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?



An inverted job search

By Greg Wyatt • October 7, 2026
I realise I've shared this chapter fairly recently, but there's good reason to revisit it. On Friday, I launched a new AI tool - Your Job Search Plan. You can find it here: https://your-jobsearch-plan.netlify.app/ It's based on the inversion principle below: the optimal job search is an inversion of how that job is optimally recruited. In other words, the first step in a job search should be to understand how recruiters and hiring processes seek to fill your ideal vacancy. Then to access all those channels while putting your best foot forward. It connects your applications, your networking, your CV, your LinkedIn profile, and so on, all of which should stem from your professional identity, the context of your career, the market conditions for that career, and therefore the work you'll need to do to boost your odds. One thing I'm pleased about with this tool is how it relates to the other tools and resources on www.bwrecruitment.co.uk/resources . So what seemed abstract, or painful activities without guaranteed outcome, become a practical arrow in the quiver of your search. I hope you find these tools helpful. They are a starting point, rather than a resolution. 20 - An inverted job search So, your broad approach to looking for a job is based on a product marketing strategy. How does this link to your job search and how companies hire? The next step is to recognise a job search is an inverted recruitment process. Whatever you can learn about the actual workings of recruitment, the better armed you are to navigate them. The first way in which this is true is around the routes to market employers take to fill a job. Employers want to fill vacancies in the most economical and efficient means possible. Sometimes they’ll rely on external advice, sometimes they’ll figure out their own way, and sometimes they’ll employ people to do it for them (such as a Talent Acquisition Manager or internal recruiter). When they rely on external advice, it may not surprise you it’s as varied and contradictory as job seeker advice. Take this nugget of wisdom: 80% of suitable candidates are not actively looking for work. By advertising, you’ll only have access to the 20% that applies to adverts. Hang on a minute! Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the hidden jobs market? Of course, candidates aren’t hidden - much like hidden jobs, the priority is to understand the channels through which candidates are found. These channels directly mirror the channels through which you look for that job: Job boards; LinkedIn; Recruitment agencies; Confidential headhunting; Internal promotions; Secondments; Temp-to-perm hires; Consulting-to-perm hires; Referrals; Networking; Speculative approaches; Careers pages; Talent pools; Candidate databases Every job is different, dictated by principles like supply and demand, confidentiality, reputational risk, wherewithal, budget and capacity. The hiring process of a Software Developer is different from that of a Sales Director. If an employer only hires through an advert - this means if you don’t apply for adverts, there’s no way in which you can be considered for that vacancy. A second way it’s accurate is the notion that what’s true for one may not be true for others. This relates to candidate resentment . You may read online that some recruitment behaviours are signs of a bad employer. Yet, you should always follow the instructions given when applying for an advert or through an agency. They may instruct you to: 1/ Write a CV, cover letter and duplicate it on their ATS 2/ Tell them your salary when they don’t list theirs 3/ Do 17 interviews before reaching a decision 4/ Deliver a 6-month strategy plan by presentation 5/ Or any other request deemed unreasonable by Career Coaches, Job seekers, or people otherwise uninvolved in that process What some consider red flags, others will deem acceptable practice. It becomes your choice to play the game or not. Either follow their instructions or step away. You don’t have to apply if you don’t want to. In a similar vein, if you hear a hiring process has a preference, or if there are gaps in their employment armoury - these might be biases you can lean into. The hiring manager loves Arsenal Football Club and is biased towards people who love the same? Now might be the time to switch allegiance, if you can fake it or make it. They love a one page CV? Apply with a one page CV. You know the hiring manager of an advert with 400 applications? Give them a call - they might give you an unfair advantage. Poor practice from the employer, yet these are problems you can turn into opportunity. A third way in which this is true is by comparing inbound and outbound activity Outbound activity is where you go to your prospect (phone calls, messaging). Inbound activity is where the prospect comes to you (job adverts, content). Yet an outbound activity for a recruiter is an inbound activity for you (you receive phone calls and messages). While an inbound activity has you getting in touch because of their advert or content. When we talk about optimising your work, whether your CV, profile or interviews, it has to give the process what it needs. How can you be more discoverable, so you receive more relevant calls and messages? How can you improve your return on applications and your outbound messages? What about inverse non-recruitment? A brilliant, if strange question, with the same answer. When networking, going direct, seeking to become a referral, doorknocking, or other, what is the inverse of that activity? How does that person find or recommend people, if they become aware of a vacancy? How might they see you as a person to solve their problems, even if it isn’t a vacancy? You do these activities because of how they might help you and because of the benefit the other party experiences. What’s in it for them? If there isn’t anything in it for them, why should they help you? For each and every stage in recruitment, there is an opposed force, as candidates and the hiring process meet each other. It’s rarely an equal force, because every vacancy has supply and demand, resource, skill level, biases and intent at play. This is why each type of role has a different method of looking for work. Executive vacancies typically prioritise headhunted candidates, with fewer public adverts. Here the priority shifts towards building relationships with, and being discoverable by, Executive Search recruiters. If executives rely mainly on job boards, they may never think to focus on more suited channels. If you can learn what the other needs for that process to be successful, you can deliver the same. Speak to peers, speak to hiring managers you know, speak to recruiters, speak to former job seekers. How have they found work, and how would they recruit for your roles? Research your market to find viable employers, to identify recruiters and to build your network.  Then execute an appropriate strategy to access these channels.

