Counterintuitive

Greg Wyatt • December 2, 2025

The following is a new chapter in the 2026 update of A Career Breakdown Kit.

If you’ve already bought the Kindle version, it will be updated for free and will always be current for the year.

Maybe you’ve been mulling over the paperback? Send me proof of purchase when the new version is complete and I’ll either send you a Kindle version, or any changed chapters by email

You can read about the current version here.

This is the 2nd draft of Counterintuitive - for the publication version, I'll edit it hard, as well as improve any blind spots and typos.

Here's a common journey many people take when a job search that proves tougher than expected: steps that might actually move you further away from your goal and make you part of the problem.

Career grief
Pick yourself up and decide this could actually be an opportunity for a new start
Update CV with most recent job
Hit the job boards and contact agencies
Pleasant surprise that there’s more out there than you thought
Apply, apply, apply
Many of these jobs prove: closed, fake, ghosts, scams
Not getting much traction, agencies aren’t replying
Maybe you’re being too picky
Widen the net: more senior, less senior, different industries, roles that use transferable skills
Realise you need to customise, but that’s becoming really hard with the volume you’re applying to. ChatGPT? How else can you automate?
With all these applications, there must be a reason I’m not getting through. What’s this about the ATS? Is AI really blocking me?

The worst-case scenario here are those upsetting posts we read about people applying to 2,000 jobs and not even getting an interview.

I expect many people will read these posts and worry they are on the same path.

Some may even defer to that possibly Einstein quote, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of madness.” And as a result they stop applying to jobs and try other measures instead.

A TV analogy to illustrate your job search

If you were selling a £300 TV who would you sell it to?

Possibly too ambiguous a question. First-hand, second-hand? What features does it have? Who should be the buyers for this type of £300 product? Is there any point targeting people who want £1,000 TVs? What about £10,000? What about people who want £300 monitors, not TVs?

It’s impossible to know without starting out on the right strategy:

Define the product
Research the market of ideal customers
Set the right price point
Sell where the customers will buy from

But if things aren’t going well, you shouldn’t simply broaden your horizons and increase your sales approach across demographics that will never buy from you.

Instead you re-evaluate these first principles to make sure you have the right product, for the right people, at the right price point, sold in the right places, with the right message.

So, yes there is iteration to do, but it’s your input that needs changing first to generate the output. You shouldn’t only change the steps you take.

You might know your TV works perfectly well as a monitor, indeed better, because of its specs. However, if you're marketing a monitor to TV buyers, how well will that go?

The problem here is one of definition. Who is your product actually for, and do they understand why yours is a contender?

You shouldn't assume they can see your monitor qualities - show them.

You might argue that the £1,000 budget holder could benefit from your transferable skills - same size TV, same resolution, pumps out sound, in colour.

But if they want OLED when you offer LCD, or if they want a 100w speaker, while yours offers 30w, it’s likely to be a non-starter.

Can you show how your 'features' apply for their demands? Do your features actually apply?

What if instead you sold at a discount, with your additional features at the same cost as the competition?

The difference between people and products is that products won’t change their mind.

So if an employer doesn’t need the features you offer that are enhanced, these can be seen as a risk, not a benefit.

Does this mean you should stay in your lane?

Yes and no.

It means first you need to understand how your lane reflects the race you are in - your specific jobs marketplace.

You should clearly understand what you need and what you offer, while balancing what the market offers and the other good people interested in those offers.

But if you apply for vacancies in a domain where you can’t show the applicability of your offering (see The Transferable Skills Trap).

Or if you apply for vacancies that are too junior or senior, without a clear argument for the specific benefit that employer will have in hiring you.

Then you will compete against candidates who have direct skills and experience. These are typically more aligned to the needs of that vacancy.

Worse, you become part of the problem, taking oxygen away from more suited candidates who deserve fair consideration - without improving your own odds.

It’s unfortunately a simple truth that if everyone didn’t apply for vacancies they weren’t suitably qualified for - everyone’s experience would be better.

This may seem to blame you, but consider the opportunity cost, with time and energy better spent on other activities - which might even just be taking a break.

I say this from a place of compassion, not criticism.

Think about that TV analogy above - when you search for TVs on Amazon, how quickly do you filter out products you will never buy? Do those products make it harder to identify what you do need? I'd wager the answer is always Yes.

Why not try that as an exercise now? Write down what you need from a TV, then try and find it without any bias towards brands.

Rather than compromise to spread your bets, keep going back to first principles and make sure these are both fit for purpose and clearly communicated (Plan Do Check Act - chapter 22 in A Career Breakdown Kit).

Rather than hope others will see your transferable skills will apply, or your higher level of experience will help - show them how and why it matters. If you can’t, spend your energy on better activity.

As for that Einsteinish quote further up. This is only true when the matters outside of your control don’t change.

