Curiosity is a funny thing. It can drive you to find out more. It can lead to credibility-popping disappointment.
And it always comes from less, not more.
Enough information to prompt action, rather than giving all the answers immediately.
A master and charlatan of curiosity in film is JJ Abrahams.
If you’ve ever watched Lost, the unveiling mysteries of polar bears, smoke monsters, hatches and numbers drew millions of watchers, and lost most of them due to unanswered questions.
I think we’re lucky there was enough popularity it came to a conclusion with a number of heavenly resolutions that certainly pissed me off.
I watched it again recently, with my eldest, and it’s actually better without the curiosity of ‘what next’ between seasons.
A double-edged sword.
Now I wouldn’t expect you to sit through six seasons to see if your opinion matches mine, but if you’ve a couple of hours, try Mission Impossible 3.
It features the best and worst of JJ Abrahams.
An opening scene that features a WTF moment only resolved in the film’s final minutes, done in the most Mission Impossible of ways.
And a mystery MacGuffin, in the device that drives the film’s plot, and they can’t even be bothered to say what it actually was. Probably because JJ couldn’t think of an answer satisfying enough.
So it is in recruitment.
Curiosity is a key attribute to have, but if disabused can lead to people making the wrong decision, because they no longer believe what they were buying into.
I’m driven by curiosity.
How does this work?
Why does that happen?
What’s driven this decision?
How does the context influence the strategy?
What’s the real reason you want to move jobs?
Why haven’t you spoken to your boss about that?
That kind of thing.
I struggle with ambiguity, and curiosity is a weapon for finding clarity.
With clarity comes certainty.
Why a role will be right for the right candidates.
Why a candidate will be right for the role.
Why a candidate isn’t right, and why they shouldn’t pursue an application.
Indeed that last line is one reason I don’t work on competitive contingency recruitment.
When I know a candidate won’t work out, only to see them shoved forward by another recruiter, get the job, then leave after six months because they were never right - that pressure of first past the post makes a qualitative service less effective.
Surely it should be our job as recruiters to prequalify out the wrong candidates?
While curiosity might underpin my approach, it’s also an opportunity to start conversations.
Create enough ambiguity that a candidate or employer wants to learn more.
Rather than aim a clever pitch at them, where it’s the quality of the message that has prompted a reaction, not its substance.
Both approaches can be effective.
But for me, if I’m curious whether a prospect should be interested in what I’m offering, that curiosity can be reciprocated.
I know what I’d rather lead a conversation with - the curiosity to learn more, rather than an emotion that may or may not relate to what’s being offered.
Lead with a pitch, and that party orients their conversation around the pitch, making it harder to establish whether it’s right for us both.
Lead with curiosity, appropriately dangling the carrot of opportunity, and you can have a more open conversation that finds an objective no as quickly as possible.
Isn’t it better to remove prospects that were never going to be right from consideration as early as possible?
A prospect that might interested in conversation, but was always going to accept a counteroffer, or was never going to subscribe to my way of recruiting.
Candidates and employers, both.
Why lead with a promise that you don’t know can be fulfilled?
I find it interesting that leading with curiosity is considered an excellent approach to sales.
I’d cold-called that chap, with the suggestion of a good opportunity yet focused on understanding how he might want to improve his lot.
As Jeff says, he persuaded himself.
There are many ways to peel an onion.
Whether that’s how you approach your inbound and outbound work - AI, copywriting, cold prospecting, driving curiosity, or having such a brilliant role that candidates would be foolish not to consider it.
In an industry driven by volume KPIs, curiosity may seem too vague an approach. Sell, sell, sell! Someone might bite.
But if you haven’t considered leading with curiosity, you’ll never know, and who would be satisfied with that?
Regards,
Greg
p.s.
You hooked me with the P.S.