Hierarchy of Pain

By Greg Wyatt • September 23, 2026
I had an aborted conversation at a networking event on Tuesday. It was about a problem vacancy a fractional people lead was looking at. Her client had instructed various executive search firms and none had produced a viable candidate. It seems the consistent approach was to match CVs to job description - pureplay transactional - and none were candidates that met the goal of the vacancy. You see that organisational pain that the vacancy heals wasn't defined by documentation, and therefore if you rely on that documentation to find candidates, it's happenstance that you come across someone viable. It's such a common problem, and when I 'fix' problem vacancies, it's invariably something that isn't described which was holding back a successful hire. The irony is this shouldn't be a hidden pain - presuming it's appropriate to share, it should be front and centre. What complicates modern recruitment is that, instead of better specifying vacancies, both sides of the hiring fence increasingly rely on LLMs to produce documentation that shaves the edges off. And as a result a candidate that has extensively healed the hidden pain a vacancy might even remove the evidence from their application in a bit to better match an advert or job description. The more transactional recruitment comes, particularly through reliance on technology, the worse this problem becomes. Probably not an issue for business as usual vacancy, but when a vacancy has impact, standard process of "5 CVs by Friday" will invariably hold you back. The chapter below is from A Career Breakdown Kit , my guide for navigating a skewiff employment market. It may be for job seekers, but the problem and solution are directly mirrored by the hiring side. It's taken word for word from the book, so some of the content is interconnected with other chapters. You can read most of them for free in the Jobseeker Basics newsletter. Hierarchy of pain This chapter reflects on how buyers make decisions, how this is reflected in hiring and why it matters in how you put forward your CV, application, interviews and other messages. If you’ve ever encountered sales in your career or life you are likely familiar with the concepts of Features and Benefits. The product is what is proposed. Features are what it does. Benefits are how it helps. However there are actually three other components in this hierarchy that make up commercial messaging. Value is what the benefits mean to you. “Sell the sizzle, not the sausage” - the sizzle isn’t a benefit, if you don’t like sausages. Outcomes are the tangible long-term results from using that product or service. “Sell the picture frame, not the screwdriver” - or rather what’s in the frame. Why does it matter? The idea being these peel back the layers of the onion to help a potential customer understand exactly What’s In It For Them. Yet, it may not matter whatsoever if your brilliantly put together message doesn’t achieve one element - show how you heal their hidden pain. In that frame example above, this might be a photo of a loved one, no longer with us. The photo is for our memories and feelings. The frame has to be right, to commemorate them properly. While it needs to be mounted well, using tools that make the job easier. Could you market that loss to sell a screwdriver? Hopefully not, though the message might be, “For memories that matter,” instead of "High Quality Screwdriver". It's a common pain many share, yet not one you might discuss down the DIY shop. Early in my career I had a lesson on hidden pain and its importance. I recruited an HR Manager for a high growth business whose requirement was for someone with broad experience in a similar environment. I presented an excellent candidate who was only available due to the shutdown of her employer - she had to stay to the final day to manage the process well, which limited her availability to start work. That was the only reason I explained her current situation to this new employer, because redundancy management wasn’t on the job description. She got the job! On day one of her new employment, her role was made redundant and she was offered a retention bonus to shut down the local site - everyone was to lose their jobs. The hidden pain here was redundancy, something not even mentioned to me during the vacancy briefing, and something I never broached with Julie. IIRC, there was no mention of it during the interview process either. Perhaps that’s an extreme example, but it does show what can happen behind the scenes. And if you happened to be out of work, a fixed term contract with a retention bonus might be quite appealing. Were you to apply to that