does this apply to? Three key ones that spring to mind (although there’s no reason it can’t be applied everywhere): The job description. The job advertisement. The CV. If these three documents were always a true and fair representation of either a job or a candidate, you’d interview and hire better candidates who stick around longer. With the caveat that these documents should also be ‘suitable and sufficient’, if you remember last week's edition. Documents are the first step in a recruitment process, relating to a decision to apply and the decision to interview. Is it not the case, that the second most common complaint in recruitment is “not what we expected”? Therefore, if we nipped this complaint in the bud, with true and fair documentation, wouldn’t life be better for everyone in the recruitment process? What does true and fair mean in recruitment documentation? I think it has to cover three points. 1/ factually correct 2/ shows context suitably 3/ describes sufficiently An immediate objection might be that job descriptions are always true and fair, but I’d argue this is actually rarely the case. If you recruit for a new role, do you audit your job description against the current context? If you have a generic job family description does it show the specific day-to-day duties of a role? Have things changed in the current role that makes it different to the last time you recruited? A common scenario in recruitment is that Greg resigns, and the hiring manager says “we’d love someone just like Greg”. Yet if Greg resigned, wouldn’t someone just like Greg be at risk of resigning for the same reasons in future? Would now-Greg have applied for the same role that then-Greg applied for? Which definition of Greg is the true and fair one you’d hire? It feels strange writing my name like this. There are lots of different situations in which a job description that was true and fair a few years ago is no longer so. The only way to ensure it is true and fair, is to audit documentation prior to going live. You may think a fully representative and accurate contextual analysis is too time-consuming for most vacancies, especially where it doesn’t actually matter if there is some inaccuracy. “Oh yeah, that’s not relevant anymore”. But if you have a key hire that can make a difference in your business, ‘true and fair’ should be the starting point, each and every time. If you have a systematic process that finds truth and fairness, you’ll see the benefit of applying the same across any vacancy – for the reason that the time invested at the outset is offset by interviewing fewer unsuitable candidates and wasting less time and resources overall. And what should be the more important reason of better recruitment outcomes. For any project I take on, this is the first step – getting the documentation in order. Get it right and everything flows from there. It’s a key reason behind my nearly 100% fill rate. It’s also one of the reasons my average tenure is over 4 years for key hires. These achievements don’t come down to chance. They come from my process. If you've forgotten why suitability and sufficiency is the other pillar, here's an example that isn't suitable: Nineteen experiential bullet points might be true and fair but will also encourage ideal candidates to run away screaming. See you next time. Regards, Greg p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services: - commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment (available for no more than two vacancies) - manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client. This can be a large as end-to-end delivery of a programme of vacancies, or as small as writing one job advert for a key hire- recruitment strategy setting - outplacement support