On feedback

Greg Wyatt • April 16, 2024

This article is on the feedback you may get from applications, what they can sometimes mean, and why it happens.

Today I’m going to cover

  1. The only three reasons people are offered and declined for a vacancy

  2. Two scenarios for context, to illustrate how feedback is derived and its dangers, to give a little insight on employer limitations

  3. Detail on three ‘classic’ lines of feedback and what they can mean

  4. When feedback matters, and when it doesn’t

  5. And if feedback doesn’t help, what you should do instead

I try to present this information in an even and balanced way for UK jobseekers, based on my knowledge of recruitment, in supporting HR teams and hiring managers, and in networking with the talent acquisition community.

Feedback cultures differ around the world, but you may find this helpful if you are situated outside of the UK.

The intent is to try and make this aspect of a job search less frustrating, and to try and temper your expectations in what remains a strange market.

1

At its heart any fair and reasonable recruitment requires three criteria to be met, to fill a vacancy:

  1. Capability

  2. Fit

  3. Stick

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

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

As well as other dimensions such as forward-planning (e.g. if they look at the next job as well as this one, through succession planning. Or if they have 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 if 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 whether 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.

Unlike capability, both these points are primarily subjective.

What even is a culture or 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 has many facets and nuance, both for selection and rejection.

2

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

The sheer volume alone can make it hard to identify the right candidates, especially 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 the articles in this archive.

Here is what a typical vacancy might encounter working backwards, assuming there are no dropouts or cancellations, in a 2-stage interview process from a public job advert:

  • One candidate offered

  • 2-3 candidates at final interview

  • 5-8 candidates at 1st stage interview

  • 40-50 applications who show suitable candidacy

  • Another 40-150 applications who aren’t directly suitable yet have transferrable skills

  • A further 150 to 200 applications 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 great candidate, but what’s to say the others aren’t great in their own ways, some of which might be more suited?

Sometimes it’s such fine margins that feedback is meaningless.

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

However, 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.

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, and 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.

He took the news and my feedback very 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 vitriole-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.

Between that and the legal complexity of feedback that may seemingly overlap with discrimination areas, such as ‘Overqualified’ (more on that), it’s no wonder many companies choose to either give platitudes or not to give feedback at all.

3

There are many cliched pieces of feedback. In my opinion, they all tether to the list at the top, either directly or in a way that doesn’t cause offense.

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 ’.

Now a popular post on LinkedIn is that it’s impossible to be overqualified. It’s true, but not for the reason stated.

The more accurate truth is that there are only two states - you are either qualified or unqualified for a role.

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 they aren’t necessarily the reasons behind the use of the word.

The real issue with the word is that it can be used for good or to cover cynical reasons.

When I recruit for any vacancy, there is typically a context not visible in the employer’s job spec, which they might keep for an interview or remain trapped in their heads.

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

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

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

Or it could be that the role is hands on, and a strategic level of experience may be too far removed, while not working to the strengths of a more senior level candidate.

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, so that 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 for this article - 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 parse.

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, it’s also used as a euphemism, much like cultural fit, that can hide discrimination.

What these two principles have in common is that they can mean fair, neutral and unfair (and possibly illegal things).

However, unless you have evidence of the harmful connotation, you have to assume there is fair reason.

I do see commentary that recruiters and the front-end of hiring processes aren’t qualified to make these judgements, and it may even be so in many situations. However, we can only focus on the controllable, such as how we define our messaging, not the decisions others make, as frustrating as that might be.

I mentioned a third common reason to unpick - ‘ industry experience’.

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

Moreso 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.

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

And secondly, through how tight calls are judged between candidates.

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

This is a mercurial type of feedback that also raises its head with qualifications, education, and even cultural fit and overqualification. I’m not excusing it, simply highlighting why it can happen.

4

This isn’t to say that feedback isn’t worth pursuing.

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

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

If you’re interested in my philosophy on feedback, it’s this - to reciprocate the level of investment a candidate has made in the process.

An applicant who is wholly unsuitable and appears not to have read the advert gets a generic response.

A candidate who has committed to going through an interview process gets full feedback.

And everything in between.

However, I see it as important to give feedback in the spirit it’s meant, rather than verbatim.

For example, if someone’s nerves have led them to perform really poorly at an interview, I’ll look at tips to help them find confidence, rather than dwell on details that may even knock them back further.

Equally, some people prefer limited feedback by email, while others benefit from a call.

It’s a balance that isn’t always easy to get right.

Assuming you are performing well at interview, built on a successful career, the question I’d ask 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?

5

If you’re frustrated by a lack of feedback, what can you do?

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 you know will challenge you in the right way and ask them to time your response. Time management is key, and it’s unlikely employers will provide feedback on waffling!

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

Did you prepare well enough? Were there unanswered questions you had, you could have learnt beforehand?

If answers aren’t coming from elsewhere, looking within, and focusing on what you can control will help.

