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?



Better use of job boards

By Greg Wyatt • April 20, 2026
On Tuesday 28th April at 1pm BST, Simon Ward and I will be joined on our weekly LinkedIn Live by CV Library. I'll share the details of this free interactive session as soon as the event link is available - bring your questions. If you don't know CV Library it's one of the main job boards in the UK. While they might sit behind others in terms of coverage, I find them easy to work with and helpful - they are responsive, they have fewer fake jobs than LinkedIn, they have a CV database I can search across that is in many ways more effective than #OpenToWork. They'll be showing how to get a better mileage from their CV database, as a job seeker, and many other helpful things - points you can apply to LinkedIn too, as an inbound sources of recruiter searches and the principles we use to look for viable candidates. It seems timely to share this updated chapter from A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) , which I will no doubt update with learnings from the session. 38 - Better use of job boards Job boards are often the first port of call when new to a job search. It’s a natural inclination that they are where vacancies are to be found. Quickly followed by disappointment, anxiety and frustration when you get close to 0% hit rate. And not even a single reply. Let’s take a step back, look at the overall picture and make a plan. There are many job boards in the UK that sell their systems to employers and recruitment agencies. You may be familiar with Indeed, Reed, CV Library, Jobsite / Totaljobs, LinkedIn (yes, it is a job board, disguised by being a social media platform). Aside from the generic, there are also many sites specific to your niche. As well as ATS platforms themselves. Job boards sell two things to their clients - advertising and access to their CV database. Although LinkedIn differs in how it is wrapped up with content and networking, it does have a form of CV database in how we can use the Recruiter Licence to search profiles (we can even make do without through more advanced techniques such as X-ray searching and programmable search engines). There are also aggregator websites which scrape content from one job board to their own or a third party. You can often tell because when you click apply it takes you to another website instead of properly starting an application. Job board priorities and what that means for you Job boards want to sell their services and make money, which is entirely sensible. To support their argument they use all sorts of metrics such as the number of CVs on their database and the number of applications made (by job or month). It’s to their advantage that adverts receive as many applications as possible - their advice on improving advert performance is geared around volume. Rather than around suitable candidates. This disconnect happens because clients often lie about how effective adverts have been by the measure of vacancies filled - because of concern it will affect renewal prices. This is feedback given to me from account managers at two different job boards when researching job search advice. Job boards can only prove the number of applications, so that becomes the target. The most effective job adverts have fewer applications and a higher number of suitable candidates - what I aim for in mine. To maximise the number of applications they do things like scraping, aggregation and affiliate arrangements. They offer services like automatic relisting where an advert is reposted as new once a week throughout the term of the listing (could be up to 6 weeks by default, or longer by choice). These are sold as benefits to employers which might help when there are limited candidates, yet often hinder when there are too many candidates for jobs. You may remember the same from Fake jobs (p81). They make it as Easy as possible for you to Apply for these jobs, so that you can be an additional metric. As Goodhart says, ‘When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.’ The consequence for you as an applicant is twofold. You are encouraged to be one of the numbers of applicants to purposefully generic adverts you are not the most suitable for. When you are the most suitable, you are in competition both with people from the line above and people who are wholly unsuitable. I should point out I don’t think job boards do this cynically. They do so because they think high numbers are best. It’s also a problem for recruiters who may find it impossible to deal with this volume unless through automation or by finding ways to manually eliminate applications at scale. Job boards, employers, agencies and candidates are all wrapped up in this cycle of speed and volume. And with use of AI-style automation, so too are many job seekers. Where's the specificity and accuracy? Though it might be the best way to make money. Job seekers are accountable too, partly because of how they have been trained to apply. Don’t blame recruiters. Don’t blame employers. Don’t blame unqualified applicants. Blame the system we are all part of. And if you ever find yourself a hiring authority - be the change you hope for. Better use of job boards Let’s go back to that point about applications. In the current market, it’s not uncommon to see hundreds to thousands of applications per vacancy. Rarely are those applications qualified candidates. For a typical job description templated advert you can expect the high majority of applicants to be wholly unsuitable. What do I mean by wholly unsuitable? People who require work permits when a role doesn’t sponsor them. People who don’t meet the minimum requirements set out in an