The pain mirror

Candidate psychology for better engagement

“I didn’t realise how unhappy I was until my husband told me,”

commented a Strategic Marketing Manager, when she accepted an offer I put forward.

I encourage candidates to talk through an offer with their nearest and dearest, as much to allow objectivity, as for the mirror it holds to their emotions.

This isn’t the only time I’ve heard this from candidates, when reflecting on their role, before moving on to a new employer.

The psychology of ‘loyalty’, self-perception, behaviour and decisions is not discussed enough in recruitment.

Psychology that can inform how we approach, engage and build relationships with candidates, especially for those tricky vacancies with a niche requirement.

Three concepts to think about in exploring this, then practical takeaways:

1/ Stockholm Syndrome

A phenomenon in which hostages develop feelings of affection or loyalty towards their captors. Replace with employee and an employer who is demanding and stressful to work for.

2/ Region Beta Paradox

People are more likely to take action over a distressing situation than an acceptably bad one, even if the possible improvement for both is the same. Someone in a mediocre employment relationship is less likely to consider a career move than someone in a Very Bad Situation.

These two concepts are linked to 3/ Career inertia – you are swept up in a career even if it is against your core values and aspirations.

Anyone who has been made redundant, or put on furlough, has an opportunity to break this inertia and find something more aligned with who they want to be.

Perhaps that’s something you’ve experienced too.

What a great opportunity for recruiters to help candidates identify where they can break inertia and find a better path.

---

For anyone to consider a career move, they will need a ‘good enough reason’ and their situation will dictate what experiences they either need or will put up with.

Someone who is unemployed may place paying the bills over long-term happiness. They may put up with an acceptably bad recruitment process to get what they need.

Someone who thinks they are happily employed may place their self-perception and loyalty above the promise of something we think is better… even if it is. What does it take to engage them?

Of course, for many people, not moving jobs is the best decision they can make.

Something we should establish as recruiters as early as possible.

When there is ‘good enough reason’, it is individual to every candidate.

It’s the pain that needs healing and an illness they may not even have symptoms for.

Our job is to hold a mirror up to that pain so that they can identify it for themselves and take measures to rightly improve their lot.

It goes to follow that, in any recruitment endeavour, we can aim to understand the situations, needs and drivers of ideal candidates as a priority.

What’s in it for them? What Candidate Experience do they need?

Whether they might unknowingly suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, and whether they are in Region Beta.

As well as the inertia of a career that may or may not be taking them in the wrong direction.

Write a bad job advert and you’ll only appeal to people who either need a job or find their current situation bad enough to force change.

Who else will they be applying to? (Everyone)

Run a bad process, and candidates will stay in it only if its level of badness is acceptable.

The same goes for your “brilliant vacancy that matches your LinkedIn profile. Can you send me your CV in Word format?” outreach.

Shoddy will work in some situations, but not because of your words – in spite of your words, when situation forces action.

It’s easy to think that, when you appeal to candidates, the people you hear back from are the best available.

Yet if you haven’t given a candidate ‘good enough reason’, what reason do they even have to respond?

Do you even know what you don’t know?

---

I can tell you, that Marketing Manager at the top had seen my good enough advert and chose not to apply.

Hers was a great job that met her family needs, and this was a solution to a problem she hadn’t identified.

I knew she had chosen not to apply because I coincidentally called her, and during that conversation, we discussed the advert.

We had a great chat, and she said towards the end of the call “it does sound good, but I’m not sure it’s right for me”.

I asked her to think about it, and perhaps we should speak again on Monday. I also encouraged her to think critically about her current situation, as she divulged she knew she was not content, but couldn’t put her finger on why.

What had prompted her to read my advert in the first place?

Perhaps this wouldn’t be the right move, but the next one might be.

Anyway, she got the job – they made it bigger for her and £5k above budget. The MD tells me she is a future director, and she tells me she is enjoying it.

All because we got to the crux of pain she didn’t know she had.

Yes, the opposite holds true. If recruitment is easy and candidates are plenty, shoddy may be good enough, so why bother improving?

That’s what the unsubscribe button is for.

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 two vacancies)

- manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client

- recruitment coaching and mentoring (one place available at £250/hr + VAT. Yes, prices have gone up. I value my time.)

- recruitment strategy setting

- outplacement support

Just hit reply to check if my approach is right for you.