I played a brilliant family game over Christmas - Herd Mentality.
Have you heard of it?
The rules are that the family group answers a simple question from a set cards; the most popular answer gets a point.
If your answer isn’t popular you don’t get a point.
If your answer is unique, no matter how right or wrong, you get to hold the cow.
I’d find myself second-guessing what my wife and children were going to answer. Sometimes I’d get it right, sometimes I’d be unpopular and my children guessed the answer I would have given.
It got me thinking about how people think individually, and how those thoughts can be otherwise influenced when part of a group.
How people in a group might contribute and how that group might be steered, through understanding what will be popular.
How that might encourage ineffective behaviour when we want to appeal to the right person, not everyone.
You see it all the time, in real life.
The politician’s manifesto that wins them the vote, and mysteriously changes to suit their agenda afterwards.
We know it’s going to happen, yet we gamely follow suit as a society, even though as individuals we can see right through it.
And while we may feel this is acceptably unacceptable behaviour, many of us are guilty of the same behaviour unconsciously, by mimicking what we see as popular behaviour to fit in and be popular ourselves.
Influencer marketing and the fashion industry.
Crikey, I even used to follow football in much more depth simply because I knew that’s what others would want to talk about down the pub. It’s just not cricket.
It’s only when I found my people that conversations became less popular and more interesting to me.
How about social media?
Popular posts are typically those which engage pathos - our emotions - without logos (rational thought) and ethos (status and authority).
Think about all those super popular posts that actually mean nothing.
“Hire for attitude, skills can be trained.” “Dear Hiring Manager” “Salary on the job description” “Give people a chance!”
Vague enough that anyone can find meaning, and because
“Hire for coachable attitudes which complement culture, principles and values; skills above a clearly defined capability threshold can be trained”
… doesn’t have the same zing.
And we all like high engagement, because of that dopamine rush when those engagement notifications pop up.
Indeed, LinkedIn, increasingly driven by ‘AI’ rewards the behaviours that supports and drives these posts’ performance, while quashing legitimate conversation that contradicts acceptable popular opinion.
Look at the big influencers on LinkedIn and ask yourself “Where’s the money?” in what they are saying.
In a few cases, what they say doesn’t reflect their purpose, or even who they are.
Dan Price’s virtue signalling hid allegedly predatory, gaslighting behaviour.
Stephen Bartlett’s fortune, the one which makes him a legitimate business force, isn’t what he said it is.
Or is it? Who knows what’s true, especially when their opinions are popular enough to change the truth to an alternate fact?
We do it because of how it makes us feel, not because we think it’s logically or even factually right.
We then write in similar themes, because we hope it might be popular in the same way.
If everyone does it, it must be right!
But, if you agree that it is problematic being influenced to behave in a certain way because of popular opinion - why then do we do the same throughout recruitment?
Adverts don’t work! I’ve never got a job through applying!
It’s not the process that’s at fault, it’s a reliance on popular content.
Why do we copy what’s been done previously, or by others, rather than acting on what the situation demands?
Job descriptions and adverts which copy each other.
CVs tailored to copied adverts, with responsibilities copied from job descriptions.
It’s how things are done by most people right?
In copying others because of learned behaviour in how we are made to feel by popular content, we forget what our audience needs.
And if AI parses what’s out there to regurgitate the content you ask for, the popular opinion of copypasta content will most influence its output.
But how can any content be effective, unless you know what the right person needs from it?
Their combination of pathos, logos, and ethos, something known about for millennia.
More currently explained as head, heart and wallet.
What’s in it for the one?
Not an easy endeavour, but a key one for a key hire.
Easier just to do what you did before and then wonder why there are so few candidates.
At least you’ll be in good company.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. I’m working and looking for some unpopular recruitment to sort.
Great read Greg!