advert. People who are clearly unsuitable for this role. When you see a number, don’t be disheartened by the number alone. As a job seeker, your minimum requirement to apply for a vacancy should be that you can logically prove to yourself you are qualified based on the evidence provided. Read back through Should I customise my CV? (p178) for more on this. … tips and bits Finding vacancies is as important as applying for them. Collect those synonyms you’ve been tailoring your CV with and use these in your searches. If you find an obscure term which represents what you can do, why not search solely on that term? You might find a horribly written advert whose only correct word is that term. It’s a trick we use to find candidates too - occasionally I might search on something like ‘egnieer’ because typos don’t make a bad candidate. Location is a key search criterion. Most people search from their home address. How about running tight searches where you are prepared to work - e.g. 1 mile from CB4 0WZ (a hub for business parks in Cambridge where I worked many moons ago). How to optimise for CV databases When you apply for a vacancy on a new job board they will likely have a CV database tethered to your application. Your permission to have your CV added may be hidden in their terms and conditions. A CV database is an opportunity for you to be found. Sometimes this will be for vacancies that are never advertised, such as the example I wrote about earlier. You have an opportunity to leverage CV databases to improve the number of inbound enquiries you receive. Log all the job boards you’ve applied through Make a list of all that have CV databases, including login details Ensure your CV is up to date containing the keywords for the job you are most suitable for Check your contact details are correct Check all the details on your account. Salary details, location, preferences should all be current. Register your postcode for where you want to be found. If you plan to move to Scunthorpe in April, that should be your current location. It’s where we will look for you Update your CV and profiles once a week. It shouldn’t take long. If you are active in the past week, this will show up in recruiter searches, assuming a recruiter only looks at activity from the past 14 days The CV databases at the back end of job boards are one of the resources I use to fill roles whether advertised or not. They’re a good marginal gain and may bring you leads you’d never hear about otherwise. A note on the ATS Whenever you come across an advert linked to an ATS like Workable, many companies will use that ATS. These may recruit for relevant vacancies in a commutable location. Try this command in Google - site: workable.com London “Marketing Manager” Site: directs the search to a particular website. Change the location and job title to ones relevant for you. Some of these vacancies may never make it to a job board you are aware of. Why you should hack LinkedIn advert results URLs (website page addresses) are a funny thing - they often contain commands for a website related to your requests. Changing certain points can have interesting results. For example, here’s a URL for a job search for Marketing Manager near me over the past 24 hours: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search-results/?f_TPR=r86400&keywords=Marketing%20Manager&origin=JOBS_HOME_SEARCH_BUTTON Don’t worry about the bulk of the URL. Take note of the bold - r86400 which matches seconds in a day. Let’s say you log on at 9.30am and you want to check jobs posted in the last hour. This feature isn’t available as standard in the search tools. However, you can edit the URL from a standard search to: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search-results/?f_TPR=r3600&keywords=Marketing%20Manager&origin=JOBS_HOME_SEARCH_BUTTON Because there are 3,600 seconds in an hour. Try it and see what happens. (Edit: in error checking for this article, originally updated in January, this particular ‘hack’ no longer appears to work. Why not try it yourself on a job you’re interested in and let me know if it works for you? I’ll update this properly for the next book update. I've left it here to show how this kind of tactical advice can change so quickly as to make it obsolete. Next week's article is on Content Strategy & Philosophy for promoting yourself on LinkedIn. Call it personal branding, call it copywriting - expect some people to jump on with strong opinions without reading the article) 

A social superpower - the big truth about little lies

By Greg Wyatt • April 16, 2026
(With luck she won't sue me for copyright infringement) I was reminded about the imperative to lie at times, when commenting on a post about namism this week. Namism is discrimination against uncommon names, with proof that a change of name improves the likelihood of getting an interview from an application. A lie that mitigates the worst behaviour in a recruitment process seems reasonable behaviour to me. What follows is an article released around the same time as my sister's book, as a tribute to her fine work. At the time I planned to call it "Nothing but the truth" the name she refused to use, because her publisher told her negative titles don't sell - he clearly hasn't seen a Bond film. Instead, I went for a House quote, "Everybody lies", because like it or not, everybody does. June 2023 At the end of her speech, my sister made a simple request: “Put your hand in the air if you’ve lied today.” Only one person didn’t put their hand up – me. Lying’s not in my nature, except in a couple of specific situations where no harm is caused. You can believe that or not, up to you. The earlier part of the speech touched on all those little