(Revised. Original awarded "Most Memorable Posts of 2014" by LinkedIn!)

Statistically speaking, smart people tend to always get the best jobs. Yet, many of my smartest friends have suffered prolonged periods of unemployment and underemployment, despite their pedigree educations, despite their relevant work experiences and despite their obvious, "emotional intelligence" skills. Indeed, in the worst job markets, some have even gone months without so much as a meaningful interview.

I never could understand this, until one day coming across a scientific article that seemed to explain what was going on. Behavioral scientists had discovered that intelligence apparently offered no immunity to bad decision-making. In other words, smart people are just as likely as the rest of us to make bad work and life decisions. Moreover, the researchers found that, unlike the rest of us, smart people are slightly more prone to exhibiting mental, "bias blind spots"; that is, an inability consciously see their mental hangups.

But what's that got to do with an inability to get a job?

Lots.

Despite the nomenclature, cognitive biases may be linked to "non-cognitive skills," such as leadership, time management, communication and collaborative abilities. For example, if a highly intelligent and skilled person exhibits visible overconfidence in an interview, it might suggest he or she would be a bad manager--especially in a company or industry plagued by overconfidence (such as banking and finance).

Trained recruiters and interviewers might be sensitive to such clues--whether in scanning a resume or questioning an applicant--and that could be enough to kill a job-seeker's chances. More to the point: Mental hangups could be significant enough to negatively impact the entire job-seeking effort, undermining even the smartest and most qualified applicant's approach.

Curious as to whether this might be the case with some of my friends, I dug out resumes many of them had sent me to pass on over the years and even looked up their LinkedIn profiles. I wanted to see if biases I never noticed might have been there all the time. I also wanted to imagine whether a change of mindset--or a different job-seeking approach altogether--might have helped. Here is what I found:

