Write words in the right way and you can make anyone believe anything.
You can even get readers to behave in utterly predictable ways, in certain situations.
I know you don’t believe me, so -
Don’t think about your breathing.
Now you are, and you’re admittedly annoyed but slightly amused.
Okay that just works for 84% of readers, a stat I’ve just made up.
Conversely, if you ever suffer from anxiety or brain fog, I could tell you to think about how to breath intentionally in a way that counters both.
It’s why whodunnits are often better read than watched: the passage of words doesn’t just bring us forward – they trap us in the narrative.
I don’t know how The Murder of Roger Ackroyd could be quite so clever as a film, a novel which breaks all the conventional rules of murder mysteries.
Read it, then tell me if you disagree.
Narratives that suck you in and suspend disbelief.
It’s no different in advertising and content in general.
If words speak to your emotional truth, then cognitive bias is hard to shift.
Examples
Have you heard about the situationally dangerous DiHydrogen Monoxide?
- also known as Hydroxyl Acid, found in acid rain
- used in industrial solvents
- found in most junk food
- too much exposure will kill you
- found in all dead bodies
This led to a 14-year-old convincing 43 of his 50 classmates to vote on banning water.
Yet not a single word is untrue, just misleading in only speaking to fear and lols.
What about all those front-page headlines of Cancer being cured?
On further reading, it was from promising clinical trials, rather than market ready.
Months later research shows the drugs were not as effective as hope sold, muttered in a byline on pg 17.
Laetrile was promoted as a cancer cure in the 70s before being shown to be as effective as a placebo.
One of many.
All true words.
Politicians play both sides.
How about LinkedIn dimfluencers and their sales of hope?
Or the posts about wolf packs as a metaphor for servant leadership?
You can see the engagement – how do they stand up against critical thinking or a quick browse on Snopes?
Fool me once, and that suspension of disbelief comes crashing down.
And so it is in recruitment.
Adverts, content and messages that speak an emotional truth can be quite compelling.
Bear with me – we know most recruitment messaging is as effective as dihydrogen monoxide off a duck’s back.
Should we even strive to compel, and what risk does that bring?
For me that comes down to what outcome you want from recruitment.
Do you want a candidate to engage?
A candidate for submission?
One for interview?
To be offered?
To become your next employee?
To last long enough to give you a return on investment?
Someone that enjoys working there while doing so?
Now, I know many of my fellow recruiters feel that from the point of interview it’s down to the employer and the candidate to fairly assess whether it’s the right move.
We may chaperone candidates through the offer stage, but we are not accountable for a failed hire.
If we treat recruitment as a solely transactional process this may be a fair view.
But, if we accept that every communication touch point is an opportunity to bring candidates forward, to better fill our vacancy, what should we consider as our duty of care?
And if we have an opportunity to influence from the top of the process - such as ideation for job descriptions - aren’t we accountable for the outcome?
These questions hold whether you’re an agency, internal, HR or hiring manager.
If you can convince with your narrative, speak to emotional truth, and influence behaviour, all through your ongoing words – that isn’t a transaction, it’s a relationship being nurtured.
What happens if someone leaves within three months of starting a new role, for an unequivocal and non-negotiable reason that could have been identified before the first interview?
Or accepts a counteroffer for a reason, in retrospect, we could have seen?
Or withdraws on the day of the interview?
For a recruiter who cares about long-term outcomes and relationships, that’s where our duty of care is – to bring the right candidates forward for reasons that are right for them.
It’s not just about candidate attraction. If you are genuinely committed to finding the right people, it has to be done with integrity throughout rather than just compelling content.
Otherwise, we risk candidates rightly losing their suspension of disbelief when they encounter situations that either belie the message or their needs.
Something to consider next time a candidate withdraws unexpectedly or disappears inexplicably - could we be responsible because of how they experienced our words?
How we write the right words is in our control.
One way to establish the right words is the non-negotiable no’s of candidates.
Once all the candidates with non-negotiable no’s are qualified out, what happens?
That’s what the next edition is about.
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.
I've updated this article for clarity, due to a horrific number of typos. I blame the cats.