Depth charge

Greg Wyatt • May 16, 2024

As I sit here typing away at my keyboard, I know full well how words appear on my screen.

First I type with a satisfactory clunk on a mechanical keyboard.

Signals travel from each key through the USB cable into my laptop.

Tiny elves transport the signals via miniature paintbrushe… wait.

Oh, never mind, I don’t really need to know how it works, it works well enough.

Until something goes wrong, and turning it off then turning it on again doesn’t do its job.

Time to get the experts in.


This is the Illusion of Explanatory Depth - our belief that we understand the world more fully than we do.

Until we’re asked to explain its workings and find the limit of our understanding.

Until things go wrong and it’s on us to fix them.


It’s a definition that has an important place in recruitment.

Especially for hiring processes that think they know how to recruit, yet aren’t accountable for their part if things go wrong.

Where there isn’t sufficient knowledge to ask the right questions, to get to the root of what happened, and find solutions to problems not known to exist.

Typically represented by the assumptions such as ‘all recruiters are the same’, ‘adverts don’t work’, ‘we give a great candidate experience’, and all that jazz.


“We work with specialist recruiters.”

What is a specialism in recruitment?

Is it knowledge of a market vertical, where your expertise can probe to establish what right is and bring them forward for the right reason?

Is it doing the same type of vacancy over and over, where you obtain a density of keywords, without the wherewithal to ask substantial questions?

Is it horizontal expertise in recruitment marketing, copywriting, consultation and advocacy?

If you rely on the specialism of your recruiters, how do you challenge their expertise to see if they specialise in how you need, not what you think you want?


“We provide an excellent candidate experience.”

To whom do you provide that?

Is it the type of candidate who you may wish to employ?

Is it suitable applicants who aren’t right for your vacancy?

Is it unsuitable applicants who see themselves as a candidate for employment?

Is it the people you’d love to employ, who actively chose not to engage, sometimes without you being aware of them?

Is it the people you’d love to employ, who you haven’t discovered, and who can’t discover you?

If the answer isn’t yes to all, and you aren’t measuring it, how good a candidate experience are you actually giving?

Clue: “If you don’t hear from us within one week, please assume you were unsuccessful,” means you can’t provide a holistically good candidate experience.

What impact will that have?


“There are no USPs in recruitment”

A unique sales proposition. Is that so?

What is it that we are selling? Is it CVs? Is it a CV database? Is it candidates (and what is a candidate)? Is it process? Is it philosophy?

Is it automation in the guise of AI? Is it more, quicker, better? Is it fewer, more accurately, more specifically?

Is it fill rate? Is it retention? Performance beyond expectation?

How does that matter for your recruitment?

What problems do they solve for you?

Are your problems unique to you, in which case shouldn’t it matter what service you buy from a recruiter?

And if your problems are unique, how are you assessing which recruiters are suited if their proposition isn’t both unique and uniquely aligned to your problems?


“Adverts don’t work”

Is that so? What evidence do you have to show this?

Is it the evidence of your applications? The evidence of candidate availability in your marketplace compared to market conditions?

An analysis of employer-centric ( inside out) adverts vs candidate-centric (outside in) adverts?

Do your adverts give candidates reasons to get in touch, let alone apply?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but my adverts fill around half of my roles, including skills short and ‘passive’/'‘problem unaware’ candidates.

While this post shared by Mitch Sullivan shows an A/B test for how language affects advert performance.

And given an advert doesn’t just mean a message shared above-the-line on a job board, but also those below-the-line in DMs, emails and phone calls, I’d be worried by anyone who claims they don’t work, without evidence it isn’t them at fault.

How do you know there aren’t buyers if you don’t actively sell through your words?

Do they know how adverts work, to say that they don’t?


“70% of candidates don’t apply to adverts”

Or whatever the latest stat is, to support the passive candidate argument. But is that even the right argument, considering an effectively written advert, in the right place, can appeal to passive readers?

These are my thoughts.

And if passive isn’t the right term, how about problem awareness?

Or how about people who are problem unaware one day, and problem aware the next, when they are sacked by Zoom through no fault of their own?

Are these people who then wouldn’t apply to adverts?

What’s holding people back from applying? Is it status, awareness, or a reaction to what they read?

While if people don’t apply to adverts, why might they respond instead to a message, attractive or otherwise?

Or could it be a good thing, not to advertise, given the 200 good candidates who applied across 3 vacancies last week, with over 1,000 applications? Would a headhunt be less work, with the same outcome of filling those vacancies?

Isn’t the better question to ask where the candidates are that are likely to be suited to a vacancy, than talk about whether they might apply for a job?