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

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

Jump the shark. A Recruitment AiDE, pt 13

By Greg Wyatt • January 29, 2026
May 2023 You’ve heard the phrase, I take it – “jump the shark”? It’s the moment when one surprising or absurd experience can indicate a rapid descent into rubbishness and obscurity. When it’s time to get off the bus. Typically in media. Jumping the Shark comes from an episode of Happy Days in which the Fonz does a water ski jump over a shark. 👈 Aaaaay. 👉 A sign creators have run out of ideas, or can’t be bothered to come up with fresh ones. In movies, sequelitis is a good example of this – an unnecessary sequel done to make some cash, in the hope the audience doesn’t care about its quality. Sometimes they become dead horses to flog, such as the missteps that are any Terminator film after 2. It’s an issue that can lead to consumers abandoning what they were doing, with such a precipitous drop in engagement that the thing itself is then cancelled. Partly because of breaking trust in what was expected to happen next. And because it’s a sign that the disbelief that was temporarily suspended has come crashing down. If you don’t believe that your current poor experience will lead to further, better experiences, why would you bother? Once you’ve had your fingers burnt, how hard is it to find that trust in similar experiences? It doesn’t have to be a single vein of experience for all to be affected. Watch one dodgy superhero movie and how does it whet your appetite for the next? You didn’t see The Eternals? Lucky you. Or how about that time we had really bad service at Café Rouge, a sign of new management that didn’t care, and we never went again? Just me? Did they sauter par-dessus le requin? Here’s the rub – it matters less that these experiences have jumped the shark. It matters more what the experience means for expectation. So it is in candidate experience. It’s not just the experience you provide that tempers expectations – it’s the cumulated experience of other processes that creates an assumption of what might be expected of yours. If you’re starting from a low trust point, what will it take for your process to ‘jump the shark’ and lose, not just an engaged audience, but those brilliant candidates that might only have considered talking to you if their experience hadn’t been off-putting? Not fair, is it, that the experience provided by other poor recruitment processes might affect what people expect of yours? Their experiences aren’t in your control, the experience you provide is. Of my 700 or so calls with exec job seekers, since The Pandemic: Lockdown Pt 1, many described the candidate experience touchpoints that led to them deciding not to proceed with an application. These were calls that were purely about job search strategy, and not people I could place. However, one benefit for me is that they are the Gemba , and I get to hear their direct experiences outside of my recruitment processes. Experiences such as - ‘£Competitive salary’ in an advert or DM, which they know full well means a lowball offer every time, because it happened to them once or twice, or perhaps it was just a LinkedIn post they read. Maybe it isn’t your problem at all, maybe your £competitive is upper 1% - how does their experience inform their assumptions? Or when adverts lend ambiguity to generic words, what meaning do they find, no matter how far from the truth? How the arrogance of a one-sided interview process affects their interest. The apparent narcissism in many outreaches in recruitment (unamazing, isn’t it, that bad outreach can close doors, rather than open them). Those ATS ‘duplicate your CV’ data entry beasts? Fool me once… Instances that are the catalysts for them withdrawing. I’d find myself telling them to look past these experiences, because a poor process can hide a good job. It’s a common theme in my jobseeker posts, such as a recent one offering a counterpoint to the virality that is “COVER LETTERS DON’T M4TT£R agree?” Experiences that may not be meant by the employer, or even thought of as necessarily bad, yet are drivers for decisions and behaviour. I can only appeal to these job seekers through my posts and calls. What about those other jobseekers who I’m not aware of, who’ve only experienced nonsense advice? What about those people who aren’t jobseekers? What about those people who think they love their roles? What about all those great candidates who won’t put up with bad experiences? The more sceptical they are, and the further they are from the need for a new role, the less bullshit they’ll put up with. What happens when an otherwise acceptable process presents something unpalatable? Might this jumping the shark mean they go no further? Every time the experience you provide doesn’t put their needs front and centre or if it’s correlated to their bad experiences…. these can prevent otherwise willing candidates from progressing with your process, whether that’s an advert they don’t apply to, a job they don’t start, or everything in between. Decisions that may stem from false assumptions of what a bad experience will mean. Instead, look to these ‘bad experience’ touchpoints as opportunities to do better: instead of £competitive, either state a salary or a legitimate reason why you can’t disclose salary (e.g. “see below” if limited by a job board field and “we negotiate a fair salary based on the contribution of the successful candidate, and don’t want to limit compensation by a band”) instead of a 1-way interrogation… an interview instead of radio silence when there’s no news - an update to say there’s no update, and ‘How are things with you by the way?’ instead of Apply Now via our Applicant Torture Sadistificator, ‘drop me a line if you have any questions’ or ‘don’t worry if you don’t have an updated CV - we’ll sort that later’. Opportunity from adversity. And why you can look at bad experiences other processes provide as a chance to do better. With the benefit that, if you eliminate poor experience, you'll lose fewer candidates unnecessarily, including those ideal ones you never knew about. Bad experiences are the yin to good experience’s yang and both are key parts of the E that is Experience in the AIDE framework. The good is for next time. Thanks for reading.  Regards, Greg

