Piece of PAS
Problems for better candidate engagement
As we were picking up our keys at Hertz, confident we had a good insurance policy, the counter agent presented us with a problem.
Your insurance has an excess and doesn’t cover this this and this. You could pay up to £3,000 more in this this and this scenario.
‘Really?’ nervous sweat agitated our brows as we anticipated the mad tooting of the Amalfi coast roads, unaware this might even have been a problem.
Fortunately, they had a solution of paying their insurance which was more than the cost of the rental.
Nice try, mio amico. Maybe next time.
Anyhoo.
Employers could learn a great deal from this interaction, especially when considering the candidate journey.
The majority of employers and agencies approach recruitment as if a candidate's first step is to apply.
It isn't. Their first step is:
1/ Problem awareness.
That problem may be unemployment, an uncertain job situation, a bad boss, limited career progression or money.
These are often people who are actively looking for work and they'll see any role that solves their problem as an opportunity.
Many of these are brilliant candidates, who may contact you just because of your vacancy.
But if your adverts aren't working who else should you be appealing to?
The problem unaware, the problem ambivalent and those who accept a compromise.
Many of these are caught in a combination of career inertia, Stockholm Syndrome and Region Beta Paradox (the Pain Mirror covers these).
They may well see your role as the right move for the right reason if you engage them in the right way.
But your messaging doesn't do this.
When your advertising talks about brilliant and unique opportunities, market leaders and innovation, what problems does that address?
Besides every vacancy is these things, according to 99% of adverts, therefore none of them are.
And if you assume a public advert is the archetype of your message, it's likely to be just as ineffective everywhere: in your DMs, phone calls, pitches, interviews, job offers.
All you need do in your messaging is address the issues and problems the most unaware of candidates have, and that message is effective for every level of problem awareness.
Put your candidates needs first, and this informs everything you do in recruitment. In service of filling your vacancy.
It means moving from a system focused on transactions, speed and volume, to one focused on the person you need to employ.
A minor shift and one which has a fundamental impact on how you recruit, how you bring people on board, and how you retain them.
What are the problems your ideal candidate may have that your vacancy solves?
Articulate that and you'll find recruitment simpler.
I’m not saying you need to cause nervous sweat to agitate on your candidates’ brows. Instead, make them think about their own situation having read or heard your words.
One way to do this is adapting the Problem Agitation Solution copywriting framework in your advertising.
Problem: insufficient insurance. Agitation: the consequence. Solution: additional insurance.
But unlike the mafiosi agents, there’s no need for compulsion, simply highlighting the problems your vacancy solves.
I saw Steve (👋) mention in one of his LinkedIn posts that, in interviewing candidates, it was surprising how many were frustrated by a lack of training in their roles.
That’s their problem, right there.
“We invest in your future through a clear path for career development, funding the training you need”… if you can do that.
Maybe that wasn’t an identified problem previously, but like any writing, once you’ve identified it as an attraction point, you can use it everywhere, iteratively and appropriately.
What other problems?
I think back on all those tens of thousands of conversations I’ve had with candidates.
“I’d love to able to have a bit of flexibility, even just to see my daughter’s nativity play”
‘We you trust to get the job done, how you see fit, which means you’ll always have the flexibility to do the things you need to at home’
“We were hybrid, now they want us back in the office”
“The politics here is an organ grinder”
“I know I’m underpaid, but they don’t care”
“I’ve hit the ceiling of how I can progress. The FD has been here 300 years and is immortal”
My italicised solution is clumsy. How would you solve these other problems?
Of course above the line messaging has to be generic, to an extent. You can form an ideal candidate profile, but your ideal candidate may well be different.
So when you enter below the line comms (one to one), the best thing to do is to find out their situation, needs, aspirations and potential problems first. Through asking good questions, not pitching.
It’s one reason I don’t personalise much in my outreach. Personally I find personalisation quite cringy, but more importantly I find it wasted space when you make the conversation solely about them.
Do that and if your opportunity meets what they need, it’s far more likely to be the right move.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
P.s. while you’re here, if you’re finding a vacancy difficult to fill, and your process is all about you and not about your ideal candidates - I can fix that for you.
Don’t be shy, email me at greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk.
I can fill that vacancy directly, with employees who often exceed expectations, or help you do it better yourself.
P.p.s. on day 10 of our Italy holiday I found out I’d been asking for the bill in Spanish.