Rule of three

Greg Wyatt • March 14, 2024

This is the first in a series on negotiation in recruitment, inspired by a recent listen.

To kick things off, let’s look at the rule of three.

I’ve found throughout my career that engagement and commitment come from tackling the same issue in three ways.

Whether it’s a presentation -

“Say what you’re going to say; say it; summarise it.”

Something we’ve been trained to do even in watching the news, as they attempt to get us to stick around… “later this evening”.

Or in candidate discussions, something I developed when I noticed the problem with selling too hard.

More on that later.

In his insightful (audio)book on negotiation, Chris Voss talks about the psychology of negotiating, influencing and manipulation of antagonists.

His negotiations skills came from hostage situations, yet he adapts this brilliantly to the corporate context. Because people are people.

It feels like my early-career attempts to do the same with candidates.

But candidates aren't antagonists.

In an employer candidate discussion, they should be deuteragonists - everyone wins in a successful job offer.

If you accept candidates can be the dual protagonists, then every candidate must be, including the readers that walk away without you ever knowing.

Because you don’t know at initial stage who the winning candidate is going to be. Especially those you can’t yet know about.

And everyone is a hero of their own story.

A second difference is, that while Chris states everyone wins in his negotiations, those wins are imbalanced - he aims to get more of what he wants while leaving the other feeling they got a good outcome.

The third difference is that Chris’ negotiations lead to a final decision, ideally to his advantage. Yet candidates can decide to do one thing, committedly, then change their mind for what can be impenetrable reasons, for changes in circumstance, or just because they want to.

Regrettably, there is a fourth point which ruins the form of this article. Our negotiations with candidate should also be a double assessment of fit - are they right for the role, and is the role right for them? In this way, a no can be a great outcome for everyone - ‘that's wrong’ riffing off the book's words, because you find out concrete reasons why it was never going to work out as early as possible.

I came to a pivotal moment in my career some years ago, in doing some recruitment for Anglian Water.

The recruitment manager said to me - “you have a problem with your candidates sticking.”

While my immediate inclination, as someone doing their best, is that it’s the candidates at fault, she was entirely correct.

How could it be that candidates seemed enthused by a role I presented to them, yet decided not to go for an interview?

It’s simply this - in conversation, it’s easy to get excited and think what a great opportunity!

Yet with time to reflect, the impassable objections can come up.

Objections that are sometimes easy to ascertain early on, while others are initially philosophical and then utterly practical the closer to offer/start/end of probation you get.

From this, over many years, I came to three adjustments in my candidate engagement.

  1. that an initial part of a first call should be about them and them only, so as not to bias the call to the vacancy. In doing so you can link the vacancy to their aspirations while identifying hard objections (the ones which mean they should withdraw for good reason). Candidates often want to hear about the vacancy first, but it’s in everyone’s best interest that I hear their side beforehand.

  2. that sending an application immediately after that call, can result in the situation with Anglian Water. Therefore at least one follow-up should occur. Perhaps a rare situation, yet a problem which has a solution. The immediacy of flinging CVs over at speed is a consequence of first-past-the-post recruitment and one reason I’ve moved away from the transactional contingency approach.

  3. that combining these with formal competency interviews can be intrusive on a candidate’s time. How could I implement a follow-up to gain commitment and qualify? The answer became my assessment-over-time interviewing technique:

    1. a call as described in point 1

    2. a follow-up call to discuss questions and concerns - to ensure proceeding to the next step is the right decision

    3. a third call, if it is of interest, to make sure I represent them in the right way

Perhaps those three points in the third point might seem like overkill, but this can happen over a couple of days, and isn’t so rigid we can’t adjust things on the fly.

