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

My new book - A Recruitment AiDE

By Greg Wyatt • April 30, 2026
I'm thrilled to announce the publication of A Recruitment AiDE. A guide, philosophy and discipline for effective key hire recruitment. The timing’s perfect, given the deluge of AI content that floods our feeds. Imagine how these similarly produced generic adverts land with people you want to talk to. "We're thrilled to announce we want, we need, here’s our shopping list, why aren’t you responding and oh what’s this flood of AI CVs?" It doesn’t have to be this way. This has taken twenty-five years of hard graft - talking to job seekers, researching the market and recruitment practice, learning about candidate resentment, problem awareness, marketing, copywriting, and the psychology of what moves people. With the evidence that backs this up. The result is something that may make you rethink your approach to recruitment. That will improve the number of qualified candidates, while reducing the total number of applications. It's too early to prove, but my expectation is this will reduce the number of AI CVs too, given there is less for AI to grab when you speak to professional identity. You’ll have to be bold, go against the grain, do something that feels counterintuitive, especially if someone has their hand on your shoulder saying "This isn't the company style!" But then, what does it take to stand out from the crowd? And if you really want to attract the best people, shouldn’t your first step be focused on them, and not you? Kindle version out now. Here's the link: https://amzn.eu/d/03idlAVM.  Paperback in two weeks. If you don’t like Evilcorp, let me know and we can work something out.

