Bad data

Greg Wyatt • May 9, 2024

Key to any negotiation is a solid understanding of the facts at hand.

Facts typically relate to the individual, their context, or the part they play in the situation you’re negotiating through.

But if the facts are inaccurate or based on unprovable assumptions, those negotiations are built on a house of cards, prone to collapse for the most minor of reasons.


You see it everywhere in recruitment.

“If you do w, there will be a x% chance of y happening in z time frame.”

“Only x% of the market is visible”

Numbers which can feel real in discussion:

“Don’t accept counter-offers. 90% of people who accept them leave within 6 months”

“Only 20% of the candidate market is visible”

“Only 20% of the jobs market is visible”

Facts which are stated to try and change the mind of the other, so that they see things differently.

But the problem with these facts is that they are developed to serve an agenda, rather than having specific meaning to the person you are negotiating with.


Let’s look at the counter-offer argument.

What’s the problem here?

It’s that you’re employing a quantitative (numbers) line to a qualitative (relationship) situation.

The truth is that the right decision for a candidate might be to accept a counter-offer if the employer makes a genuine change that addresses their reason for leaving.

It’s when the counter-offer is cynical that those people leave in short measure - because those underlying reasons aren’t addressed.

When you look at it this way, the next questions become - what are the underlying reasons for leaving, and are they something the candidate should broach before thinking about moving jobs?

The answers to those questions are the real facts of the situation, rather than a popular line that is commonly accepted yet has little substance for the individual.

5 Whys everything to find better answers.


How about the 20% lines for hidden jobs and invisible candidates?

These come down to what we mean by both.

Jobs aren’t actively hidden. If they aren’t filled through an advert, they are filled through other means job seekers can take advantage of.

If you’re interested in why this is a misleading notion, have a read of this article.


The same can be said of invisible candidates.

What do we actually mean by this?

In most situations, it boils down to the principle that the number of applications to an advert represents only 20% of available candidates .

However, again, it’s a quantitative argument for a qualitative discussion.

For example, a candidate from an advert is necessarily an applicant, but an applicant is rarely a candidate for employment.

Indeed most recruiters who talk about advert efficacy say that 90% of applications are immediately unsuitable.

Let’s say you have 100 applications, 10 of whom are candidates.

How many invisible candidates are there?

Is it another 400, or another 40?

What about if none of the applicants to an advert are candidates?

Does that mean there are 0 candidates anywhere?

This statement ignores that an advert's quality will impact the applications' quality.

In my adverts recently, my percentage of candidates has ranged between 20% and 40%. And these are employable candidates.

Do we really need to look at an additional 4x that number. Is that reasonable or practical?

What about that 80% figure that are the invisible candidates?

Why are they invisible?

Is it because they don’t apply to adverts, because they didn’t like an advert, or because they are only accessible through sourcing and proactive contact?

And if it’s the last point, how many of these 80% are discoverable by recruiters who don’t have excellent sourcing skills?

I wrote my first guide to boolean sourcing in 1998, for my Dad’s company, as I was midway through a maths degree. I work on my sourcing skills, and I accept that candidates don’t always know how to be discoverable to traditional sourcing methods.

I find candidates others miss, yet I am no more than an 8 out of 10 in sourcing skills. It’s an opportunity for improvement.

How many of the 80% of invisible candidates will a typical recruiter not be able to find?

And if they don’t find them, does that mean they don’t exist?

Of course not.


A final example, and then the point.


In a LinkedIn post today, a contact of mine was excited to share the fact that there are 120,000 more vacancies than before the pandemic.

An exciting fact for job seekers.

Yet how do these vacancies correlate to job seeker availability?

The answer is they don’t.

The majority of these are vacancies which candidates won’t find attractive, and which don’t reflect the skills of available job seekers.

It’s not an exciting proposition. It’s the path to disaster as we move into The Great People Shortage.

The numbers alone may be exciting for some, and an opportunity for those that drive the benefits of diversity, but it is surely ominous of things to come in an ageing population with reduced childbirth.


At last, here’s the point.

If we use facts to support arguments, and these are not facts at all, how does that support our credibility as an industry?

Or are we guilty of ‘well, you would say that’ creating suspicion that works against effective negotiation?

Isn’t it better to get to the root of these numbers, understand where they come from and what they actually mean?

So that we can present real solutions to real problems.

Or shall we just use them to support our own goals?


