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

De Facto Automated Rejection & You

By Greg Wyatt • November 12, 2026
While 2027 remains surprisingly far away, with plenty of time to start applications, attend interviews, gain an acceptable job offer and even start work, I'm already thinking about the biannual update to A Career Breakdown Kit. Only, nothing's really changed in terms of what might affect the steps you take, overall, since the last update, so any changes are likely to only be minor. This might surprise you, if you feel that AI has increasingly eaten into how applications are administered and assessed. While the changes that are actually happening make the treatise of this article more important, which is to look at how recruitment actually happens in informing your strategy. Changes that may not be widespread but are emerging - deprioritising advertising roles in favor of sourcing (looking for candidates), because of the volume of applications; adding extra friction into applications, penalising relevant candidates because of AI applications made automatically; even discounting applications wholesale if they come from they are sent by a mass-apply service. I do see people regularly showcasing features of various ATSs over the years that seem to show automated rejections, yet these features rarely worked well, and haven't changed much in two decades. As I mentioned to Martyn, at a recent Recruitment Technology standards launch in the UK, "it doesn't matter how good the technology layer is, if the human layer is the problem". Martyn Redstone is Head of Responsible AI at Warden, and I'm fortunate that he will be joining me and Simon Ward on a LinkedIn Live as we discuss what this topic means for job seekers. I'll update this newsletter with the event when it's live. In the meanwhile, Martyn is well worth following to understand what's actually happening with AI in recruitment. It's still important to acknowledge the poor experiences job seekers have, and to try and shed light on what is happening, in what I call: 6 - De Facto Automated Rejection and You When there’s any discussion over Beat the Bots, job seekers often assume they are unfairly treated, while people from the recruitment profession deny it happens at all - “that’s not how the ATS works”, “we don’t use AI that way”, and so on. The best objection I see to the common recruiter stance is, “What does it matter how we are rejected, if we were never fairly considered?” That question is the heart of this chapter and, to answer it, I need to propose a new term: De facto automated rejection. Definition: where an element of a recruitment process leads to an application being either rejected or not considered, irrespective of capability, contribution, or potential alignment. That may sound an awful lot like Automated Rejection, yet it isn’t the same thing. Examples: No application after number 100 considered Illegal discrimination Legal discrimination - location, salary, industry, qualification, etc - legally permissible decisions driven by assumption Relying on configured ranking within an ATS to prioritise applications Not considering candidates who aren't picked up by a Boolean search (sourcing) Filter questions at advert stage (e.g. do you have a work permit?) Applying after the vacancy is at interview stage And many more All de facto automated rejections have one thing in common, and it isn’t automation - it’s human decision-making, including shortcuts and assumptions. Some of those examples above are cited when talking about auto-rejects. However, these are all consequences of human intervention and the choice not to intervene. There are an increasing number of AI products that automate these steps, with the requirement of human oversight - I've yet to speak to a recruiter that wholly relies on them, and few who don't view every application. This is one reason why ATS Compliance and Beat the Bots are a red herring. The advice fails not because it’s wrong, but because it optimises the wrong layer. The system is only a component in the process, governed by humans. If you misdiagnose de facto automated rejection as a technical problem, you’ll keep trying to outsmart systems instead of changing how you’re seen, found, and prioritised by people. Understanding how recruiters handle their process and giving them what they need in an application has to take priority. While the same steps that “optimise human compliance” are implicitly system-compliant. The challenge is that human compliance relies on what makes us individual: our skill level, our insight, our psychology, our biases, our resources and the time available to us. As well as how you navigate these. Without forgetting that we are people like you, often trying to do too much with too little. It’s no wonder our frustrations mirror yours, with the difference that we earn a salary for our experiences. ATS Compliance feels more comfortable, because it gives a clear direction, even if it’s the wrong one. It is true we use filters and keywords to prioritise how our applications are presented to us. We do the same when we look for candidates, whether on LinkedIn, job boards, our ATS or other means. All this does is present results in a way that allows us to spend more attention on those that meet the criteria we have set. When we review those results, the way that information is presented informs whether we progress them or not. To be human compliant, your application has to be discoverable, then it has to convert interest. Fail on either front and you’ll either be rejected or you won’t hear at all. If humans are the reasons you are rejected for reasons unrelated to capability or contribution... well, I think that’s rather more problematic than technology. Beat the Bots and ATS Compliance aren’t just a red herring - they can actively hold you back. Because they place the wrong priority by presenting a strategy, rather than simple hygiene. Your wider strategy should encompass far more than applications - getting found, starting conversations, doorknocking, networking and all these other opportunities that can get you closer to a job: These are fundamentally covered in a human compliance strategy. I just happened to call it A Career Breakdown Kit instead, with how to do these in Parts 2 and 3. I realise this may create a feeling of overwhelm, when you realise there is much more to a better application than the transactional steps of ATS compliance. Yet these same steps will improve every aspect of your job search and some are straightforward to take - go to www.bwrecruitment.co.uk/resources for the free CV template that is an easy starting point. 

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.