Content strategy and philosophy

By Greg Wyatt • April 27, 2026
What follows is Chapter 40 of A Career Breakdown Kit , and part two of a three part series on Personal Branding. Except it isn't. There are various definitions I revolt against, with good reason, in a job search. Personal branding, hidden jobs markets, ATS compliance, and all the others. Terms that seem to hide secret wins, not replicable steps, especially when hidden behind a paywall. I call it the title that's expected because of the questions job seekers ask me. You may recall my article on the Hidden Jobs Market breaks it apart and rebuilds it into a cohesive multichannel marketing strategy that allows you to access the whole of your jobs market. And so it is with my personal branding series. This isn't about your brand. Or even about your reputation. It's about pushing content that starts conversations with relevant people - such as peers, former colleagues, recruiters with a vested interest in these content areas, and even people that can put you closer to a job. Not forgetting fellow job seekers you can share experiences with - as long as you don't dwell on the negative. And it's also about writing in a way that is both true to you and your profession - because conversation has to follow in the same voice as you write, and should support your work, when in work. It's a strategy and philosophy that mirrors earlier chapters on networking, doorknocking, getting found and converting interest. It isn't about writing credible statements in a content savvy way that shares unprovable anecdotes, hacks that lack substance, and where a funnel means more than a lesson. That way is the way of social media marketing - this is about conversations that matter. 40 - Content strategy and philosophy While a personal brand might be the goal, your content strategy should be the priority. It can be applied even if you don’t like the idea of branding. Much is made about LinkedIn’s algorithm and how you need to do this that and the other to get engagement. You can look at it differently, ignoring the algorithm on the whole, and still achieve much the same. These are the outcomes I aim for and see when writing content: Start conversations Help others Sharpen and spark ideas Raise awareness and trust Have a laugh and a chat I’ve gained friends I’ve never spoken to and friendly acquaintances I only know through ‘comments.’ As well as paying clients who have benefitted from my service. Just as importantly, I have more credibility with candidates who place weight on LinkedIn content. Content makes it easier for me to start conversations. It’s important for me that I either enjoy the content and its consequences or find it fulfilling. I don’t talk openly about my personal life, family or challenges. Something I agreed with my wife when I started publishing content. Instead, I show all of myself in my words - quirks and all. So that if we ever speak in real life, there isn’t much of a disconnect. Start with other people’s content Find content writers who inspire you and use them as a catalyst for your own words. There are two ways to do this. Firstly, if you’re thinking about writing on LinkedIn, you are presumably already reading content. What inspires you? What do you enjoy reading? Which authors resonate with your career, your values, your goals and the problems you solve? When you read their content, do you engage and comment? Do you connect with them? Do you ask them who they recommend as writers in your field? Secondly, look within. What do you want to be known for in your career? Maybe it’s procurement or your CIPD membership. React or agile. 5 Whys or Gemba. If these are areas that interest you, use the LinkedIn search bar to find posts on these topics. Now filter the results by ‘Posts’ and ‘Sort by’ latest. Read through the results both for posts that interest you and those that have high engagement (less likely on a niche topic). When you’ve found inspiring content, what next ? One first step in content creation is to respond to these posts with your own ideas. Less ‘Agree’ and more how you might respond in a real-life conversation on this topic. Commenting on other people’s posts is a good way to find your voice, particularly if the conversation continues. Like any skill, writing takes practice, and comments are a low-friction way of developing your tone. If a comment sparks interest from other readers, it can be a concept to build on as a post in its own right. The other benefit of this kind of niche content is that those who engage are likely to have similar interests to you. Make sure to read other comments and see if there are more conversations to be had. The comments you build with them can be the start of a mutually beneficial relationship. Check out their profiles - do their interests and values reflect yours? These are people to connect with, then DM to continue the conversation. Check out their posting history, which will be available on their profile - there may well be a lot of interesting content to absorb. With conversation comes content. Ideas and discussion that grow are an effective way to share your voice. Here’s a suggestion for how you can do this in practice: Look for 5 posts daily that interest you professionally - manually, using a search, or checking what your valuable connections are up to Engage and comment on each Check out new relevant profiles - connect and follow their content On each post, look at who is engaging and respond naturally Try to connect with 5 new relevant people from these interactions Perhaps follow up with a message Take note of the most interesting conversations and at the end of the week pick at least one to inspire your own posts You don’t need to publish them if you aren’t comfortable - save for later if not I’d avoid the viral content that combines relevance + relatability + entitlement + readability. These writers are more interested in engagement numbers than your specific interest. You can see the truth of their words in how they respond in the comments sections. From a marketing perspective, different types of content have different places in your lead generation: Awareness Interest Consideration Evaluation Purchase Each post, comment, DM and real-life conversation can relate to these steps and support your goals, even if you aren’t treating these as a marketing activity. Time and time again There’s a lot of investigation into optimal times to post. It’s more important that you are available to reply attentively in the first hour. The course of a post is often dictated by the performance during this time. I actively reply to comments for around an hour a day with LinkedIn on in the background of other work. How much time can you set aside per week and per day for content? Even if you only write a couple of posts a week, this will probably take a couple of hours. You can expect low performance initially, with some exceptions, as it takes time to build inertia. Set aside a sustainable amount of time each week and commit to it over a period - try for 10-12 weeks and track how things have developed. You may find it becomes an enjoyable task. Try not to get distracted by engagement for its own sake and keep your goals in mind. Types of content to try Engagement on LinkedIn is built primarily on relevance and relatability. Even ragebait, given it drives strong feeling. You can write a 100% relatable post that everyone takes relevance from and see massive engagement. Though that engagement may not serve your goals. Or you can write a post that is 100% relevant to the problems you solve in your career, and the people who will find it relevant are from a small niche facing the same problems. This is why a photo of you with your dog will fly, while a carefully thought out post about the optimisation of widgets in a byzantine setting will appear to be shouting into a void. Or you can blend the two through storytelling, pivoting observations into business content, and copywriting formulae like AIDA (attention interest desire action) and PAS (problem agitation solution). Everyone will have different forms of content that will be effective for them. What do you want your ideal readers to experience? What would ‘you five years ago’ would find helpful? Do you want readers to see you as a credible expert? Someone who is authentically vulnerable? Your warts and all personality? Someone who stands out in a sea of competition? Someone who is thought-provoking, helpful, or altruistic? The answers are much the same if you posed these questions of interviewing. This is no coincidence, given your message should be consistently delivered no matter where it is received. With that in mind, here are some content ideas you can try: How you might solve a problem specific to your industry Stories from your everyday life The challenges in your job search Observations on a news story and how it relates to your work A flair post highlighting your availability Asking for thoughts on an idea you are interested in Sharing insight you find fascinating, whether that’s films, video games, science or sport Stories from your career where you can show growth (everyone loves a hero’s journey) Business frameworks, processes and techniques you find useful - Pomodoro Technique, scientific method, STAR, what do you use? Equipment you use for work Developments in your workplace and culture Thoughts on content you find inspiring Memes, humour, satire Google content ideas for LinkedIn or ask ChatGPT, Claude and others. I wouldn’t use AI to write articles. I do use them for ideation and to sense check. ‘Write me a post for LinkedIn that shows the link between Tesla cars and how to develop an HR strategy.’ The vulnerability of writing You can be a content creator without ever publishing a post if you continue conversations through comments, connections, DMs and real-life. This avoids sticking your head above the parapets and is low risk, but misses the gain of publishing your own content. I know that some people are held back for fear of failure. I can tell you that clicking ‘send’ is always a high point of anxiety for me in sending newsletters. Imagine how I felt when I clicked Publish for this book. What’s the worst that can happen with a carefully thought-out post? Tumbleweed? If no one reads it, you can always post it again another time. Disagreement? Loads of people disagree on my posts - you’ll see from my comments that I am always constructive in my dialogue and typically this supports the intent of my post. Everyone has an opinion and they are welcome to theirs - as long as it’s constructive, there is always a learning opportunity. Trolls? These people exist and will at some point rear their ugly heads. I imagine them naked on the Underground, which takes the sting out of their vitriol. I’m sure it’s their unhappiness that drives their behaviour. Marriage requests? Unfortunately, dubious and toxic behaviour isn’t uncommon. Don’t be afraid to block and report if you receive harmful messages. As long as you are constructive in what you write and you work to build a conversation, it’s unlikely anything bad will happen. You will open yourself up to the opportunity of new relevant people starting conversations with you: hiring managers, recruiters, peers, fellow job seekers, and friendly strangers. Weight and depth of opinion A couple of years ago, I had a message from an out-of-work Sales Director asking for some feedback. He’d shot a video for LinkedIn where he talked about why he should be snapped up and received a lot of praise for the post. However, he was confused because a CEO he trusts told him it was poor and made him look boring. He knew I’d give him unvarnished feedback, which was what he needed to find some clarity on what had happened. Truthfully, the CEO was correct. What had happened? All of the positive engagement was from fellow job seekers and people who wanted to support him. That he’d done it was praiseworthy in itself and was rightly celebrated, rather than the quality of what he had produced. None of them had hiring authority or were in a career similar to someone who would be his line manager. The video didn’t show him how he comes across in person either. While the positive feedback was fantastic for validation, his video worked against him. What might happen if a hiring process thought his video was boring when the role being recruited for has persuasion as a key requirement? I’m pleased to say his redo was excellent, showing off his charisma while delivering the same message. Who can you rely on to be this CEO for you in your career? Why you should start now, even if you don’t see any benefit for months. Starting cold on LinkedIn can take time to get traction. When your first post bombs you might never think to do a second. Going in with the expectation of little impact for the first three to six months is healthy in making a sustainable habit. If you’re out of work though, three to six months may seem too far off to be worthwhile when there are many activities that offer a quick turnaround, such as applying for jobs. I’ve spoken to many job seekers who’ve been out of work for more than six months and had decided not to write content at the outset of their search. If they had, they might now be seeing the benefit of their work.