I’ve found three byproducts of this:

  • I build trust naturally for the right reasons. By making a safe place to express concerns, in confidence, these concerns are often raised. And if a role isn’t right - well we’ve saved everyone a lot of time. Equally, it’s hard to fake during what candidates may feel are the ‘in-between’ moments - you can get a sense of what they are genuinely all about

  • this approach contributes to better hiring accuracy and retention. I can’t prove it at scale, because I’m a low volume recruiter, but it is the candidate mirror of my client work, and over the past few years I’ve filled every vacancy (that wasn’t cancelled by economic shenanigans), with an average retention of 3.8 years. But more importantly with feedback my placements are often future leaders, and exceed expectation.

  • this contributes, along other measures, with fewer issues - ghosting, poor/no shows, ‘losing’ people to counteroffers are rare issues for me.

You can apply this rule of three to any part of recruitment.

  1. Offer an interview; confirm the interview; check-in before the interview

  2. Verbal offer; confirm when paperwork will go out; check paperwork ok

  3. Pre-boarding; onboarding; induction

Chris Voss talks about his Rule of 3, to get counterparts to agree three times in conversation. Through calibrated questions, summaries and labels.

It works very well in the scenarios he describes.

But while employers love their ransom lists and the demands they buy from their candidates, candidates have their own non-negotiables too.

This gives an intermediary a unique opportunity to intervene, in the right way, in their negotiations.

Gaining commitment too early on can backfire, so instead we have to help them negotiate their deal with us, in service of the outcomes we want.

Besides, as an employer, if you ‘win’ a negotiation with a candidate and they come aboard cheap, well they may well vote with their feet if a better offer comes up.

Starting my business in 2011, I had an opportunity to build my philosophy of recruitment, in what I now describe as an outside-in approach.

I’ve made a 126-gallon load of mistakes, and continue to do so, but the results for employers, and candidates, are excellent, and I continue to learn and develop my thinking.

In this series, I’ll look at different aspects of negotiation from outside-in process, to owning candidate resentment, to problem-solving.

I'll look at my process in recruitment, alluding to some of Voss’s principles, so you could treat his book as a companion piece of sorts.

You can adjust my notions in line with Voss' negotiation style, adopt it as your own or... well this has always been called Your Mileage May Vary.

Thanks for reading. 

Greg

p.s. I’m bitterly disappointed that World Pi Day hasn’t coincided with British Pie Week.

p.p.s. sorry, I forgot to summarise at the end… rule of 3, recruitment vs Voss, coming soon, etc etc

