Brief encounters

Greg Wyatt • November 26, 2023

It was a software company of note, i2, based just outside of Cambridge.

We sat in reception waiting for the internal recruiter to usher in for a group briefing on their Trainer vacancy.

I smiled cordially at one of the competitors who sheepishly looked away.

In we went to their meeting room, to be given a 20 minute brief on the role and their expectations.

“Any questions?”

<yes do you have parking on site?> asked another of the competitors, who I vaguely recalled had gotten out of their Mini at the company’s large private car park.

We all scribbled away our notes, including answers to each other’s q’s.

I left my question to the end, “May I grab five minutes with the hiring manager?”

I like to think they all looked at me begrudgingly as they left the room, leaving me to have a proper chat with the Training Manager.

Probably not, they may have thought I hadn’t listened.

Anyhoo, a day or so later I checked out their adverts and it was the classic rigmarole of

My favourite client is a notable software company on the outskirts of Cambridge which has parking for a Mini.

To be honest, mine wasn’t hugely different in the intro - Tracy always laughed at my myclient opener although she could never tell me why it was funny.

But where mine did differ was that I took care in describing what the role actually was, instead of pasting the JD, and why I thought it was a good career move.

Not because I expressly thought a better advert would attract better candidates, but because I was distilling what I felt were the important parts of the brief into words.

I bumped into David a few years ago, and he’d gone from being a Trainer there to a senior sales guy - exactly the opportunity for career development I’d described and he’d hoped for.

At the time my fill rate was around 50%, IIRC, which isn’t bad for contingency.

Chatting to my Director, she was pleased with my progress and felt a lot of it was down to how I qualified companies and candidates.

Looking back it’s easy to see the path that’s developed me into the recruiter I am now.

When I didn’t do work right at the top of the process, the consequences only magnified the further on we went.

Such as companies I was keen to work with, but when they gave us the chance to send CVs, the only information you could access was their job description.

How are you supposed to gain any insight on a Job Title vacancy, if the only information you have is what a candidate might be able to tell you from that job title alone?

If they already know what the job is and it broadly looks like what they are doing now - why would they go through the stress of changing jobs?

Might as well just say “Software Trainer, Cambridge, free parking, £35k” and leave it there.

On the flip side, often the companies I was most effective in recruiting for were ones I’d recruited for over a few years.

I got to know them, their context and culture, what they really need in their candidates, who would thrive there for the right reasons, and who would leave early.

In other words, my quality of information was better. Information that could be better gained through quality of brief, and iterating over time as we cut through their pitch to the truth of their business.

At the end of my 5-year tenure at Whitehill Pelham, my fill rate was around 70%, a good improvement in a couple of years. But I also know my retention had gone up, and, more than that, anecdotal feedback was that candidates were delivering better than expected.

The quality of work you deliver is defined by the quality of information you gain.

You may call it a brief or a job intake meeting. I call it a consultation.

Whatever you call it, that meeting is key to providing good service.

Otherwise, you’re only measured by the quality and quantity of CVs sent.

CVs that may or may not be viable candidates - who can say?

In 2008, I had an account management meeting with PPD, a large clinical research organisation near Cambridge.

I worked principally on HR roles for them, placing 15 people in 3 years at their centralised head office.

Doug, the HRD who I’d also placed, told me that they took metrics of all their suppliers, and based on the quality of candidates, CVs to interview, vacancies to placement, and retention - I was their most effective recruiter. This was a company of 3,000 staff in Europe, growing 30% YOY, who recruited mainly through agencies.

I didn’t do anything special for them. I just got to know the business and who would or wouldn’t enjoy working there. It was the quality of my brief that distinguished my results.

And yet they were very hard to get meetings out of, and I don’t think they saw the correlation between the quality of the brief they enabled, with the outcomes they could expect.

As we come into the AI era in recruitment, the next few years will automate many transactional steps.

Recruiters that take JDs without a brief, post a job description as an advert, and send unqualified CVs - how many will be replaced by low-cost automation?

AI will be able to give a better experience to candidates unburdened by the challenge of volume - live updates on applications, chatbot-style conversations, efficient interview arrangements and guidance, automated paperwork and onboarding.

These are features of software to be launched next year - Cielo. And it’s only the beginning.

The impact won’t be immediate - Blockbuster hung on for a few years after the advent of Netflix. The delay will be adoption, not technology.

By 2028, I expect the recruitment landscape to be very different - if our AI overlords let us do any work that is.

So to have longevity and add value it becomes incumbent to do the things AI can’t - gain specific situational insight, challenge false assumptions and bias, build trust and engage stakeholders on a human level.

You can’t do these without an effective consultation, whether you’re talking to an employer or a candidate.

Just some thoughts that came to mind having beta tested Mitch Sullivan’s new course on Taking the Job Brief.

It’s going to be a great intro for recruiters who want to move away from a transactional approach, and who want to make more of an impact with their customers.

Good process, enabled by technology, should be a win for everyone.

Sorry, I thought this would be a brief newsletter.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. I’ve now been writing these newsletters for 13 months. Over 100,000 words of content. Should I publish them as a book?

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