Standard definition; A Recruitment AiDE, pt 12

Greg Wyatt • January 22, 2026

It might seem like the AiDE framework is about better advertising, but really that depends on what you think an advert is.


While it's clearly intended to attract ideal employees, particularly for context heavy key hires - it's consequential, not standalone.


Because you can't attract ideal hires if you don't know specifically who 'they' are or what good looks like. The definition of which is also a consequence of what the role actually is.


Get these points wrong and you might have a compelling advert that attracts a great person, who buggers off in 4 weeks because they were never the right person to start with.


Yet another reason why those dynamic, market-leading adjectives are entirely the wrong way to go about it.


So, this edition introduces the D in AiDE - definition.


May, 2023


I first came across ‘Minimum Viable Product’ when I recruited a product management role a few years ago (I love product management roles – they are super contextual and allow my process to shine).


MVP is the simplest version of a product that allows it to be tested for commercial viability and market demand. It’s the most basic version of the intended product that is fit for purpose.


In recruitment, the principle of ‘minimum viable’ might be the sporting MVP for any part of your process that requires definition, with meaning to the right people – if you apply suitability and sufficiency.


It’s the foundation on which ‘Definition’ is built on in my AiDE framework.


Let me share a LinkedIn post which shows a jobseeker’s reaction to a recent interview:


"Today I had a fantastic #interview."


Can you see the ikigai of their experience?


More than that, this excellent experience is a consequence of a skilful process, as any good candidate experience should be.


What might be the benefit of doing this for the employer?


Part of her experience is how the process has been defined in advance.


Before they apply, most candidates want clarity both on what a role is, and why they might be a good candidate for that role.


They likely already know the general duties of any given job title – we neither want them to learn to suck eggs, nor to wade through volumes of irrelevant content.


We know that many demographics may pre-select themselves out if they don’t sufficiently meet the ‘required criteria’ set out in a job advert, even if those criteria aren’t actually required.


Some of these demographics suffer from isms – do we really want to be precluding potentially great candidates just because of poor use of language?


Better accessibility in language used benefits everyone.


It goes to follow that we might aim to describe both the role and person requirements in a way that has meaning to the widest relevant reader base: minimum viable.


For the role – the immutable truth of a vacancy that defines what it is, without ambiguity.


For the person requirement – the immutable set of skills, qualifications, attitudes and/or experiences that any successful employee in this role has to have.


Everything else can be stripped away.


You can use So What? and Why does it Matter? to help edit these down to size.


What’s left should be no more than 3-4 bullet points – fewer, if you can do so without introducing ambiguity.


If you disagree, tell me why you can’t trim your requirement down and I’ll be happy to explore this with you.


These definitions give clarity to readers, open up access to the widest pool of possible candidates and help you in establishing what you actually need.


Simplifying to minimum viable takes work and requires you to challenge habit and accepted process. If you’ve always ‘done it this way’, it can be hard to see past your blind spots.


Much like the rest of an advert, the content should be the consequence of the work that’s led to it.


In this case, the job description and person requirements.


These have a different part to play than the advert, including both assessment and performance elements.


Yet if you apply minimum viable to these, you shouldn’t lose any of the necessary elements, while giving better clarity to both candidates and your own hiring process.


Any advert will flow from this clarity, or lack of.


I wonder what would happen to those job adverts that require “4 years experience in tech invented 1.5 years ago” were smacked over the head with this approach.


Remember Sebastien Ramirez?


‘Definition’ isn’t just about advertising, it can be used everywhere.


“What is the minimum viable definition that is both suitable and sufficient?”


A question you might ask of every step in your process, including expectation management -


If your offer process takes 6 days from point of verbal acceptance to generating offer paperwork, and there is no way to shorten it, this should be clearly explained to the candidate at the point of verbal offer.


“We’ll generate the paperwork asap” is not a minimum viable definition for the candidate.


Might they get cold feed during your 6-day-asap?


Or how about a minimum viable interview process?


What if you defined your interview process at the earliest opportunity?


How might this benefit both you and your candidates?


Minimum viable doesn’t mean as little as possible.


It means establishing concrete candidate needs from each step in your process, and giving them the definition and experience that helps bring them forward to the next step.


From there you can layer on additional information, if needed, to get an optimal result.


Give better definitions in your writing, and you’ll help everyone involved.


Thanks for reading.


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:


- UK key hire recruitment

- manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis

- outplacement support


DM me if you want to discuss.

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