Standard definition
Recruitment writing pt 11
Bear with me.
I first came across ‘Minimum Viable Product’ when I recruited a product management role a few years ago (I love product management roles – they are super contextual and allow my process to shine, which is partly why www.productsearch.info is one of my service lines).
MVP is the simplest version of a product that allows it to be tested for commercial viability and market demand. It’s the most basic version of the intended product that is fit for purpose.
In recruitment, the principle of ‘minimum viable’ might be the sporting MVP for any part of your process that requires definition, with meaning to the right people – if you apply suitability and sufficiency.
It’s the foundation on which ‘Definition’ is built on in my AIDE framework.
Before we go into this, let me share with you a LinkedIn post which shows a jobseeker’s reaction to a recent interview:
"Today I had a fantastic #interview."
Can you see the ikigai of their experience?
More than that, this excellent experience is a consequence of a skilful process, as any good candidate experience should be.
What might be the benefit of doing this for the employer?
Please note I have nothing to do with the process, but it is something you can replicate by using AIDE.
Part of her experience is how the process has been defined in advance.
Before they apply, most candidates want clarity both on what a role is, and why they might be a good candidate for that role.
They likely already know the general duties of any given job title – we neither want them to learn to suck eggs, nor to wade through volumes of irrelevant content.
We know that many demographics may pre-select themselves out if they don’t sufficiently meet the ‘required criteria’ set out in a job advert, even if those criteria aren’t actually required.
Some of these demographics suffer from isms – do we really want to be precluding potentially great candidates just because of poor use of language?
Better accessibility in language used benefits everyone.
While in Germany, Stepstone advises no more than 4 bullet points, otherwise, they say no one will apply.
It goes to follow that we might aim to describe both the role and person requirements in a way that has meaning to the widest relevant reader base: minimum viable.
For the role – the immutable truth of a vacancy that defines what it is, without ambiguity.
For the person requirement – the immutable set of skills, qualifications, attitudes and/or experiences that any successful employee in this role has to have.
Everything else can be stripped away.
You can use So What? and Why does it Matter? to help edit these down to size.
What’s left should be no more than 3-4 bullet points – fewer, if you can do so without introducing ambiguity.
If you disagree, tell me why you can’t trim your requirement down and I’ll be happy to explore this with you.
These definitions give clarity to readers, open up access to the widest pool of possible candidates and help you in establishing what you actually need.
Here’s the rub though, simplifying to minimum viable takes work and requires you to challenge habit and accepted process. If you’ve always ‘done it this way’, it can be hard to see past your blind spots.
Much like the rest of an advert, the content should be the consequence of the work that’s led to it.
In this case, the job description and person requirements.
These have a different part to play than the advert, including both assessment and performance elements.
Yet if you apply minimum viable to these, you shouldn’t lose any of the necessary elements, while giving better clarity to both candidates and your own hiring process.
Any advert will flow from this clarity, or lack of.
I wonder what would happen to those job adverts that require “4 years experience in tech invented 1.5 years ago” were smacked over the head with this approach. Remember Sebastien Ramirez?
I don’t really wonder – it’s crystal clear what would happen.
‘Definition’ isn’t just about advertising, it can be used everywhere.
“What is the minimum viable definition that is both suitable and sufficient?”
A question you might ask of every step in your process, including expectation management -
If your offer process takes 6 days from point of verbal acceptance to generating offer paperwork, and there is no way to shorten it, this should be clearly explained to the candidate at the point of verbal offer.
“We’ll generate the paperwork asap” is not a minimum viable definition for the candidate.
Might they get cold feed during your 6-day-asap?
Or how about a minimum viable interview process?
What if you defined your interview process at the earliest opportunity?
How might this benefit both you and your candidates?
Minimum viable doesn’t mean as little as possible.
It means establishing concrete candidate needs from each step in your process, and giving them the definition and experience that helps bring them forward to the next step.
From there you can layer on additional information, if needed, to get an optimal result.
Give better definitions in your writing, and you’ll help everyone involved.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services:
- commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment (available for no more than three vacancies)
- manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client
- recruitment coaching and mentoring
- recruitment strategy setting
- outplacement support
Just hit reply to check if my approach is right for you.