Detachment Bias

Greg Wyatt • January 30, 2023

I don’t have a PhD in Recruitment Psychology.


Nor am I a Stoic.


Although I have grown up sharing many traits with Stoicism, which led to me reading about this millennia-old philosophy to understand myself better.


I recommend researching Stoicism for many situations, not least of which is a difficult job search.

“Focus on the process, which is in your control. Detach yourself from the outcome, which is not,” is one piece of advice I give to job seekers.


It’s a quality which helps with expectation management and resilience, given every ‘no’ or ‘lack of answer’ is less disappointing.


It’s a funny thing too, detachment - it’s a quality that pulls others forward in the right context.


Have you ever noticed that Salespeople who aren’t desperate for a sale are often more likely to win your purchase, especially if they focus on the process of giving you what you need?


Especially for commodity goods sold by multiple sellers, where you can choose from many - which salespeople do you trust more to buy from? Not that this is a candidate analogy… hopefully.


I’m sure they do care, it’s just that they aren’t hung up on your decision.


And while detachment is an excellent quality for a candidate, it’s something you should be conscious of as an interviewer.


Does learning being detached from outcome make them better candidates, or just better interviewees?


Well-delivered answers in an interview don’t guarantee a good hire, nor does confidence or the desire to want something you can’t have.


Indeed the people I’ve supported in their job search with this advice were excellent candidates to start with and just needed help with their interviewee skills (most have interviewed well enough as an employer).


Back in 2012, I managed a volume recruitment programme for a tech manufacturer, in the East of England. We took a multichannel approach to fill vacancies, including the effective use of referrals.


One such hire was a CNC machinist, let’s call him Kevin.


The hiring manager knew Kevin from his previous job – he was highly skilled, in a skill-short vacancy, and would fit in well with the team. And he really wanted to join the new business too!


Yet, he interviewed badly, a bundle of nerves who was unable to show his skills in his words.


The hiring manager said to me, “we can’t hire him off that interview”.


I asked him if the interview was representative of what he was like to work with, and the answer was no.


Quite the quandary, so the hiring manager took Kevin out for a beer and they had an informal chat, leading to his appointment.

Kevin was there for six years.


This leads to the question – can it be that bad interviews hide good candidates?


It’s certainly the case that, in general, people who don’t need a job interview better than people who do.


Think about any time you’ve been out of work, and how your confidence levels were reflected by your situation, as well as your requirements in an interview process.


Speak to anyone that has consistently recruited for senior appointments, and we will tell you the odds lie heavily in favour of those who are already employed.


It’s one reason why headhunting has a perception of finding better candidates than other approaches.


Typically, we approach people who are happily employed, and sceptical that a move will improve their lot – their detachment engenders confidence and enables them to challenge the new employer to gain objective insight on whether it’s the right move.


Logically and realistically though, a person’s situation isn’t tethered to their capability.


Going in with the attitude that ‘no’ is an acceptable outcome, and that the interview is there to confirm whether that candidate should be interested, leads to a more attractive performance.


While there’s commonly an element in an active job search of being willing to compromise to gain good employment.


Over time, if you interview regularly, it’s easy to build up a stereotype of who is likely to interview well and who isn’t, and to use previous experiences as a predictor of future success.


Of course, this links back to the advice I give jobseekers, to interview from a detached position, because I know how it is often perceived by employers.


Yet the opposite holds true too – detachment isn’t evidence of quality, it’s evidence of process.


The perception that someone is a worse candidate because of a weak interview is understandable yet can be false if you consider the ‘why’ of their interview.


Hard to unpick given all you have to go off is their interview performance.


But what you can do is check for detachment bias.


Does your experience of previous interviews create an assumption that a detachment from outcome means a better candidate?


Or does the fact someone is having a challenging time in a difficult job search, with impacted confidence levels, and a need for employment – does this influence their interview performance negatively?


All you need do is give people a chance and make their interview process more accepting and accessible - which any interviewee will benefit from.


If you’d been struggling to recruit, you may find excellent candidates were already in an unexpected place: right under your nose.


Actually, for me that’s a key point of identifying any bias in recruitment – to strip out assumption and prejudice, allow full access to candidates, and assess on capability and contribution.