Those steps at the top are a common sense approach to a job search that involves systemic dysfunction, terrible job adverts, overburdened hiring processes, discrimination of all sorts and the simple disaster of too many qualified candidates for too few jobs.

Matters which we have no control over.

In the changing and mercurial nature of your jobs market, its potential to improve suddenly may be the only change you need to get the job you want.

Such as the job seeker I spoke to, who went from 0 interviews from few applications, to having to turn down interviews and choose between multiple offers.

Debbie said that she refocused on her expertise, and why it mattered, using that to inform what she applied for and how she communicated. Points in her control, with a changing market that helped.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Introduction to personal branding

By Greg Wyatt • March 30, 2026

What follows is Chapter 39 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's 10 months old, so surely the algorithm has moved on right? Indeed, my own content performance has tanked if you compare 2026 to 2025. Around 12 million views of my content last year, while if I extrapolate my year to date performance, it looks like a little shy of 640,000 views. My LinkedIn feed is quieter, yet real life relevant conversations go from strength to strength, many of which stem from my content. Look, I don't love the term, but I am a fan of putting your message out there, across multiple means, so that your most relevant audience might become aware of you. And perhaps your relevant audience is an audience of one, a person who can put you nearer that job. Which is the only algorithm you need. This is a three part series, with part 2 on " Content strategy and philosophy " and part 3 on " A flair post ". Click on the links for the unedited versions on Substack. 39 - Introduction to personal branding Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a free marketing platform, where you can build a reputation through the words of your posts, comments and messages. Personal branding is a viable tactic as part of a multi-channel approach to your job search and it can bring opportunities to you. I'll start off by saying I'm not a fan of the term personal branding. It can lead to make-work which can even get in the way of what you should be doing. Writing and using content to create experiences that support a job search is a great idea and calling it personal branding - as a discrete activity - isn’t a bad thing. I expect there are many mediums through which you can build a personal brand. I'll focus on LinkedIn because of how entrenched it is in other job search activities. What a personal brand is For businesspeople the idea is that by building awareness of your personality, lifestyle and what you're promoting, you also build trust. So that when people are ready to buy, they'll buy your products. The brand might be personal. The goal is sales. When you see personal branding on LinkedIn it’s often a business that promotes their services through the account of the author. ‘Here’s my puppy, buy my stuff.’ Take note that the target audience for these advice posts is the businesspeople above. And these posts often seek to part them from their money. Your goals are similar. If there’s a commercial outcome you want, it’s likely a single job, not a throughput of leads. You’ll also see that controversial content gets huge engagement and can also repel readers. If you need a job, what’s the danger of writing overly spicy content? Could a reader make a decision against you based on your words? How much you need any job should inform the experience you want to create for your readers. How it sits in your wider job search Publishing content is about raising awareness and starting conversations with the right people. This can be your profile, written posts, newsletters, (bestselling) career breakdown kits, videos, you name it - anything you can become known for. In many ways the hierarchy of relationships your content appeals to is the same as with networking. Content can be publishing posts, commenting on the posts of others, sending direct messages. I’d argue even your applications and interviews are part of your personal brand. I think of LinkedIn posts like a plumber’s van driving around town. Most of the time you’ll disregard the van unless it cuts you up with noxious fumes. When you have a leaky pipe, you’ll surely take note of their number. It can support an application if a hiring manager decides to surreptitiously stalk your profile. And it can work against you if it suggests problem behaviour. A good balance for content is the poster in my daughters’ primary school from a few years back: THINK. Is it True? Is it Helpful? Is it Inspiring? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind? Achieve those five points and content will rarely work against your job search. Content should be consistent with your wider activity. Which means that everything people (potential employers) experience of you is a complementary and non-contradictory message. Content that contradicts your CV or cover letter may lead to red flags, whether that’s fair or not. Content should be intentional. HOW TO GO viral, and why you shouldn’t Anyone who writes content will enjoy the sweet, sweet flow of dopamine when you see reactions and comments trickle in. Such as that first flair post announcing you are available to help your next employer with examples of your achievements and what you are looking for. Do that and you’ll get loads of engagement. Why haven’t you done it yet? Tag me in and I’ll support you. Or you can do what most people do and say, ‘I’m sorry to announce I’ve lost my job, please help’ and that will get loads too. Because it is relevant and relatable to fellow job seekers, recruiters and sympathisers. Then you feel the soul-crushing defeat of a well-thought-out post, highlighting a problem in your industry, with tumbleweed to follow. Both types of content have a place. That tumbleweed post is relevant and relatable to a niche audience. I try to take a land and expand approach to content - job seeker advice, recruitment advice and stories, ponderings and satire, which I use to tackle topics from different directions. Over the past three years I’ve had between 3m to 11m views of my posts and I’ve gained a bit of business through them too. What I don’t do is try to go viral anymore. Because when I have gone viral with a few 1m impression posts, it’s taken weeks to extricate myself from them and there hasn’t been real benefit. I find my tumbleweed posts start better conversations from lurkers - those that never engage publicly. I promised you I’d show you how to go viral. Here you go. Relevance + relatability + readability + entitlement. Maybe add a selfie. If that seems too simple, search for this sentence on LinkedIn: “An employee asked me if he can WORK from HOME permanently.” You’ll need to use the double speech mark to search on the phrase, and rank by Posts. ‘Does it really work?’ asked Charles. I told him to try it as an experiment. He rarely got more than a few hundred impressions per post. 170,000 impressions, 2,000 reactions. Pretty viral for a first timer. It is the wrong path. What do these posts actually say? Who are they aimed at? And if they don’t appeal to people who can help you reach your objective, what’s the point?

