Overqualified - on feedback & discrimination

Greg Wyatt • April 6, 2026

What follows is an updated version of Chapter 10 from A Career Breakdown Kit (2026).


I've made some additions around what it means to be overqualified, and why this doesn't always mean an employer is ageist.


I'm mindful that the market has been extremely tough for many over the past few years, disproportionately affecting more experienced (older) job seekers.


So it can be easy to assume that what may be practical business decisions may hide an ism. Yet, that's not always the full picture.


In this addition I show that the same advice I give to job seekers about keeping cards close to their chest increases risk of flight risk for employers.


This chapter challenges assumptions that are widely held for good reason: experienced workers have faced genuine discrimination. But as with the ATS mythology, incomplete narratives can lead to strategic missteps. What follows is the fuller picture, even where it's uncomfortable.


The newsletter format is ideal in this way, given I can update the book on the fly, and that even if I repeat releasing a chapter, it's only because there is significant new or changed information to share.


You'll get these chapters here first, with the 2027 edition due for release in the New Year. And don't worry - if you've already bought this year's edition, contact me when the new release is out and I'll send you a free digital version.


10 - On feedback and discrimination


Any fair and reasonable recruitment requires three criteria to be met in filling a vacancy: capability, fit and stick.


Capability answers the question, ‘Can you fulfil the needs of the vacancy?’


This relates to the immediate problems a vacancy solves and can include you being available in the right time frame.


This also includes other dimensions such as forward-planning - for example, looking at the next job as well as this one through succession planning, or having confidential plans that will affect this role in future.


I classify the wrong work permit here in the same way a lack of a hard minimum qualification can be a deal breaker.


If you aren’t seen to be able to fulfil the role, for whatever reason, this is a capability rejection.


The good thing about capability is that this is feedback which should be straightforward to give in an objective process.


Fit is whether you are perceived to fit in or add to the business, culture and team.


Stick is when you are perceived to remain in post long enough for the employer to see a return on their investment. This includes points like salary affordability and even location, if the employer doesn’t believe your commute is sustainable. And ‘flight risk’ for those considered overqualified.


Unlike capability, both these points are mainly subjective.


What even is a culture or a sustainable commute anyway?


Unfortunately, bias and assumptions are a common occurrence.


I say ‘fair and reasonable’ because some employers are not, and even fair and reasonable employers make unfair or unreasonable assumptions.


So - three reasons only, yet each comes together in unique ways, both for selection and rejection.


A typical process


In the market we’ve found ourselves in during the last few years, many vacancies have many candidates who meet all of those criteria above.


The sheer volume alone can make it hard to identify the right candidates, more so when applicants may not know how to make their candidacy discoverable.


By discoverable, I mean enabling the weakest link in a recruitment chain to see your suitability through the principles covered in Part Three.


Here is what a typical vacancy might look like, working backwards, in a 2-stage interview process from a public job advert:


  • One candidate offered the position
  • 2-3 candidates at final interview
  • 5-8 candidates at 1st stage interview
  • 40-50 applicants who show suitable candidacy
  • Another 40-150 applicants who aren’t directly suitable yet have transferable skills
  • A further 150-200 applicants who are wholly unsuitable, which may be for reasons of work permit status or wrong background


That could be a total of 400 applications, where only one person gets the job.


Now let’s say those 5-8 candidates at 1st stage interview are all excellent, with little to choose between them.


What separates those who are selected and those who are declined?


You might be a qualified candidate. What’s to say the others aren’t as qualified in their own ways, some of whom might be more suited?


Sometimes it’s such fine margins that feedback may be meaningless.


I use this example to set the scene - there are other approaches to recruitment, such as headhunting, where the numbers look different.


I expect if you are reading this, you have at some point battled your way through a competitive process. If you were ‘pipped to the post’ as a 2nd choice candidate, take solace in being 2nd out of possibly hundreds - that’s an effective performance to build on.


When feedback goes wrong


If you’ve ever worked in a hiring capacity, you may know that giving feedback can be fraught with consequences.


Some years back, an early lesson on what can happen was a conversation I had with a candidate for an HR Director role.


This was a maternity leave contract. He was a close 2nd to a strong candidate. There wasn’t anything he might have done differently and, had that candidate declined, they would have been pleased to offer him the position.


He took the news and my feedback well, and we agreed to speak again at the earliest opportunity.


The following morning, I had a call from the HR Director, who was aghast. She’d received a vitriol-filled email from the candidate after my conversation with him. Accusations, ill wishes and swear words aimed at a professional who was heavily pregnant.


Even with the best intentions, seemingly good people can be triggered to act abhorrently.


Given that feedback may seemingly overlap with discrimination areas, such as being overqualified, it's no wonder many companies choose to either give platitudes or not to give feedback at all.


Generic feedback


These all tether to the list at the top, either directly or in a way that doesn’t cause issues.


What feedback would you give to someone that is abrasive or offensive at interview?


How about someone with atypical body language or communication style?


Someone who is down in the dumps?


Someone who likes cricket when you like football?


Someone who is arrogant and blind to the damage they’ve caused in previous jobs?


Someone who is a maintenance mode manager in an environment of rapid change?


Some of these descriptions relate to people who are illegally discriminated against, others to people who are simply unpleasant, and many more.


‘Cultural fit’ may sometimes be the straightforward way to explain a decision.


An easy way out with an individual you shouldn’t employ, something that hides poor process, something that hides discrimination, or something else.


And sometimes a simple way not to hurt someone’s feelings.


Whatever the reason, the worst it can invite is frustration for the candidate, rather than specific feedback which opens a can of worms.


Let’s talk about overqualified.


A popular social media post is that it’s impossible to be overqualified.