moments in our lives where we tell a little lie, either to ourselves or someone else. Sometimes it’s to protect feelings. Sometimes to protect ourselves. Sometimes it’s to keep up the narrative of how we are perceived because we don’t want to share our secret selves. It was a great launch for a book on how society doesn’t just put up with lies to function, it may even rely on them. She interviewed a wide range of experts on lying including spies and toddler scientists, showed how the face can lie, and talked about her amnesia and what it was like to be in the closet. She didn’t interview me about recruitment, so I’m putting that right today. Lies are rampant everywhere you look in recruitment. In a survey last year, 51% of respondents admitted to lying on their CVs. I expect the true number to be higher, considering some won’t even admit a lie to themselves. It’s common to extrapolate behaviour from what we experience. One lie may lead to more, and that may be the only reason you need to reject a candidate. Not all lies are born equal. Broadly I differentiate them between lies of impact, lies to protect, and lies of inconsequence. A lie of impact is one which leads to a decision based on that lie. Here an example would be John Andrewes , who lied about his experience and qualifications to land a top NHS job. He was jailed for 2 years and required to pay £100k, the remainder of his assets. Fraud. Or lying about reasons for departure – they say redundancy, they meant gross misconduct. Misrepresenting capability and qualifications. Mispresenting a role to make it more appealing. £Competitive salary, when you meant lowball to get a deal. The lies we should find and cull at the earliest opportunity. A lie to protect can be many things. I remember an HR candidate early in my career who changed her name twice. It was highly suspicious to me at the time. “Apunanwu Oluwayo” became “Apunanwu Roberts” became “Judith Roberts”. This first change suggested a marriage or divorce. The second I couldn’t fathom. What a liar, 2005 Greg thought. Of course, now I know better. It’s likely she changed her name to a British one because she suffered from namism – one report indicates candidates are 60% less likely to receive a call-back with a foreign-sounding name. Despite my ignorance, I gave Judith the benefit of the doubt and invited her to interview. You can see why blind CVs are a fair measure to prevent this happen, although I wonder if it’s better to treat the illness rather than rely on palliative measures. How about not disclosing identifiable education for the same reasons? What about disability and neurodivergence? If a condition requires an accommodation to fulfil a role, is non-disclosure a lie by omission? Another could be lying about reasons for departure – they said ‘left to focus on a job search’, they meant they couldn’t put up with a harmful environment any longer. A lie of protection, which isn’t one of impact, should be clarified but, in my opinion, not penalised without investigation. The lie above is one of protection – I changed the names to protect the individual, one of the situations in which I will lie deliberately, with good reason. How about a lie of inconsequence? By this I mean a lie that doesn’t impact employability, reflect capability or have any bearing on what that person is like to work with. Examples here might be fudging employment dates to prevent the question “Why were you unemployed for 2 days in 2012?” Or perhaps they might say People Business Partner on their CV, which they fulfilled functionally, yet had a misrepresentative job title of Operations Manager. Sometimes what seem to be lies of impact, might be lies of inconsequence: I once had a candidate withdraw from an interview. Aladdin said his father had passed away, and he had decided to suspend his job search. I spoke to the hiring manager, Jaffar, and said “This smacks of lying” principally because of a change in behaviour that didn’t seem related to grief, and the very high mortality rate candidates sometimes experience throughout recruitment. It was a tough vacancy to fill, so we made a plan. Jaffar would contact him directly a couple of weeks after, to check in and see if he fancied a pint. We put our suspicion aside, while also considering how he might have perceived his relationship with me. Long story short Aladdin took the job and was there for eight years. He gave me a lovely recommendation too. I’m pleased to say his father made a full recovery. While this appears to be a lie of impact, it’s actually one of inconsequence. He lied because he didn’t feel safe telling me he was having second thoughts. That’s on me, because it is my job to create a safe space for candidates so that they trust me and tell me inconvenient truths. It’s not dissimilar to the hilariously high rate of car breakdowns in recruitment. Have we considered our part in that lie? These three types of lies are a gross simplification to paint the picture. Our perception of lying is highly subjective, and there is no one right answer. I think it’s understandable to feel a lie is a dealbreaker. For lies of impact, this should be the case. For other lies though, perhaps a judgment call is better than an assumption. Why did that person lie? Could it even be something we did? Does that lie really matter? And if it does matter – how many times have you lied in the same way today? The next eminently-an-epistole is on technical debt in recruitment, and why we should consider the long-term impact of a short-term compromise.  Regards, Greg P.s. if you’re interested in Kathleen’s book, you can read about it here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Superpower-Truth-About-Little-ebook/dp/B09MDWNL44