How To Network For A Job - Jobseeker Basics XIV

By Greg Wyatt • January 26, 2026
The following is Chapter 42 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . In a sense it's a microcosm of how any commercial activity can see a better return - which is to put the needs of the person you are appealing to above your own. It feels counterintuitive, especially when you have a burning need, but you can see the problem of NOT doing this simply by looking at 99% of job adverts: We are. We need. We want. What you'll do for us. What you might get in return. Capped off by the classic "don't call us, we'll call you." If you didn't need a job, how would you respond to that kind of advert? In the same vein, if you want networking to pay off, how will your contact's life improve by your contact? What's in it for them? 42 - How to network for a job Who are the two types of people you remember at networking events? For me two types stand out. One will be the instant pitch networker. This might work if you happen to be in need right now of what they have to offer or if mutual selling is your goal. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this but it’s a selling activity pretending to be networking. If you want to sell, go and overtly sell rather than disguise it with subterfuge. Lest we mark your face and avoid you where possible in future. The second is the one who gets to know you, shows interest and tries to add to your experience. You share ideas, and there’s no push to buy something. They believe that through building the relationship when you have a problem they can solve, you’ll think to go to them. It’s a relationship built on reciprocity. One where if you always build something together there is reason to keep in touch. And where the outcome is what you need if the right elements come together: right person, right time, right message, right place, right offering, right price. Job search networking is no different. The purpose of networking in a job search is to build a network where you are seen as a go-to solution should a suitable problem come up. In this case the problem you solve is a vacancy. Either because your active network is recruiting, or because they advocate for you when someone they know is recruiting. It is always a two-way conversation you both benefit from. Knowledge sharing, sounding board, see how you’re doing - because of what the relationship brings to you both. It is not contacting someone only to ask for a job or a recommendation. A one-way conversation that relies on lucky timing. That second approach can be effective as a type of direct sales rather than networking. If you get it wrong it may even work against you. How would you feel if someone asked to network with you, when it became clear they want you to do something for them? You might get lucky and network with someone who is recruiting now - more likely is that you nurture that relationship over time. If your goal is only to ask for help each networking opportunity will have a low chance of success. While if your goal is to nurture a relationship that may produce a lead, you’ll only have constructive outcomes. This makes it sensible to start by building a network with people that already know you: Former direct colleagues and company colleagues Industry leaders and peers Recruiters you have employed or applied through Don’t forget the friends you aren’t in regular touch with - there is no shame in being out of work and it would be a shame if they didn’t think of you when aware of a suitable opening. These people are a priority because they know you, your capability and your approach and trust has already been built. Whereas networking with people you don't know requires helping them come to know and trust you. Networking with people you know is the most overlooked tactic by the exec job seekers I talk to (followed by personal branding). These are the same people who see the hidden jobs market as where their next role is, yet overlook what’s in front of them. If you are looking for a new role on the quiet - networking is a go-to approach that invites proactive contact to you. Networking with people who know people you know, then people in a similar domain, then people outside of this domain - these are in decreasing order of priority. Let's not forget the other type of networking. Talking to fellow job seekers is a great way to share your pain, take a load off your shoulders, bounce ideas off each other, and hold each other accountable. LinkedIn is the perfect platform to find the right people if you haven't kept in touch directly. Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a conduit to conversation. It isn’t the conversation itself. Speaking in real life is where networking shines because while you might build a facsimile of a relationship in text, it's no replacement for a fluid conversation. Whether by phone and video calls, real life meetups, business events, seminars, conferences, expos, or in my case - on dog walks and waiting outside of the school gates. Both these last two have led to friends and business for me though the latter hasn’t been available since 2021. Networking isn’t 'What can I get out of it?' Instead, ‘What’s in it for them?’ The difference is the same as those ransom list job adverts compared to the rare one that speaks to you personally. How can you build on this relationship by keeping in touch? Networking is systematic, periodic and iterative: Map out your real life career network. Revisit anyone you’ve ever worked with and where Find them on LinkedIn Get in touch ‘I was thinking about our time at xxx. Perhaps we could reconnect - would be great to catch up’ If they don’t reply, because life can be busy, diarise a follow up What could be of interest to them? A LinkedIn post might be a reason to catch up When you look up your contact’s profile look at the companies they’ve worked at. They worked there for a reason, which may be because of a common capability to you Research these companies. Are there people in relevant roles worth introducing yourself to? Maybe the company looks a fit with your aspirations - worth getting in touch with someone who may be a hiring manager or relevant recruiter? Maybe they aren’t recruiting now. Someone to keep in touch with because of mutual interests. Click on Job on their company page, then "I'm interested" - this helps for many reasons, including flagging your interest as a potential employee Keep iterating your network and find new companies as you look at new contacts. This is one way we map the market in recruitment to headhunt candidates - you can mirror this with your networking The more proactive networking you build into your job search, the luckier you might get. While you might need to nurture a sizeable network and there are no guarantees, think about the other virtues of networking - how does that compare to endless unreplied applications? I often hear from job seekers who found their next role through networking. This includes those who got the job because of their network even though hundreds of applicants were vying for it. While this may be unfair on the applicants sometimes you can make unfair work for you. It can be effective at any level.