In the A Career Breakdown Kit Glossary, I prattishly name two laws after me.
"Wyatt’s first law of reciprocity: ‘Reciprocate the level of care you experience.’
Yes, I’m Wyatt, and I am partly joking. Partly because I’m not so pompous as to name my own Law. However, this principle will help you navigate a market stacked against you, primarily if you regularly have bad experiences in hiring processes. This is a defensive principle to help you keep a sustainable balance, should your search prove more difficult than expected.
Wyatt’s second law of reciprocity: ‘Aim to provide the experience you want people to reciprocate’
This principle relates to how you treat people you want to help you, primarily outside of advertised jobs - networking, doorknocking, gaining referrals and asking for help. This is a proactive principle when you are aiming to build a relationship that may pay off over time."
One of the other themes of the book is that a job search is the inverse of a recruitment exercise for that role.
I originally came up with these ‘laws’ as principles for recruitment at volume.
I wanted to find a fair way to deal with applicants.
And so I came to the idea of reciprocating their level of investment:
No-care applications get a templated rejection
Unsuitable applications done with care get a line of feedback in reply
Everyone thereafter gets fairly tended to based on the time and investment they make in the process - including full feedback
I thought further.
Why does it have to be a reactive function?
What happens if we flip the script and look at a proactive principle?
I saw how some of my recruitment differs from the norm.
You see I get good applications even for scarce skill roles, even from passive candidates.
I experience low attrition. I’m rarely ghosted. I rarely ‘lose’ people to counteroffers.
And this is because I know that if I give them what they need to come forward, I’m likely to get what I need.
If I put trust in them, they are more likely to trust me:
transparent adverts that speak to their problems, needs and aspirations
clarity on what to expect, on the vacancy, on the context and culture
by placing their needs first, I quickly establish insurmountable no’s, allowing them to make the right decision, and for me to focus on qualified candidates
while suitable assessing and representative what proves to be my long and shortlist
Two simple statements, and a philosophy that works.
I’m conscious that though I’ve written the book for job seekers, the inversion principle means I highlight my skill level as a recruiter.
Anyway, buy my book, judge me, or have a great week.
Regards,
Greg
I received a rejection recently that really annoyed me. It was a job I know I could do, in an industry related to the one I'm doing now. In the application process I had to write answers to multiple questions (the stuff I'd normally write in a cover letter) and then at the bottom they whacked in "download this tool and then record yourself answering these questions!" Fine, I'll do it because I really think this job is one I could do well.
I submitted, and waited. And waited. I connected with the outgoing person on LinkedIn and said "hey, I'm here!" A number of weeks later, I got a template rejection.
I don't mind jumping the hurdles in an application. But that reciprocity needs to be there in exchange.