Something I commonly put in adverts for critical roles is reasons not to apply for it.

This may seem counterintuitive, but it's one of many reasons my adverts typically get fewer, better applications, and that while I do a lot of headhunting, I still fill difficult vacancies from adverts around a third of the time.

To be clear, it's never down to discrimination. Assuming I've agreed with the employer on what "right" looks like in a candidate, it's also clear what "not right" is in terms of functional experience or aspirations.

Why wouldn't I articulate this in an advert?

After all, most transformational roles are marmite, and what is a turn off for some candidates will prove the argument for others.

Indeed, I've had applications from candidates who said the line that caught their attention was "if you're looking for a purely strategic role that doesn't get its hands dirty, this won't be for you", or something else that is true and shows context.

It works for a couple of reasons.

The first is this kind of honesty is rare in vacancy adverts, and casts the rest of the advert in a better light.

The second is that many candidates have, at some point, come across a generically advertised role where the reason they shouldn't have applied wasn't clear until they actually started in post. A "wrong move". And if it's not them, it's someone they know.

If you know that same reason is why candidates shouldn't apply, it takes away that concern and perception of risk.

Always better to get it right first time.

Besides, I invite readers to call me if they still aren't sure, so I see adverts as the start of what can be candid conversations with constructive outcomes.

Have you ever tried this approach? What was the result for you?

Feel free to drop me a line if you'd like to discuss - greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk.

Greg