Walk A Mile. A Recruitment AiDE, pt 14

By Greg Wyatt • February 5, 2026
Walk a mile May 2023 “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” That’s how 1984 starts, the classic dystopian novel by George Orwell. What does it make you think of? I don’t know about you, but thirteen to me is both an unlucky number and an improbable one for a clock to strike, evoking curiosity and trepidation. It makes me want to read on. George could have instead written an opening like “it was a dark and stormy night”, to evoke a sense of darkness at night, during a storm. I gather that cracker is often derided as the worst opening line of all time, not just for the words, but for how it’s a representative experience of the entire book. Some people love it. For me, it’s up there with “My favourite client is an innovative market leader” “To apply, send an up-to-date CV, and cover letter, stating your current salary to greg.wyatt@darkandstormyknight.com ” “If you haven’t heard from us within the thirteenth strike of the hour, please assume you were unsuccessful” Or even “We don’t discriminate on the grounds of….” What do you think a dream candidate experiences when they come across them? Especially one that is selfish and feels like they’ve no reason to consider a new role yet happens across yours by happenstance. The irony is that if you dig into the websites of agencies and employers that write these words, they’ll often extoll disruptively good candidate experience, values alignment and culture fit. But what do their words and behaviour show, and how is that experienced? Flipping it around, the questions might be “What can we do to create the best experience for the high-performing person we want to employ at this step in our recruitment process? What can they benefit from? How can we make their journey more palatable? What are we missing?” As smoothly as these questions roll off the tongue, it’s not just the steps taken, but the ones before, in-between and after. While it doesn’t just benefit your next employee, it benefits everyone - your other candidates, you and your stakeholders. Of course, there’s no need to gaze so navelly if you hire people well enough. But, if your adverts aren’t working or if your process doesn’t fill vacancies, you can either work on things in your control or accept those that aren’t. What you shouldn’t do is blame candidates, agencies or the market if your own affairs aren’t in order. Having a recruitment process whose consequence is both good candidate experience and serves to better fill your vacancies – that’s something in your control. It starts with putting yourself in the shoes of your candidates and giving them what they can benefit from. Do this through your words, show it through your actions. You could consider Attention , Ikigai , and Definition for your messaging. What else? How about considering the situation of the “successful candidate”? What if they are likely to be happily employed, sceptical of a move and have no interest (yet) in updating their CV or writing a cover letter? If you require an updated CV, and they don’t have the time, what are the chances of this candidate (who you’d love to employ) not applying, and how would you ever know? What if you offered an informal call or to answer any questions before an application? (Research shows that offering multiple means of getting in touch improves response rates) What experience might they benefit from in the opening salvo of what might be an advert, message or website? What reasons can you give them to build trust, commit to your process and see it through? Do they want to be told something is a brilliant opportunity, or shown why it may interest them? What if they’ve wasted many lifetimes going through never-ending interview processes, and might just benefit from knowing what your process is? Why couldn’t you highlight your interview process in your advert? What if they needed an accommodation? Perhaps they’re ND, have a disability, struggle to find childcare at short notice. Who knows what’s going on in their lives where minor amendments can find suitable gains? Rather than say “we don’t discriminate on the grounds of” (discrimination is illegal for protected characteristics in the UK - what are the reasons it needs to be said in an advert?), why not instead show how you are inclusive and accessible… which IMO, is what the points above contribute towards. That’s just for advertising. What if your job descriptions were clear & concise , suitable & sufficient and true & fair ? What if you provided interview questions in advance of interviews? This is currently advised as good practice in the UK for autistic candidates. Does it give an unfair advantage to people that don’t need this accommodation? If not, why not allow everyone the same access? My answer is it doesn’t give an unfair advantage. It allows everyone to fairly evidence their capability on a more even playing field. How might that affect the experiences of you and your candidates? What if you clearly managed expectations? What if you highlighted bottlenecks and delays, rather than not saying anything? “There won’t be any news this week as Gary is unexpectedly away from the office. Can I come back to you on Monday? How are things with you by the way?” What if you answered questions before they were asked ? The list is endless, and it starts with establishing what your successful candidates could experience. For an example of how it might come together, here is the basic structure of my job board adverts: Attention – the hook that will appeal to a carefully established ‘right candidate’ Ikigai – why they might be interested in further investigation, what they can expect from an employer they might benefit from working for Definition – a line or two on what makes the company the company; two to three lines on what the role is and its context; no more than three minimum viable requirements the successful candidate should have. An invitation to talk to or email me, with any questions or accommodations that may help. No need for a CV if it isn’t to hand. “All applications will receive a reply within three days.” The boring bits: what you can expect from me; what the interview process is, with any notable points; time frames. This is a loose structure and will vary in length, detail and style depending on who it’s for. While some people confuse me as a dedicated Headhunter (I’m an appropriate-multichannel recruiter that does headhunting), I make half of my placements from advertising. Yet many of these adverts produce hires that weren’t actively looking. Two more editions to come: Trust Me, and Negative Space. Then we move on to a new series: Innovation from Iteration. Regards, Greg p.s. the last line in 1984 is “he loved Big Brother”. And that’s the end of the story. And then there were none. And that was that. And so it goes. All was well. Bonus points if you can name any of these books from their final lines. P.p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, and you're a UK employer, why not drop me a line and explore whether we can improve everyone's experience together 