Given the crux of marketing is the right place, alongside the right person, the right time, the right offer and the right message.


“AI can’t replace the human side of recruitment”

But what is AI? Is it automation dressed up as intelligence?

Is it technology now, in the public domain, which changed again yesterday with 4o?

Is it technology that is being worked on, under the guise of Moore’s law, that is ready but not released?

Is it the aggregation of different automation across the recruitment lifecycle that, if implemented well, provides a better experience for its users - candidates?

What is the human side anyway? Is it trust? We trust our devices with no end of sensitive data as we doomscroll our feeds and subscribe to another app.

Is it contextual insight? Perhaps so right now, but if AI becomes intelligent why couldn’t it gain that straightforwardly, given technology is iterative and can only get better?

Is that a genuine statement to rely on, or are we Blockbuster when we didn’t buy Netflix in 2000?

Development - release - implementation - adoption - entrenchment. There are yards to go before we even know what we are dealing with.


I don’t think the Valley of Despair was the right term for me sliding down from Mount Stupid.

It’s an exhilarating ride to discover all the things you don’t know and unpick the things you thought you did.

It starts with understanding there are no elves - only key press triggering circuit closure, sending a unique scan code to the computer for character translation and display.

And when you blow up illusory depth, there are learning opportunities, to get better at what we do, by cutting past assumptions and leaning into what we don’t know.

If you want to fix your keyboard that is.