Stats without evidence are just bad marketing.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

By Greg Wyatt June 11, 2026
What follows is Chapter 43 from A Career Breakdown Kit. Is it a magic salve guaranteed for success? No of course not. But much like anything in a job search, nothing is guaranteed. What we do is identify which avenues can be effective for your context, and form an appropriate strategy. LinkedIn optimisation is great if people search for you on LinkedIn. Except speaking to my recruitment peers, fewer and fewer rely on it. Would it surprise you if I told you I rarely invested in at all before 2019? I've been working in recruitment since 1996 including at CEO level. Applications, networking, referrals, content, CV databases. All have a place and a purpose. Doorknocking on the other hand - some would tell you it has no place in the modern job search. If my daughter*, her friends and other 18 year olds can get a job from an old school technique, while those employers say "only through Indeed" then that might be a hint it still works. Some of whom are socially anxious, but then it's a replicable process, not a cult of personality. Or the periodic messages I get from CxOs who made their own jobs from direct outreach. Not forgetting Granovetter's seminal research and recent LinkedIn-specific studies in Science journal showing weak ties drive more job mobility than strong ties. And why wouldn't doorknocking work on LinkedIn, when you have a weak tie that suggests a viable employer? But no, it's not a guarantee. It's just an arrow in the quiver of a multichannel job search. 43 - How to doorknock Doorknocking is an old-school sales approach you may well have experienced, such as when a salesperson with a clipboard rings your doorbell and asks you to change electricity provider. My wife even once bought from exactly this scenario. While it’s not uncommon in a business-to-consumer situation it can also work business-to-business… if you can get past security. Although technology has moved on, the principle is the same whether in person, by phone, email, letter or LinkedIn: You approach someone cold and create your own opportunity. This isn’t an approach for everyone and requires chutzpah. If you are used to a high failure rate in applications - what do you have to lose by being proactive? More than that - look at all the advice on LinkedIn on how to improve your odds in a job search. It’s all transactional and applicable, available to everyone - if you all follow it, everyone takes the same step forward. While taking steps others are less prepared to do means the approach alone may stand out. If you encounter the equivalent of a sign which says, ‘Trespassers will be shot!’, pay attention. My own career of looking for work includes many non-transactional approaches: Walked into the local Cinema and asked for a job Walked into Office World and asked for a job Worked for Dad Talked to one of my ex-colleagues and gained some by-the-call phone research work Temped through an agency Walked into an Inn and asked for a job Referred to a publishing, training & consulting company In managing their small-scale recruitment alongside my day job I got to know the MD of a recruitment firm as a supplier. I went to work there Tapped up to return to a more senior role Started my business upon being given the boot - thanks Dave! It’s true I did apply through job boards and agencies. It’s mainly through my own means that I have secured my employment. *My daughter even tried doorknocking for her first job in our local town last summer. It didn’t work for her - she found a nice retail job through an application on Indeed. Her experience was positive enough that she helped a friend do the same - who got a job at the first shop they tried. Doorknocking is about approaching companies by category not because they are recruiting. These categories can be: All the employers in your local business park (often they have websites, with directories and job adverts) Companies listed in local newspapers, directories or platforms (local to me this could be Cambridge Evening News, Bury Free Press, Cambridge Network or Business Weekly) Top 100 employers in your domain Companies that have recently had funding and are about to scale Doorknocking companies you’ve come across through networking and its resulting market map Make contact and make a case for yourself on the principle of the right person, right time, right place, right message, right offer, and right price. There’s an element of luck involved for these elements to all come together. A disadvantage is that they may not be recruiting or ever have a need to employ you and even if they do have a vacancy, you still have to establish the right fit. That means a logically low hit rate. Your threshold for an acceptable failure rate will inform whether this is the right approach for you. The difference is the anonymous rejection of a volume-based application versus the ‘personal rejection’ from your direct outbound approach. Right person, right time, right place, right message, right offer, and right price. Let’s reorder and examine this marketing principle: Right Place Those Categories above. The place is the Company, and how you contact them. You can go in blind if you are a bold prospector or research them in advance. ‘site:’ is a useful command in Google. You can search on specific websites: ‘site: linkedin.com ACME jobs’ Right Person Typically this will be the ‘next one up’ - Head of department, Director, CxO or Owner. Who would be the budget holder at work? Those are prospects. Look them up on LinkedIn, PR, news, video platforms. What can you find out? Right Time While time can be happenstance, can timed factors create opportunity? What might be a hiring trigger? Perhaps you could contact a list of companies that have recently announced funding or a big win - news that may lead to hiring additional people. Or maybe you hear through the grapevine that Janine is about to go off on maternity leave. If their process isn’t time-bound, can you make it time-bound? ‘We aren’t hiring right now’ might mean they’ve run out of headcount in the January to June period and may have a new budget in July. What can you learn that helps you both? If you have radio silence, why not try again in a month or three months? Think about how you buy. If you don’t need something how likely are you to respond to a message no matter how well crafted? If you do need something you might think first of someone who keeps in regular touch. Right Offer You have more opportunity for career creativity in being unemployed than someone entrenched in a 9 to 5 permanent job. What problems can you fix for a company in a non-traditional employment capacity? Let’s say an employer has a problem