Counterintuitive
How the obvious steps can work against you
This is the first of the new chapters to be included in the 2026 version of A Career Breakdown Kit, due for launch in January.
If you’ve already bought the Kindle version of the book, it will be updated for free and will always be current for the year.
While if you’ve been mulling over the paperback, send me proof of purchase when the new version is complete and I’ll either send you a Kindle version, or any changed chapters by email.
I can’t provide a free paperback update due to £7 print and shipping costs.
You can read about the current version here: A Career Breakdown Kit.
Here’s the first draft of Counterintuitive.
This chapter is about the common steps many people take in a job search that proves tougher than expected. And why some of these steps can both move you further away from your goal and make you part of the problem.
Often it looks like this:
Career grief
Pick yourself up and decide this could actually be an opportunity for a new start
Update CV with most recent job
Hit the job boards and contact agencies
Pleasant surprise that there’s more out there than you thought
Apply, apply, apply
Many of these jobs prove: closed, fake, ghosts, scams
Not getting much traction, agencies aren’t replying
Maybe you’re being too picky
Widen the net: more senior, less senior, different industries, roles that use transferrable skills
Realise you need to customise, but that’s becoming really hard with the volume you’re applying to. ChatGPT? How else can you automate
With all these applications, there must be a reason I’m not getting through. What’s this about the ATS? Is AI really blocking me?
The worst case scenario here are those awful posts we read of people applying to 2,000 jobs and not even getting an interview. Often with a lot of blame on things that are out of their control, such as discrimination and that popular complaint in step 12.
I expect many people will read these posts and worry they are on the same path.
Some may even defer to that possibly Einstein quote, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of madness.” And as a result they stop applying to jobs and try other measures instead.
All very natural and a common sense approach to a job search.
A TV metaphor to illustrate your job search
If you were selling a £300 TV who would you sell it to?
Possibly too ambiguous a question. 1st hand, 2nd hand? What features does it have?
Who should be the buyers for this type of £300 product?
Is there any point targeting people who want £1,000 TVs? What about £10k?
What about people who want £300 monitors, not TVs?
It’s impossible to say really without starting out with the right strategy:
Define the product
Research the market of ideal customers
Set the right price point
Sell where the customers will buy from
But if things aren’t going well, you shouldn’t simply broaden your horizons and increase your sales approach across demographics that will never buy from you.
Instead you re-evaluate these first principles to make sure you have the right product, for the right people, at the right price point, sold in the right places, with the right message.
So, yes there is iteration to do, but it’s your input that needs changing first to generate the output. You shouldn’t only change the steps you take.
You might argue that the £1,000 budget holder could benefit from your transferable skills - same size TV, same resolution, pumps out sound, is in colour.
But if they want OLED when you offer LCD, or if they want a 100w speaker, while yours offers 30w, it’s likely to be a non-starter.
What if instead you sold at a discount, with your additional features at the same cost as the competition?
The difference between people and products is that products won’t change their mind.
So if an employer doesn’t need the features you offer that are enhanced, these can be seen as a risk, not a benefit.
Does this mean you should stay in your lane?
Yes and no.
It means first you need to understand how your lane reflects the race you are in. That you clearly understand what you need and what you offer, while balancing what the market offers and the other good people interested in those offers.
But if you apply for vacancies in a domain where you can’t show the applicability of your offering (see The Transferable Skills Trap).
Or if you apply for vacancies that are too junior or senior, without a clear argument for the specific benefit that employer will have in hiring you.
Then you will compete against candidates who have direct skills and experience. These are more aligned to the needs of that vacancy.
Worse, you become part of the problem, taking oxygen away from more suited candidates who deserve fair consideration - without improving your own odds.
It’s unfortunately a simple truth that if everyone didn’t apply for vacancies they weren’t suitably qualified for - everyone’s experience would be better.
This may seem to blame you, but consider that any futile action takes oxygen from you too, with time and energy better spent on other activities - which might even just be taking a break.
I say this from a place of compassion, not criticism.
Rather than compromise to spread your bets, keep going back to first principles and make sure these are both fit for purpose and clearly communicated (Plan Do Check Act - chapter 22 in A Career Breakdown Kit).
Rather than hope others will see your transferrable skills will apply, or your higher level of experience will help - show them how and why it matters. If you can’t, spend your energy on better activity.
As for that Einsteinish quote further up. This is only true when the matters outside of your control don’t change.
In the changing and mercurial nature of your jobs market, its potential to improve suddenly may be the only change you need to get the job you want.
Such as the job seeker I spoke to, who went from 0 interviews from few applications, to having to turn down interviews and choose between multiple offers.
Debbie said that she refocused on her expertise, and why it mattered, using that to inform what she applied for and how she communicated. Points in her control, with a changing market that helped.
My next ‘new’ article will be an overhaul of The Truth about the ATS and AI. Much will change, though the advice remains the same.
Thanks for reading.
Kind regards,
Greg