Regards,

Greg

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026
It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.
By Greg Wyatt • November 4, 2026
If you ever thought 'outcome-led' was a pretentious headline for a recruiter, it's also how you should think about your job search. Welcome to the 50th edition of Jobseeker Basics. As well as sharing advice that - hopefully - helps you navigate our mercurial jobs market more easily, there's always been a separate utility to these newsletters. I use them to update chapters in A Career Breakdown Kit , so that I can ensure it is always as current as possible. People who've bought the Kindle edition will get an automatic update when the 2027 edition is released in January/February. Paperback owners are invited to contact me for a free digital update. For this newsletter, I've tightened some of the language around accepting job offers - pretty boring update, but maybe necessary for fringe cases. I often talk about outcome-led recruitment. While it might sound pretentious there's a simple reason, which underpins everything I do. Begin with the ending, work back and find the right path. In recruitment this means flashing forward 12 months. What did a successful hire look like? What problems did they solve? What separated excellent from good from adequate from inadequate? What were the outcomes you needed for it to have been a successful hire? Nail these points down and you work backwards. What good actually looks like in viable candidate profiles. What needs to be communicated to them to encourage them to take a step forwards. How we find them - whether in a headhunt, an advert, networking or other. I also talk a lot about why a job search should be the inverse of how that vacancy might be filled. And so it is that the outcome you want in your job search should inform your strategy to find that job. Ironically, On Job Offers is Chapter 31 in A Career Breakdown Kit, slap bang in the middle of the book on page 162. With good reason, given you may find yourself needing to look for work again in future, sometimes by choice and sometimes by the other. All the more reason to have a strategy you can replicate and improve on, time and time again: 31 - On job offers At some point you’re going to get a job offer. It’s helpful to be clear on what this should look like at the start of your job search. Because, if you don’t know your destination, how can you be sure which path to take? Here are the main points to consider. Identity At the start of any job search, remind yourself of your career identity. This may be at the point of an unexpected redundancy, when you’ve decided your current job is no longer right, or if a recruiter contacts you out of the blue with a compelling proposition. Try this once a year, even when gainfully employed, because it’s easy for the path of employment to diverge from where you want your career to go. What is your current context, personally, with family, in life? What do you need and how does work reflect this? What are your core values? The ones that underpin who you are and who you want to see in the mirror. How does work reflect this? What are the things you enjoy, are neutral about, or dislike in your career? What does this look like in your current job? How has your employer changed in the past year? How has the world changed? How does this reflect you as a person? Who do you want to be as a person, family member, friend and peer? What impact do you want to make? How much do you need to earn and by when? These answers aren’t fixed and can change quickly with a change in circumstance, as you change over time, or for reasons out of your control. Clarify what you want and what you need, and therefore what this looks like in your next job. This identity informs your job search strategy, part of which is the roles you go for, part of which is the approach you take, and part of which is what an acceptable job offer is. Total compensation & opportunity cost It's common to see salary as the most important factor in a job offer negotiation. It's better to look at negotiating total compensation and opportunity cost. Total compensation is the overall financial value of a role. It includes: Salary Pension contribution Bonus Commission Car allowance RSUs Some benefits are salary sacrificed or tax efficient - their value goes beyond what they appear on paper. A great pension scheme will save you 20% or 40% on tax payments in the UK across the salary invested. It might even, at a higher salary level, improve access to child benefits. On the other hand, opportunity cost is the consequence of taking an offer, compared to what you might have if you stayed. For example: Moving to a three-day hybrid, compared to full remote. What's the cost of mileage or time commuting? What's the cost of heating your home when fully remote? Or - a role that offers more money now, with no progression in future. Compared to a role that pays less now, and will leapfrog in future, while giving you skills that support career growth. Are these contractual and likely to happen, or are they empty promises? Look for evidence such as a track record with other employees. It's entirely possible to accept an offer with a higher salary and find yourself worse off with take home pay. Establish all the financial implications of an offer. Impact Impact goes both ways. The impact you can have in your new role, and the impact your new role will have on you. A high paying job that takes you away from a young family might be a solution or a problem. A brilliant job that’s an unsustainable commute won’t work long term. Does that matter to you? A well paid job that gives you a good balance at home yet will only be a cog in a machine - a dream for some, unfulfilling for others. Impact also includes trajectory. Are you someone who wants to do the same job over time, in a structured way? Someone who wants regular advancement and career development? Both, and others are fine. Make sure you know what you are getting yourself into. Culture & People It’s at least partly true that people leave bosses, not jobs. While decent people can become bad bosses for various reasons, some of which relate to the environment they manage within. The problem is that people are on their best behaviour in interview processes, while culture as it’s pitched doesn’t always reflect the culture experienced. The interview process should be there for you to gather facts as much as possible. Do your research to get a sense of a company’s values, principles, how it treats its people, and all those other elements that will affect a career with them. This is research to be done at interview stage or before. Ikigai (with a little i) A wonderful Japanese concept. In its original form it means ‘what you get out of bed for’ or ‘those small moments we take pleasure in.’ Rather than the westernised Venn Purpose Diagram many are familiar with as Ikigai (with a big I). If you ask people in Japan what they think of Ikigai they may well say something along the lines of ‘huuunnhh?’ ikigai is a helpful principle when considering a job offer. It’s those qualities unique to you (often defined by your career identity) that you take pleasure in, while others around you may not get it. Sometimes this is gut instinct. Important to listen to, important to challenge. It’s at least part of your decision in a job offer. Even if everything else might be just alright, ikigai in your offered job might be good reason to take it. Or it might be the company’s purpose and what they are doing to improve the world. ikigai is unique to you and it makes everything better if you can find it. Those are the key points to look at if given a job offer. There’s no right or wrong, only right for you and the people you support. Negotiating salary There are a lot of moving parts in any salary negotiation, both at your end and with the employer. There are two main elements. The first is your place in the market - do what you can to find the range of fair pay available to you right now. The second is compensation philosophy - how do companies reach an offer? Both come down to asking questions and research. Assume nothing. I would err on the side of boldness in a salary negotiation. At final interview stage, I’d ask for the top end, based on what I’ve learnt - if they see me as the best candidate, why wouldn’t I? If they offer a little lower than I expect, I’d be positive about it and ask what else they can do to improve their offer. It’s unlikely you’ll lose out on an offer by being clear and respectful. If you want to drill deep into negotiations, I recommend reading Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. His advice on deep listening, calibrated questions and price anchors are directly relevant to salary negotiation. Negotiating is highly contextual, so you should be careful if following opinion-led advice on what works for that individual. After the offer As with a salary negotiation, the post offer process and run up to employment is different from employer to employer. You can indicate that you're happy to proceed and ask the employer to issue the formal paperwork. Be aware that accepting an offer, even verbally, can create a legally binding contract. If you're not ready to commit, make that clear and reserve your formal acceptance until you've reviewed the written terms. In practice, the legal risk of withdrawing before starting is generally low. Most employers will have little commercial interest in pursuing someone who no longer wishes to join, particularly where they have suffered no demonstrable loss. However, contractual obligations and reputational consequences are worth considering. Treat the Offer Letter as a formal proof of your new employer’s offer of employment. If something isn’t right with the Letter, ask the employer for clarification. Once you've accepted the offer, signed and returned the letter, and any conditions have been satisfied, you can resign and agree a start date with your new employer. Aim to understand their onboarding process. Is there anything helpful you can do before your start date? Make sure you know when, where and any arrival instructions for your first day. As for your wider job search - you should withdraw from other applications when you formally accept an offer. It’s your choice whether you keep your cards close to your chest, accepting a suitable offer with the prospect of something better coming up. You can cross that bridge if you come to it. While this is not something I recommend, a tough job search is as good a time as any to look after number one.