Fake Jobs - Jobseeker Basics XV

By Greg Wyatt • February 3, 2026
What follows is Chapter 14 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . I've updated it yesterday, having done a little digital hygiene and the revelation I have fallen foul of two fake jobs. Or rather they are real jobs I'm recruiting for, which have been scraped without my permission, then hidden behind a signup screen. Why not google "Engineering Manager Bircham Wyatt Recruitment" and see how it looks to job seekers? What makes this particularly egregious is that in both cases AI appears to have been used to alter specific details of the role. Such as including a salary that is well, well above the budget for the role. As well as being a waste of time for someone wanting to apply, there's the cost of their private details, and were the employer to see the advert, potential internal reputational risk of employees seeing a fantasy salary. Looking at Trustpilot reviews, to gain access to one there is a paid subscription. The second appears to sell CV writing services to applicants. Both appear terrible from what customers say. A real job that is worse than fake, if you happen to come across it. I expect people are getting wise to these odd listings; however when one vacancy appears umpteen times in a google search, with only two leading to a real listing, it's easy to assume they are all fake. "Be aware of fake jobs" is one of my top 10 pieces of advice shared in today's LinkedIn Live with Simon Ward. If you are around at 1pm GMT, please join us by clicking here . 14 - Fake jobs Picture the scene. You’ve gone through the emotional turmoil of losing your job. Or maybe something’s happened at work to galvanise your decision to make a change. You take a bit of time to figure out what the right next move is. You go through the obvious channels to see what jobs are out there - job boards and other websites which promote jobs. Your first reaction is one of hope and optimism - there seems quite a bit out there - maybe you’ll secure something quickly. If you happen to be reading this, new to a job search, indeed you might. Many people in this market quickly realise that a significant number of adverts do not represent jobs that exist. A double whammy in your emotional rollercoaster of recent weeks. There are a few categories to go through, but the outcome is the same: an advert that, at best, wastes your time. The recruiter perspective When we advertise a job, we allow time for applications to come in before assessing them and starting the interview process. Let’s say the volume is manageable and the outcome is not guaranteed - for example, when a candidate you want to offer decides to take a different job instead. There are no villains in this scenario. It’s common enough that risk is a factor when advertising. If a recruitment process takes six weeks from advert to offer, it can make sense to leave the advert up in case you need more candidates in your pipeline. What about if your process takes three months? Illness, holiday, lack of availability, unexpected deadlines - all can delay a process. There are many tools and suppliers which support a hiring process, one of which is the job board. Often features are developed to support ‘what happens if things go wrong.’ These same tools can lead to issues you may experience: Scraping Scraping is when one website takes content from another and relists it. This can happen as an affiliate / aggregation / commercial arrangement, or to drive traffic to the scraping website. The idea is that this increases eyeballs on the content. In the context of job adverts, you can see this everywhere. Indeed and LinkedIn have both relisted adverts from elsewhere at various times. It's changing because some job boards have now secured high volumes of traffic and want to monetise that traffic while keeping control of the adverts. An indication that this happens is when you click ‘apply now’ and it takes you to another website other than the employer’s. This can happen multiple times. Every time a job is scraped, there can be parsing errors where data from fields are incorrectly transferred. If the original advert is updated, the scraped adverts won’t necessarily be updated. Scraped adverts can give inaccurate or outdated salary, location, or even job information. They can also stay listed when the original has closed without the employer ever knowing about it. This is a form of 'legitimate' scraping intended to benefit the employer through additional applications. There is a second type of scraping. As of 2nd February 2026, one of my vacancies has been scraped, without my permission, by apparently two different organisations. In the first you can only apply by signing up. It lists a salary that I haven't disclosed elsewhere is not commensurate with role responsibilities. If you click on my Company Name, it will tell you I am a large multinational recruiter, employing 51-100 staff. Which is 51-100 more people than I employ, if you don't include me. Let's ignore the AI word soup company profile they've lumped on me for now. Some of my other adverts this website shares are slop summary overviews. Including the same job at 40% to 60% of the salary in the first advert. It's the same for the second, except here the salary invented is well above the hypothetical top budget. Looking deeper at both companies, on Trustpilot, both offer subscription services to access jobs that are hard to cancel. While one offers what appears to be bait and switch CV writing services. Several reviews are from employers who have experienced similar to me, with instances of outdated vacancies that no longer exist. What a sham. Relisting As a feature for advertisers, many job boards allow an automatic relisting of adverts to ‘bring it to the top of the pile.’ These relists can occur throughout the lifespan of an advert. Six weeks in, an advert may appear new, even though a candidate might be about to be given a job offer. The vacancy is live, but your application may not be considered because the process is too far along. This can also happen manually for many reasons. I’ve taken down a job after a couple of weeks to rewrite it based on fine tuning from an interview process. Or when a candidate has declined an offer put forward to them. Or when a vacancy has been put on hiatus. The reason for a manual relisting might be unknowable if it isn’t stated in the advert. It isn’t necessarily for a bad reason. If I were to relist an advert, it would only be because I need more candidates, in which case your application would be read. In many situations relisting can encourage an application that won’t be assessed. Laziness Adverts can remain listed because someone forgot to take them down. This is more likely to happen if there isn’t a cost per advert, such as on an employer website, or if there is an unlimited contract. Evergreen vacancies Some vacancies are perpetually advertised to enable a candidate pipeline for a specialism. There might be no vacancy now, with anticipation of vacancies in future. This is more common within larger employers or a specialist recruitment agency. I spoke with a Talent Acquisition Manager recently about the positive side of an evergreen vacancy. She told me for that vacancy they are always recruiting, having mad eight hires in six months - it's a business as usual vacancy. I would hope this is made clear in the advert. Fishing Sometimes adverts harvest applications on the off chance that a related vacancy comes up. I remember a Cambridge agency that used to scrape employer adverts, list them as their own, then submit those CVs speculatively to the same employers - without a commercial arrangement in place. Make of that what you will. Is there any way to check for fishing? Probe the advertiser for relevant information and what their relationship is with the hiring process. That’s not proof of bad behaviour because of how the contingency model works. When multiple agencies work on one vacancy, it’s common not to provide company information until later in the process. If an agency is fishing only to build a bank of CVs, it’s unlikely they’ll admit to it. Scam jobs It sickens me that advertising and job scams are on the rise. If it doesn’t feel right, if they are asking for payment, if they do a bait and switch (this job isn’t right but here’s our CV writing service or access to a system beating framework), if they ask for ID that can be used for other purposes: beware. These may be in public advert form. They may also be from direct messages - LinkedIn DMs, WhatsApp messages, or phone calls. Often from ‘recruiters’ that appear to work for big corporates, yet have no connections and use a gmail account. One scam last year cloned a legitimate company website and job seekers lost many thousands of pounds. My scraped example above is, in my book, a likely scam too. It’s worth reading through www.jobsaware.co.uk , which is a great resource on scams and employment exploitation. The disappearing act This last category may or may not be a fake job. Here’s the scenario - it looks like a vacancy, it sounds like one in discussion. Perhaps you even interview there on site. You may even go so far as to do a 5 hour presentation at final interview on your 90 day strategy. Then it disappears - either permanently, or it reappears with no further communication from the employer or agency. I hear this happening a lot, particularly at a senior level, in the UK market. There are a few reasons it can happen: Company had budget to recruit; changes in the business, or external factors, mean the vacancy isn’t viable at least immediately Company didn’t have budget to recruit and only realises there is no budget later in the process Company runs an interview process to get free consultancy in the form of a final interview presentation (scumbags) Company dipping a toe in the market to see what’s out there, with no intent to hire Company benchmarking an internal hire for future planning purposes Agency finds out there may be a need for an employer to hire and runs a speculative process that doesn’t get approval I’m sure there are many more reasons this can happen and there isn’t a huge amount you can do, given the appearance is of a real vacancy. You can ask if budget has been approved, research the business on Glassdoor, or speak to alumni. It’s unclear what proportion of job adverts are fake. It is a notable problem, and one which takes attention away from legitimate adverts that can put you closer to employment. For the adverts that are real, Part Three of the book will help you assess which you are best suited for and how to effectively use job boards.