Many candidates walk away from interviews puzzled by vague feedback like “we’ll KIV your profile”, “you’re overqualified”, or “we need someone more senior.” These phrases feel like a soft “no” but rarely come with clear explanations or next steps. In Episode 2 of Behind the Hiring Curtain, leadership and transition coach You Tze Lee and Stemgenic founder Savi (Sathiyarajan Vinayagamani) decode what these labels usually signal—and how candidates can respond more strategically.[youtube]
“KIV” – Not a Rejection, Not a Yes
“KIV” (“Keep In View”) is one of the most commonly used phrases in hiring feedback, but it is often misunderstood as a polite rejection. In reality, KIV usually means you are not the current priority—but you are still in the orbit of consideration.
Behind the scenes, KIV can mean:
The client is still interviewing other candidates and wants to compare before deciding.
The role might be on hold, unclear, or evolving internally, so they are “parking” profiles for later.
You meet many requirements, but there are doubts around cultural fit, pace, or team chemistry that they cannot easily articulate in writing.
The speakers liken KIV to a flight in a holding pattern: you are circling the runway, but not yet cleared to land. KIV is not closure—but it is also not a commitment.
How candidates can respond
Avoid assuming the process is over; instead, politely ask what would need to change or what they are still unsure about.
If appropriate, request more specific feedback (e.g., culture, seniority, pace, stakeholder complexity) so you can decide whether this environment is truly right for you.
Use the experience to reflect: would you genuinely thrive in the context they described, or is KIV actually a useful signal to redirect your energy elsewhere?
“Culture Fit” – When Feedback Hides Real Concerns (and Bias)
“Culture fit” is another phrase that appears in rejections or vague updates, often without explanation. Sometimes it points to genuine concerns about working style, self‑awareness, or the ability to cope in very fast‑paced or demanding environments. Other times, it can disguise unconscious bias or a preference for “mini‑me” hires—people who look, sound, and think like the existing team.
Examples highlighted in the episode include:
Candidates from slower, more structured environments being assessed for high‑intensity, fast‑moving cultures and flagged as possible misfits.
Employers defaulting to people similar to a previous “successful” hire instead of staying open to different but capable profiles.
Age and educational background quietly influencing decisions, even when not stated anywhere in the job description.
Because hiring is ultimately a human process, managers naturally lean toward people they can imagine working with and “having a beer with.” The challenge is to distinguish valid job‑related concerns from assumptions.
Candidate takeaways
Never apologize for being yourself or try to overcorrect your personality after a “culture fit” rejection.
If you can, ask: “What aspect of my working style or approach was different from what the team expected?” to gain specific insight instead of generic labels.
Use culture‑fit feedback not only to improve, but also to ask whether you truly want to be in that kind of environment.
“Overqualified” – The Risk Behind the Compliment
Being called “overqualified” can feel like a strange compliment: your experience is strong, yet you are rejected. The episode explains that “overqualified” often reflects employer risk management rather than a judgment that you are “too good.”
Common hidden concerns include:
Worries that you will be bored and leave quickly, forcing the company to restart hiring.
Fear that you see the role as a temporary stepping stone to something bigger.
Anxiety about salary expectations, seniority, or how you would integrate into an existing team’s dynamics.
There is also a risk that “overqualified” becomes a proxy for age or level, especially when a job ad asks for five years’ experience and a candidate with ten or more is rejected without deeper evaluation. The speakers caution employers to examine whether “overqualified” reflects genuine job‑related concerns or unspoken biases.
How candidates can handle “overqualified”
Proactively address the elephant in the room during interviews: explain why you genuinely want this role at this stage of your career and how long you realistically see yourself in it.
Offer options, such as project‑based or contract arrangements, where your seniority delivers impact over a defined timeframe.
Make sure your story is real and coherent: if you are stepping down from leadership to an individual contributor role, be clear about why (e.g., preferring direct impact over people management).
The key is to stay authentic rather than trimming your CV or inflating titles to “fit the mold.”
“Underqualified” – When It Is a Real Gap (and When It Is Not)
On the other side, “underqualified” can be a genuine signal that there are significant gaps in experience, scope, or readiness for the level of responsibility. In many cases, it is essentially a firm closure, and employers move on to profiles that better match the brief.
However, the label can also oversimplify complex questions:
Are we rejecting the candidate because of a missing degree when they have substantial hands‑on experience?
Are we assuming a younger candidate cannot work with senior stakeholders, or an older candidate cannot adopt new technologies like AI?
Are we strictly filtering by years on paper instead of learning agility, problem‑solving, and growth potential?
The episode points out that rigid reliance on degrees and years can be at odds with talent retention and development—especially when capable internal employees are passed over for promotions purely due to formal criteria.
Candidate responses to “underqualified”
Ask yourself honestly: if the employer’s concerns are accurate, do you want to take on this stretch, and are you prepared to close the gaps?
Highlight “ammunition” that mitigates the gap—such as ongoing studies, plans to pursue a degree, or adjacent experience that proves you can grow into the role.
If the door is clearly closed, use the feedback as a compass to target roles where your current profile is a stronger match, rather than forcing a misalignment.
Turning Vague Feedback into Actionable Insight
One of the most powerful messages in this episode is that candidates should focus less on the label itself and more on the context behind it. “KIV”, “culture fit”, “overqualified”, and “underqualified” are starting points for conversation and reflection—not final verdicts on your worth.
Practical moves for candidates:
Use cover letters strategically: instead of repeating your CV, use them to briefly explain career gaps, short stints, or non‑linear moves in a real, concise way.
Be proactive about concerns you suspect may arise (seniority, education, stepping down, industry switch) and address them directly in interviews or supporting notes.
When you receive feedback, ask clarifying questions where possible and then decide: “Is this something I can and want to work on, or is this a sign to focus elsewhere?”
For employers, the conversation is a reminder to articulate what these labels actually mean, challenge internal assumptions, and keep hiring anchored in clear, job‑relevant criteria. The goal is not only to fill roles but to create processes where both sides can be honest, informed, and confident in their decisions.
To dive deeper into these dynamics from both the employer and candidate perspective, watch the full episode: Behind the Hiring Curtain – Ep 2: What Clients Really Mean by KIV, “Overqualified” & “Underqualified