It’s the commercial benefit of doing the right thing.


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

- recruitment coaching and mentoring (one place available at £200/hr + VAT)

- recruitment strategy setting

- outplacement support

Just hit email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk to check if my approach is right for you.


By Greg Wyatt March 23, 2026
This might seem a weird chapter. Surely you look at a job advert, maybe even read it, then decide to apply or not? Yet a job advert is more than just what's presented on a job board. It's a microcosm of everything in recruitment, including everything wrong, and you can learn a lot about what to expect in your job search by the least intentional of words. And when you do read a job advert, in its entirety, there are only two questions you should ask of it: Am I qualified? Should I be interested? It's somewhat odd that 99% of job adverts don't actually try and help you answer that. But maybe that's why employers say job adverts don't work. And why you don't think they do either. While you're here, why not check out A Career Breakdown Kit in its entirety? This series of always free chapters is an advert, after all. But it was never supposed to be an easy book to read, just accessible and comprehensive. I expect most readers are over 50, ND, or other marginalised demographics, considering these will likely be the longest out of work in our 'diverse and inclusive' world. If you're 'in demand' though, you'll probably click apply and wonder what the fuss was about. 44 - How to experience a job advert This chapter is about job adverts, what they are and aren’t, how you might experience them, how they might inform your decisions and your responses. I say experience rather than read because not all adverts are written or read. What’s a job advert? A job advert is the first step in a multichannel commercial approach to filling a vacancy. It’s the inverse of your job search taking a multichannel, through-the-line approach - we go where the candidates are. It’s the first step because it’s the first thing you experience of that vacancy irrespective of whether it’s a: Listing on a job board A post on social media A DM from a recruiter A phone call from a hiring process A referral Or any other means by which you become aware of a vacancy Each of these is a marketing or sales channel that may result in a candidate's application. It’s regrettable employers don’t necessarily see it this way because of the transactional nature of much recruitment process. They think it’s sticking a job posting up on LinkedIn. Employers forget that when you experience such an advert you first make the choice to entertain that advert rather than a yes or no to ‘Should I apply?’ Indeed much advertising neglects the psychology of a job move, which principally relates to problem awareness. How you experience an advert, what may encourage you to progress an enquiry and what you are prepared to put up with in the process relate to your situation and the problems you currently face. Are you out of work, needing any job to pay the bills? Are you in work, desperate to escape a toxic culture? Are you gainfully employed yet wouldn’t mind a bit more flexibility to pick the children up from school? Are you apparently smashing it, with that missing something you don’t even know about, and the right vacancy might improve your lot? And everything in between. The answer to these questions informs your experience of any advert. Because many employers don’t consider what informs an experience and think people would be lucky to work there, it’s rare that more than the minimum acceptable skill will be applied to an advert. As discussed in Better use of job boards, the emphasis is on more rather than better. It’s often thought that ‘if we can reach more candidates, we might fill the job.’ Rather than appeal to the right people for the right reasons. And so we are in a market where an advert attracts hundreds if not thousands of applications, most of whom are wholly unsuitable. What isn’t a job advert? A job advert isn’t a fake job, although many of these are listed. They aren’t Job Descriptions either - the next chapter explains why this distinction is important. While you may spend much time perusing job boards and talking with fellow job seekers, reading their posts on LinkedIn - I’d expect most employers have little awareness outside of their own sphere of what happens in the job seeker community. They’ll advertise how they advertise, instruct agencies how they instruct agencies and run their process how they run their process. I wonder how many great employers use Workday as an ATS, fill their jobs suitably, and have no knowledge of how Workday is viewed by job seekers who have dozens of Workday accounts, one per application? It’s true terrible employers might do the same. In one of my job advert consultations I had a detailed conversation with a Talent Acquisition Manager of a local technology consultancy. I can say that they are a jewel in the crown of technology development in the UK, have top 1% compensation, offer career development, and are a fantastic place to work. I know this because I have spoken to many people who have worked there. All speak highly of them. Yet the advert we reviewed had a number of red flags: £Competitive salary Generic company first text Confusion around job titles If you were an ideal candidate who decided not to apply because of these red flags you’d have missed out. There are two considerations in how an advert might be put together. The first is whether it is a product of a transactional process or whether the hiring team recognises potential candidates are driven by selfish reasons and seek to understand ‘what’s in it for them.’ (I’ve mentioned WIIFM (What’s in it for me) a few times now - answering that is key to good marketing) The second is the direction of travel - are you reading a job board advert or have you been contacted proactively about the vacancy? A transactional process is defined by information transactions with a focus on speed and volume. It places less emphasis on qualitative measures such as accuracy, specificity, relationships, and empathy. Instead you can define the process by a series of information transactions and exchanges: Job description Advert Suitable number of relevant applications Suitable number of interviews Offer Starter The goal is to fill a vacancy. A non-transactional process recognises the importance of relationships and that to build trust the right information needs to be put forward. Though the steps are much the same, at each stage the question is asked: ‘Does this give the candidate the right information to make an informed decision?’ Here a candidate is everyone who interacts with the vacancy outside of the hiring end - even a reader who chooses not to apply. The goal is to create a process that draws the right person forward while leaving everyone with a good experience. It’s not just about decency - it’s about long-term commercial outcomes. If you want the right person to thrive over the long term the process has to reflect this goal. While all the ‘nos’ might be commercial opportunity in future - future candidates, future customers - who knows? These are the archetypes. In reality, recruitment falls somewhere along this spectrum, often changing at different stages in the process. Intent matters even if the execution is flawed. Why does it matter ? Because a healthy rule of thumb is to reciprocate the level of care you experience. If you come across a transactional process - treat it transactionally. This isn’t inherently bad - it’s just the way of the process. The employers may still be good to work for. When and whether to apply Irrespective of how a role is recruited, there will be non-negotiable essential criteria that inform whether or not you are suitable. If you can establish these criteria you can confirm whether to apply. The problem is these criteria aren’t always stated. Sometimes they are implicit to the context - if the role is employed by a rapidly growing scale-up, it’s likely they’ll need someone with that experience. Hopefully this context is alluded to in the advert. It will need critical thinking to parse. Sometimes these aren’t defined at the outset and become mandatory when there are too many candidates in view. Sometimes these are hidden by Goldilocks or illegal discrimination - not too experienced, not too inexperienced, not too old. Sometimes the employer can’t divulge essential criteria. The other problem is that some essential criteria aren’t essential, such as when a company writes unrealistic shopping lists. Yes, it’s a FUBAR situation given it’s pretty hard to tell whether you’re a suitable candidate or whether you should even apply. Nonetheless - if you choose to apply your application must show how you can meet any essential criteria you can identify. If that’s the only thing your application does - it must do this. In my experience, transactional processes are the hardest to unpick, with adverts going something like: Here at genericorp we are proud to be recruiting for a in our market leading innovative environment. You’ll be doing You’ll need In return you can expect a £competitive salary. Apply with a full cover letter and updated CV. Only successful candidates will be contacted. Familiar? Whereas the rare non-transactional adverts give more of a narrative about why the right person might think to apply or give you avenues for finding more information. A note on inbound enquiries. With automation allowing volume outreach the effort to produce transactional DMs, emails and messages is pretty low. You might think when you receive such a message that you are already in the running - in many situations you are a transactional prospect. I’ve even heard some recruiters InMail #OpenToWork profiles only to improve their response rates. While not all messages are this way these are potential reasons you might not hear back when you reply to a recruiter. It’s not quite the case with phone calls which have yet to be executed through automation (some platforms promise AI call automation already). Again, you can separate transactional from non-transactional straightforwardly. Transactional leads with selling the job. Non-transactional seeks to explore if you are the right candidate. If the vacancy isn’t right it’s best to find that out as early as possible and save everyone time. Inbound enquiries are still adverts, in a different medium. Try not to treat your job search transactionally by default. Your goal isn’t to apply for hundreds of jobs. Your goal is to start conversations that count. By prioritising adverts in the right way you’ll improve your odds with high stakes applications. You’ll gain time and energy for other activities, including taking time away from your job search to recharge. 
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