that needs fixing. They don’t have capacity to do it right now. It isn’t burning enough to seek professional help and there isn’t sufficient work in view to make it a job. What if you caught them at the right time? An out-of-work TA Manager who offered to revamp an onboarding process. A web designer who notes lots of issues with their website. A strategic operational issue that is their unknown unknown identified by your expertise. A swamped team that could benefit from their admin burden being reduced. An orchard that needs pickers at harvest time. What starts out as a short-term, project, or part-time piece of work can become proof of concept. While rare, I know a few people whose permanent full-time jobs have come about this way, including at a senior level. Right message This is both specific and crude. It’s specific because nailing the message CAN create an opportunity a poorly written message may miss. It’s crude because sometimes you can catch people at the right time, no matter how cruddy your message is. This is the case in recruitment - I’ve picked up several senior appointments by calling at the right time. ‘I’m glad you called Greg, I’m starting to think about my maternity cover in June.’ Had I not called, that HR Director may well have gone to the specialist HR recruiters she is also in touch with. If you have a strong hook in your message - such as a key area of rare expertise or a clear issue you’ve identified which companies may have - go in with that. If you don’t - done is better than procrastinating: ‘Hi Greg, I live locally to Bircham Wyatt Recruitment. Love what you do. I wondered if you might be recruiting for an apple picker at any point. If you can’t help, could you point me in the right direction?’ Right price I’ve left this until the end because much of this is variable and subjective. What are your needs? What can they afford? What does the market say? How flexible can you be? Research will help if you can get a sense of what they generally pay through Indeed, Glassdoor or others. Or maybe what comparable companies that are advertising will pay. One approach might be to pro-rate your salary over the period you’ll work there. Doorknocking can sometimes give you access to jobs that are being actively recruited. It’s a happy byproduct of your work, if you find yourself in this situation. It’s worth persevering. Otherwise, it’s too easy to think after 10, 20, or 100 unsuccessful efforts that the approach itself is at fault. There is always an element of luck in any activity. This may be out of your comfort zone, in which case it’s an opportunity to grow. The only certain thing is that if you don’t try you definitely won’t benefit.
By Greg Wyatt June 4, 2026
Listening to the consequences of your recruitment process is an opportunity. I do find it interesting go through my older articles. How has my thinking changed? Has it improved? How was I so cringy? Looking at this article in its August 2023 form, I hadn't yet focused on Candidate Resentment as an opportunity to improve how we recruit. Not because it's decent to treat people better, but because that is a happy byproduct of strategically assessing our work as it supports our goals. Whether that's filling vacancies or finding people that meet our goals long-term and flourish doing so. Root canal If you recognise that speaking to the potential problems of the people you want to engage is a good idea, you may also recognise why you shouldn't create any problems that push them away. Engagement is an ongoing process that carries through every stage of recruitment, even into employment. Yes, bring your candidates forward, in part by showing how you solve their career problems. But, don’t throw up unnecessary issues that undo your good work. Listening to the consequences of your recruitment process is an opportunity. Why did that candidate proceed? Why did another withdraw? What raised concern? What about the potential candidates we don’t even know about? What influenced their decisions? I’ve spoken to tens of thousands of candidates, prospects, applicants, and everything else, during my career. Out of curiosity, I’m always interested in what influences their decisions in their pursuit of a new career. What fascinates me is that these are the Gemba , the unknown unknowns that we can extrapolate into our own recruitment processes. What problems do they encounter elsewhere, that discourage them from applying, that encourage them to withdraw, and why? And how might we be guilty of the same? While if we are guilty, how can we fix these problems, so that the objection never comes up? Imagine that - the reader that might have walked away, who instead chooses to engage. This may seem an unknowable unknown, but one of the benefits of my job seeker work is hearing about the issues they encounter on their side of recruitment and how that may influence their decisions. Considering these are people that are very problem aware, their appetite for bullshit is in some ways higher than the problem unaware (passive in old speak). While in others, what you may consider normal behaviour, they consider red flags. While we can’t control the behaviour of candidates, we can learn what influences their behaviour and form a process that nudges, draws forward or mitigates when needed. What are we accountable for that might present a problem for a candidate we want to employ? Especially when, in normal life, moving jobs is one of the biggest stresses? How might we unnecessarily cause scepticism or anxiety? Auditing your own recruitment process as a mystery candidate is one opportunity. As is surveying your staff for their experience - with the caveat they are happy to be working for you, skewing their perception. Or perhaps they're terrified of losing their jobs. Do they really want to rock the boat with criticism? But it’s the candidates who withdraw, who hesitate, who object that can be the source of the biggest improvements. What would you say their common complaints are? You can look to LinkedIn for the answer, in their high-engagement posts. Salary on the job description (they mean the advert) ATS data duplication Responsiveness and transparency Tardy, bloated and unnecessary recruitment stages A robotic process that forgot they are human Which becomes your choice. Do you look within and challenge yourself with 5 Whys to see how you can improve? Do you take away problems before they can occur? Saving your candidates unnecessary toothache? Or do you lay blame on the areas you can’t control? Those are the questions. Regards, Greg p.s. I’m available for interesting work - UK key hires, fractional talent acquisition and recruitment writing. Maybe we can talk. p.p.s. A Recruitment AiDE is out now - the discipline for UK key hire recruitment