Nothing but the truth. Innovation from Iteration, pt 4

By Greg Wyatt • March 26, 2026

I was tempted to use another Tom Cruise AI image for this article, but his hands ended up looking like feet, which wasn't a true representation of him. Probably not fair to use AI in this way either, stealing copyrighted material without permission. And so I use this AI 'stock image' instead, which is probably also highly unethical, but feels more suitable and sufficient . Anyway here's an article about why the same principles are crucial for good recruitment: ‘True and Fair’ is an accountancy concept that lies at the heart of reporting, and can be applied effectively in recruitment. Its meaning is that any financial statement made about a company should accurately and completely represent its financial position and performance. The role of auditing is to confirm that documentation meets this definition. Do so and everyone knows what they are dealing with. HMRC, shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees – useful, and in many cases necessary, to have access to a true and fair view of a company’s accounts. Can something be true and not fair? In 2001, Enron went bust, a huge scandal with real-life repercussions that led to new legislation in the US. Their accounts were true, in that they conformed with the required laws and standards. However they had an incredibly complex reporting structure which made it impossible to see the overwhelming debt they had. Poof! Bye-bye a $100bn company when this all came out in the wash. How about fair but not true? This can happen if a situation is described which gives a fair picture but lacks accuracy. An example here could be the UK politician who HMRC deemed behaved fairly but made errors in his tax reporting. Only a few million quid plus penalty. What types of recruitment documentation does this apply to? Three key ones that spring to mind (although there’s no reason it can’t be applied everywhere): The job description. The job advertisement. The CV. If these three documents were always a true and fair representation of either a job or a candidate, you’d interview and hire better candidates who stick around longer. With the caveat that these documents should also be ‘suitable and sufficient’, if you remember last week's edition. Documents are the first step in a recruitment process, relating to a decision to apply and the decision to interview. Is it not the case, that the second most common complaint in recruitment is “not what we expected”? Therefore, if we nipped this complaint in the bud, with true and fair documentation, wouldn’t life be better for everyone in the recruitment process? What does true and fair mean in recruitment documentation? I think it has to cover three points. 1/ factually correct 2/ shows context suitably 3/ describes sufficiently An immediate objection might be that job descriptions are always true and fair, but I’d argue this is actually rarely the case. If you recruit for a new role, do you audit your job description against the current context? If you have a generic job family description does it show the specific day-to-day duties of a role? Have things changed in the current role that makes it different to the last time you recruited? A common scenario in recruitment is that Greg resigns, and the hiring manager says “we’d love someone just like Greg”. Yet if Greg resigned, wouldn’t someone just like Greg be at risk of resigning for the same reasons in future? Would now-Greg have applied for the same role that then-Greg applied for? Which definition of Greg is the true and fair one you’d hire? It feels strange writing my name like this. There are lots of different situations in which a job description that was true and fair a few years ago is no longer so. The only way to ensure it is true and fair, is to audit documentation prior to going live. You may think a fully representative and accurate contextual analysis is too time-consuming for most vacancies, especially where it doesn’t actually matter if there is some inaccuracy. “Oh yeah, that’s not relevant anymore”. But if you have a key hire that can make a difference in your business, ‘true and fair’ should be the starting point, each and every time. If you have a systematic process that finds truth and fairness, you’ll see the benefit of applying the same across any vacancy – for the reason that the time invested at the outset is offset by interviewing fewer unsuitable candidates and wasting less time and resources overall. And what should be the more important reason of better recruitment outcomes. For any project I take on, this is the first step – getting the documentation in order. Get it right and everything flows from there. It’s a key reason behind my nearly 100% fill rate. It’s also one of the reasons my average tenure is over 4 years for key hires. These achievements don’t come down to chance. They come from my process. If you've forgotten why suitability and sufficiency is the other pillar, here's an example that isn't suitable: Nineteen experiential bullet points might be true and fair but will also encourage ideal candidates to run away screaming. See you next time. 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. This can be a large as end-to-end delivery of a programme of vacancies, or as small as writing one job advert for a key hire- recruitment strategy setting - outplacement support