In “Always Never Share Cake”, Chris Voss describes the subjectivity of fairness through the Ultimatum Game.
The scenario is that two people find a $10 note. Perhaps they realise the local US Air Force Base is a reason a foreign bill might be found on the streets of Risby.
Why is it a bill in the US and a note in the UK?
Anyway, one of the people picks up the fungible token and is tasked with setting a fair split with the other person.
They can set any figure they like, and the other person may only accept or decline - they may not negotiate.
Typically you might expect a 50/50 split, but what happens if it’s 60/40 or even 90/10?
Logically, even $1 dollar is better than nothing, yet the likelihood is that offer will be declined because it feels unfair.
What about if Greg had picked up Jon from the Cambridge train station, not expecting any compensation for petrol or wear and tear?
Should Jon give Greg $10, or is $5 still a fair split?
What if Jon had lent Greg £7.91 because Greg was a little short - should he offer any of the money at all?
It’s all highly subjective unless you know the other person’s triggers, their context and what motivates them.
Even what appears fair to you can seem unfair to others.
Who arbitrates fairness?
A recruitment example.
I had a great chat with a TA Manager, where they’d taken me up on my offer to review a job advert for a role that was proving unfairly hard to fill.
Of course, I raised £Competitive Salary as one issue, despite knowing his employer was an excellent payer without a fixed budget - they are known to pay fairly to get what they need, but only if you know the company.
He gave great reasons why the corporate strategy is not to divulge salary information.
And I told him it didn’t matter what his employer thinks.
It only matters what their potential candidates assume, citing my regularly cited research on how this phrase negatively affects applications.
Because, if a potential candidate associates £Competitive Salary as potentially representing an unfair system, they may walk away, no matter how fair Awesome Corp is.
Perception vs Intention, as usual in recruitment.
While Voss alludes to financial negotiation, for candidates there are other commodities they negotiate over - time, attention and trust.
Coming back again to the notion of Candidate Resentment (which I won’t link today, although you can search for “Spitting Nails” on my archive if you’re interested, or email me at greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk), £Competitive Salary isn’t actually about money - it’s about trust and the expectation of time being wasted.
Which can lead to the loss of attention, no matter how wonderful the rest of an opportunity is.
And if you accept that Everything is a negotiation, then any touchpoint in recruitment can impact a candidate’s time, trust and attention.
Waste time, lose trust and abuse that other thing and a consequence is that candidates may vote with their feet.
Even those who only read your advert before disappearing into the ether, without you ever knowing.
This may seem low stakes for an easy-to-fill vacancy, but apply the same negotiation philosophy to key hires - well maybe it is a candidate shortage, but can you really be sure if you haven’t checked the things you are accountable for?
Time can be how quickly you assess applications, the time between interviews, time to offer. It can also be a time that is compared to other employers’ interest in your candidate.
Trust can be anything from a lack of transparency, to putting your needs above theirs, to their being sceptical of a seemingly innocuous line in an advert. Trust is as freely lost as it is reciprocated.
Attention… still here? well it’s no wonder Attention is the A in AIDA, and in my AiDE framework. In a short attention-economy how are you losing theirs?
What fair propositions do you make, in any of your recruitment touchpoints, that a candidate might deem unfair?
What is the consequence?
That’s a principle of good candidate experience, in establishing what is fair play for them.
It’s a funny thing, negotiation.
It isn’t always what you think it is.
Rather than what matters most to you, it’s what matters most to the other party that matters most to your negotiation.
And if you don’t know your candidates, that can be unfathomable.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. if you’ve benefitted from these emails, how could you fairly compensate me?
p.p.s. I’m off on Friday, driving up to Derbyshire with Jono to meet the Sheffield lads, for drinks, canoeing, and that, hence the early email. Maybe we’ll find some cash on the way.
Reminds me why OKCupid was so successful back in the day: they'd ask users questions on any topic, but the answers had 3 dimensions: the user's own opinion, what they'd ideally like a partner to feel about the topic, and then a grade for how important that answer was to the user (and partner).
It essentially skipped the initial rounds of negotiation, and ensured both parties were matched with someone where a match/consensus could be reached.