vacancy, it would be important to highlight your redundancy experience - customising your CV might even have worked against you! So how does this hierarchy fit within your job search? You are the product, with your next employer on a buyer’s journey. Your features are what you offer. In a CV this is a combination of job titles, qualifications, skills and areas of experience. It’s also your salary requirement, where you are based and other elements like Visa status and working arrangements. Get these right and a little luck might mean they are all you need, considering that these same elements are what we source and filter on. I expect in this market you’re in competition with many people that offer the same Features, so the differentiator is what you bring to the table uniquely. The contexts of your career combined with how you helped, your impact, your achievements, and what the outcomes were. Related chapters: Principles of a Good CV Should I customise my CV? LinkedIn profiles that get found LinkedIn profiles that convert These are all resources that will help you communicate the benefits of your experience, the value you bring, the problems you solve, and the outcomes of these solutions. As for the hidden pain question, which in many vacancies isn’t articulated, how can you unpick hidden? Go back to why vacancies are recruited. How did they come about in the first place? They only fit into two piles - new and replacement. However these two piles have many subcategories relating to the problems they solve and the pain they heal. Researching the company can help. Inside knowledge definitely helps - it’s one reason good agency recruiters will be a valuable ally. But this knowledge isn’t always available, and sometimes the employer may not even know! I always come back to the principle, “You can’t be all things to all people.” And when you try to do this, you appeal to no one. It’s one reason why using LLM style AI to customise CVs is so problematic. The output is necessarily same-same because it’s a probabilistic determination of what you want based on an aggregate of data. It’s why, when recruiters receive a volume of AI augmented CVs, they all look the same. Your ‘good enough’ core CV ( Should I customise my CV ) leans into your strengths. While you might tweak it to meet the essential requirements, in the language of the employer, this should naturally support your greatest strength - the unique fingerprint that is your career. The downside of relying on customisation against vague, and often misrepresentative, adverts is that you can deemphasise and even remove your biggest achievements. The same achievements that would have helped you stand out. If your application doesn’t heal the hidden pain of a vacancy, it’s either because you have not defined your strengths correctly or you aren’t that close of a fit with the actual needs of the vacancy. An example to show this pitfall in practice. I caught up with a friend yesterday who has resigned from a post that was missold to him. His career is based on commercial acumen and enablement in a field that is heavily focused on risk management and compliance. So he’s already unusual in a good way (though his CV didn’t show this). On day one of his new job, he encountered a literal unexpected disaster. While these things happen, and he managed the situation effectively, this proved a consequence of the business culture and strategy. These problems kept coming up and his functional area in the business needed a complete overhaul at executive level. Rather than the commercial enablement picture they painted, they needed someone who relished chaos - a master of disaster. Completely the opposite of the career Simon wants. This isn’t something they could publicise in their recruitment process, for reputational reasons, yet it was a fundamental baked-in aspect of the role. I’ve no doubt Simon’s CV is a match for their job description. Yet he is not a match for their job. What if they’d seen CVs of people who’d leant into strengths of healing dysfunction? What if he’d leant into his strength of enablement? He may not have left his previous job for something he went on to regret. If you’re sceptical about how crucial hidden pain is in recruitment, think about your own hidden pain when applying for jobs. What’s going on in your life that impacts which roles are ideal for you. The same points you might not divulge when you’re just trying to get back into employment. Perhaps you've even experienced the pain I did when considering a hardware purchase. How did that pain inform your buying decisions? It’s no different for employers when they consider the pain and problems inherent in their vacancy.