Employers may have an accurate job description (not advert), but where they often fall short is accurately defining 'what good is'.

If you can't do that, you won't know the 'them' in 'what's in it for them', and therefore the 'what' is a just guess and a pitch.

---------

An example -

In early July I met an employer about two 'key and urgent vacancies', one of which was very niche.

A great employer with a negligible brand or appeal outside of the local area. No problem - that's my job.

They'd had them live for a few months and there were no candidates out there.

We spoke for 30 minutes only - I had to leave for what proved a chaotically enjoyable podcast that may never see the light of day.

Two things came out of it -

1/For both roles, attitude is 60% of their priority, skills-base 40%. Because attitude is more entrenched, and above a threshold skills more straightforward to learn

2/In the niche role they had identified a gap in their team and felt a particular approach would solve the problem; however, I felt this was an approach they might not be able to retain - how would they grow their role to match the ambition of that profile?

We ran out of time and agreed to follow up if terms could be agreed.

We couldn't agree terms, as they couldn't see past the contingency model.

Instead they advertised directly, with cut-and-paste job descriptions and a little about the company and benefits.

Then they reverted to specialist contingency recruiters.

In both, none showed 'what's in it for you' nor 'what good is'. No mention of attitudes, their importance, nor how a career might be nurtured.

One of the agency adverts used 'you' terminology, which is a start, but fell back on adjectives like exciting and market leading, which is the wrong finish.

The result was the only new portion of the market these approaches would access is one dictated by time. Those whose situations may have changed since July.

In other words, they rely on happenstance to fill their roles.

Had the specialist recruiters been specialists (evidence shows otherwise) they may have had someone in their network, but it seems not.

I've kept in touch, but the co can't see past the fees.

The vacancies remain open. The problem unaware part of the candidate market saturated by bland and inaccurate messaging, making the roles harder to fill.

Would I have filled them? My track record says yes.

And it would likely have been a straightforward course correction at the top of the process that would have set us on the right path.

---------

Here's the rub:

1/ get your documentation right
2/ realistically define what good is in your candidates
3/ articulate these with meaning for your ideal market, and show them why they should talk to you

Do these, and you might fill these vacancies.

www.bwrecruitment.co.uk

www.linkedin.com/in/gregwyatt/