When Visibility Isn’t Professionalism - But Still Shapes Careers

In many hiring processes, candidates assume that being rejected means they “weren’t good enough.”In reality, rejection often has little to do with competence — and a lot to do with how someone looks on paper.

Not in terms of appearance.But in terms of narrative visibility.

Research in organizational psychology and recruitment consistently shows that early-stage screening is heavily influenced by cognitive shortcuts and pattern recognition (Kahneman, 2011; Highhouse, 2008). Recruiters, like all humans, rely on mental templates: what a “typical” candidate for a role is supposed to look like. When a profile doesn’t match the expected format, it may be filtered out — even if the underlying capability is strong.

This creates a subtle but powerful dynamic: Visibility becomes confused with professionalism.

The Bias of Familiar Formats

Studies on resume screening and hiring heuristics show that recruiters often favor candidates whose resumes resemble previously successful hires (Rivera, 2012; Derous & Ryan, 2019). This is not intentional discrimination in most cases — it is cognitive economy.

When time is limited and volume is high, the brain looks for signals of “fit”:

• Familiar job titles

• Linear career paths

• Recognizable company names

• Expected terminology

  
  

Candidates who deviate from these norms may be perceived as risky, unclear, or “not a fit” — even when their skills and performance potential are equal or exceed those of others.

In other words, the issue is often not who you are but how legible you are to the system.

Professionalism as a Social Construction

Sociological research reminds us that professionalism is not a neutral or objective standard. It is socially constructed and culturally reinforced (Bourdieu, 1986; Fournier, 1999). What is seen as “professional” reflects dominant norms, power structures, and historical hiring patterns.

This matters because:

• Career changers

• Non-linear paths

• International backgrounds

• Hybrid roles

• Emerging job titles

  
  

are more likely to be seen as “unclear” not because they lack value, but because they challenge existing mental models.

From a hiring systems perspective, difference often reads as ambiguity. And ambiguity is one of the strongest drivers of rejection in early screening (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

The Cost of Narrative Mismatch

Research on signaling theory in recruitment shows that resumes and LinkedIn profiles function as signals - not full representations of competence (Spence, 1973; Connelly et al., 2011). When signals are misaligned with market expectations, strong candidates can be systematically undervalued.

This explains a common experience among professionals:

“I keep getting rejected, but I know I’m good at what I do.”

Often, the problem is not skill. It is a narrative translation.

Practical Implications: CVs and LinkedIn (Without Turning This into a Checklist)

From a practical standpoint, this means that effective career positioning is not just about adding keywords or redesigning a CV. It is about aligning how you tell your story with how decision-makers interpret signals.

In my work with professionals, a few consistent patterns emerge:

• Strong candidates often under-translate their impact. They describe tasks instead of outcomes, making their value less visible.

• Non-linear careers are often presented chronologically rather than strategically. This makes coherence harder for the reader to see.

• LinkedIn profiles often reflect identity (“who I am”) rather than relevance (“why I make sense for this role right now”).

  
  

Small narrative shifts can dramatically change perception:

• Reframing role titles to match market language (without misrepresentation)

• Structuring experience around value creation rather than job history

• Positioning career transitions as an intentional strategy, not accidental drift

  
  

These are not cosmetic changes. They are signal optimization — aligning how you are seen with what you actually bring.

Why This Is Rarely Solved with Templates

Many professionals try to fix this with generic CV templates, AI rewrites, or keyword stuffing. Research on impression management suggests that surface-level optimization can improve visibility — but often fails to improve credibility or coherence (Bolino et al., 2008).

What hiring managers and recruiters respond to is not just polish. They respond to a story that makes sense.

A story that answers, implicitly:

• Why this person?

• Why now?

• Why for this context?

  
  

When those questions are not clearly answered, even excellent candidates are filtered out.

Where Strategic Career Positioning Actually Helps

This is where professional career narrative work becomes critical especially for:

• Senior professionals

• Career changers

• Hybrid roles

• Non-traditional backgrounds

• International or cross-cultural careers

  
  

At this level, it’s no longer about writing a “better CV.”It’s about building a legible, credible, and strategically aligned professional identity across CV, LinkedIn, and how you present yourself in conversations.

That is the gap I work in: helping strong professionals translate real value into a narrative that hiring systems and decision-makers can actually read correctly.

Not to make people look like everyone else. But to make sure their difference is understood — not filtered out.

Key Takeaway

Being rejected is often interpreted as a judgment of ability. In reality, it is frequently a judgment of narrative fit.

Professional visibility is not the same as professionalism. But in hiring systems, it is often treated as if it is.

Learning to manage that distinction - without losing authenticity - is one of the most underestimated career skills today.

References

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109.Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood.Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.Derous, E., & Ryan, A. M. (2019). When your resume is (not) turning you down: Modeling ethnic bias in resume screening. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(2), 166–185.Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to “professionalism” as a disciplinary mechanism. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 280–307.Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 333–342.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022.Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.