The more accurate truth is that there are only two states - you are either qualified or not qualified for a vacancy.


You are qualified if you meet the measure of capability, stick and fit.


You are unqualified if you don’t meet all three.


The use of the word overqualified is a lazy fallback that creates problems unnecessarily in a fair and reasonable process.


The common perception is that overqualification relates to seniority, a level of expertise above the requirements for the role, expense or even age, and this can be true. But these aren’t necessarily the reasons behind the use of the word.


The real issue with the word is its ambiguity.


Hidden context


When I recruit for any vacancy, there is typically a context not visible in the employer’s job description. This might be kept back for an interview or remain forever trapped in their heads.


One example might be the role trajectory - how it will change over time.


It might be a salary budget that has the balance of the team in mind.


It might be that the role won’t change at all. From a retention perspective, more junior candidates have more room to grow before it becomes blindingly boring to them.


Or it could be that the role is hands-on. A strategic expertise may be too far removed.


These might not be articulated clearly yet can be fair selection criteria for declining a candidate - where the recruiter might say overqualified instead.


By identifying these points, I can make them clear in my adverts and conversations, and applicants aren’t left bemused by decisions from hidden information.


And when I am wrong in my decision, I welcome constructive disagreement to allow clarity.


The examples here are simplified - the devil is always in the detail.


In most adverts and job descriptions, this key hidden context is often missing, making overqualified hard feedback to take.


I’d be annoyed if given that from an application to a generic job description-led advert full of innovative adjectives and no insight.


Regrettably, overqualified can also used to hide discrimination.


‘Flight risk’ is a reason for declining a candidate that is often bundled with overqualified.


“We think you’ll get bored.” Is intended to take the sting off, complimenting the candidate on their capability. It feels anything but, given candidates interview with intent and all available facts at their disposal.


Yet, if you consider that one of the primary decision drivers in recruitment is risk, is there a legitimate concern here.


There is a common long term thought process in a tough job search.


The first is to compromise and consider why more junior jobs might be sustainable. Maybe it will let you focus on the work you enjoy without the baggage of further responsibility.


Then if you were to gain the job, simply to be open minded about better opportunities that might be presented to you.


Who knows what the future might bring, and you are likely to commit to this junior role long-term.


Should that better opportunity present itself, you simply make an informed decision based on new information that presents itself.


This is advice I give to job seekers who are offered a more junior job.


Yet, with my recruitment hat on, over the past 2 years, I’ve never seen so many people leave recently taken jobs for better opportunities.


Where the employer had “given them a chance”, something any job seeker wants, then lost that colleague with all the disruption it entails.


This includes referring a friend to a peer, when they were desperate to leave their job. They’d even have taken minimum wage so bad was their current situation. My peer, following a two interview process, gave them a decent offer, only for them to accept a counter offer shortly after.


I wish my friend well – he made the best decision that he could. Yet I have let my peer down through the value of that referral – personal equity.


And my peer has let their hiring manager down through the same.


These things happen – a common phrase in recruitment. Yet, every time a risk actually happens, it makes it harder to consider that risk in future.


What these types of feedback have in common is that they can mean fair, neutral and unfair (and possibly illegal) reasons for declining your application.


Unless you have evidence of the harmful connotation, you should assume there is fair reason.


Here’s another common reason to unpick - industry experience.


Not so much to discuss whether it’s right to reject someone on this basis.


More so because it’s often a rejection that happens after an interview process, leading to the common question,


‘Why did they waste my time, when they knew I didn’t have industry experience?’


Industry experience is an example of how selection criteria shift throughout a recruitment process.


This might be because of the hierarchy of decision-makers. It’s not uncommon for additional decision-makers to become involved late in the process, who may have a strong objection that wasn’t present earlier.


Or how tight calls are judged between candidates.


The closer you get to the offer stage, the fewer candidates you compete with. What weren’t issues before can become decision-making factors at the final hurdle, everything else being even.


Is feedback worth it?


Feedback can be a game changer, particularly when we help candidates overcome blind spots, improve how they play the game, and deliver a better interview.


It’s always worth asking for feedback or ways to improve your performance. If that answer isn’t forthcoming, I’d question whether it’s worth pursuing, or if that energy is better spent elsewhere.


Assuming you perform well at interview, the question to consider is - when has feedback made a difference to you?


If feedback doesn’t make a difference you should act on, is it worth worrying about?


Or is it healthier to draw a line through that application, and move forward?


What can you do instead?


Self-reflection is key. After an interview, think back on the areas you did well and what you might have done differently.


For problem questions, write them down and think of better answers for future reference.


For questions you felt you answered well - run through them with a friend and ask them to time your response. Waffling never helps.


If you find yourself BSing, ask why. Was it a lack of confidence, rusty knowledge, or a gap to overcome?


Did you prepare well enough?


If answers aren’t coming from elsewhere, look within.


How can you better show that you solve the employer’s problems, through your capability, fit and stick?



Salary on the job description

By Greg Wyatt • November 11, 2026
I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency. On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot. That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency. This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever. Originally published May 2023 Salary on the Job Description? Yes, the headline is trolling. The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’ You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you? This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question. Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide:  Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard. Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to. LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised. My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time. There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale 's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary. It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications. Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’. Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement. I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics. It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this: How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right. What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels? What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business? It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary. At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k. Who does that help? The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place. It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root. We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay: Influence of Pay Transparency Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy. And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move. Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise. That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term. It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere. There's a benefit for prospective employers too. A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements. If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them. Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters. What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension? Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages? Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary. And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer. If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make. It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history. So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly. But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances. One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it. If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions. I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business. My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree. 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 Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client Outplacement support Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.

Tone deaf - No problem, pt 6

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026
It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.