Smart people are often overoptimistic: Even before becoming unemployed, several friends either didn't anticipate the inevitable pink slip or outright quit without a Plan B. They ignored all the signs that either: 1) They were never suited for that particular job/career, 2) Their successful progression required some sort of pivot they refused to undertake or, 3) Getting another job in a mediocre or bad market might be difficult. In any case, the overoptimistic person believes, "It (in this case, prolonged unemployment) would never happen to me." They are blind to the signs and slow to respond once the inevitable occurs. To overcome this hangup, my friends might have accepted that, even for the highly intelligent and highly capable the same rules of job, workplace and career apply. You can't outsmart the market and you can't convince the world of your value if the verdict is already passed that you are a blatant mismatch or your job function is no longer essential. As the old adage goes, "You can love the company (or your position or your daily routine) but it will never love you back". If I could turn the clock back, I'd have told many of my friends: Look for the signs and never (ever) assume you are irreplaceable, vital or even exceptional. Smart people are often unable to convey their value: Perhaps many of my friends fell for the above trap because they assumed their work or accomplishments spoke for themselves. Nonetheless, they rarely do--for anyone. People don't seek out your excellence: they have their own troubles to wade through. Yet, perusing several of my friend's resumes and profiles, it appeared they were assuming hiring managers and recruiters love Easter egg hunts. None of their resumes or profiles possessed a defining shape that tells the reader, "I do this," or "I can offer you that..." Rather, their resumes were pages and pages of accomplishments that never seemed to build a coherent picture of the person as a professional. True, lower-level positions are screened by hiring bots that pick up keywords but, in many cases, that leads to callbacks for completely unsuitable jobs. All of these features of their job-seeking package indicated the presence of a bias called, "Curse of Knowledge"; that is, knowing something other's don't (i.e., who they are/what they can do, etc.), a person finds it impossible to understand others don't possess the same knowledge. My friends might have been better off circulating their resumes to friends and others outside their industries and simply asking, "What is it that you think I do?" Until the answers matched their own perceptions, it would have made sense they keep adjusting them. But smart people are often overconfident: Of course, taking constructive feedback in this way assumes a person does not feel he or she always has the right strategy. Many smart people, however--so often right when it comes to cramming for exams or answering multiple choice questions--are often overconfident and, correspondingly, suffer from an Illusion of Control. That is, they believe they can control the outcome, even when they cannot. Thus, when a smart friend felt that by tendering his resume through a certain channel, he needn't bother refining it to eliminate the effects of Curse of Knowledge, it was as though he was saying, "Even if you know something, I still know what's best." At the same time, the flip-side of overconfidence--for smart people in particular--according to research, is that they underrate their abilities (a kind of "under-confidence"). Now just imagine: A person clutters her resume because she feels strongly doing so is the right strategy. At the same time, she doesn't adequately communicate who she is and how she can add value because she lacks the confidence to say so. Woah! Feedback from others--coupled with an open mind to accept news completely contrary to what one assumes seem to be the only ways out of this complete mind boggle. Smart people tend to seek information that supports their biases: It doesn't help if, when receiving feedback, job-seekers defending themselves using selective bits of information. This is a sure sign of confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out information that supports our opinions, while excluding perhaps more balanced data. For example, a friend was convinced he was a great wealth manager when anyone could tell a mile away he was more suited for the back office. He was a phone-holster wearing guy: not someone you'd see doing body shots with clients over karaoke. But the fact that he'd held (and was ultimately fired from) a wealth management role, convinced them that was his calling. Confirmation can only be overcome with a concerted effort to take the contrary position. The job-seeker must be willing to pursue the gathering of contrary evidence that refutes everything he believes he knows about himself (i.e., e.g., "You suck at wealth management") and only after comparing this and the supporting evidence of other alternatives (say, e.g., "You're actually good at back-office") launch a refined job search. Smart people often stubbornly refuse to do something new: Human beings don't like change, but when hungry for a job, we are often forced out of our comfort zones. Yet, in recalling conversations with many friends and associates, some were unwilling to do anything new. Part of the problem seemed to be stem from a type of Jedi mind trick they'd played on themselves: when asked in an interview whether they believed they could do x, y or z in their new role, they would decline, saying they had never done x, y or z in the past. Yet, while this seems reasonable and honest, it suggests to me that they often misunderstand the question. The interviewers did not ask, "Have you done x, y or z" but "Could you do x, y or z". In other words: they wanted a mapping from the person's experience to a new domain. Status quo bias is what's at play here. As in this situation, it means even a highly intelligent person might equate "Could you..." and "Have you...". Nonetheless, logically, most employers of any interesting company would want to know what you "could do" for them, not what you "have done" elsewhere. Such a bias can only be addressed in combination with another, more pervasive bias... Loss Aversion: Did you choose to run instead of giving up $9000 and saving a sweat? If so, you were guilty of loss aversion. As a result of loss aversion, smart people take too little or too much risk at the wrong times. Loss aversion suggests we fear giving up a bird in the hand for one in the bush, but when faced with losing what we have (e.g., $9000) we gamble, recklessly. In other words, a loss averse job-seeker would be reluctant to leave a position she already has for another but, in desperation, might take some job completely outside her career path if handed a pink slip. Brilliant, PhD-toting barristas are a common example. What's worse is that Loss Aversion is influenced by the "Endowment Effect," which means it gets worse the larger the perceived loss--i.e., e.g., the better the previous job or the better the perceived next job should be. (Had I asked you to give up $90,000 or $9 million for sure, you'd definitely have chosen to run!) One friend seemed to exhibit both status quo bias and loss aversion when he refused to look for another job while holding only a temporary, position. Despite my suggestions and despite various leads I would bring to him, he insisted on making every futile effort to get his contract extended. In the end, he again became jobless. When I questioned him about his behavior he said that he had become very comfortable with the work in his contractual position and feared the next job might not be so good... What then could I say? Loss aversion can be addressed only if the person works hard not to overvalue his endowment--i.e., his current status or the status he believes he should have. Experiments have also shown loss aversion can be reduced if a person has many options on the table--such as a fully committed, market canvassing job search that produces many leads. Smart people often rationalize their jobless situation: Aesop tells a fable about a jealous cat who rationalizes his inability to eat some grapes he can't reach by saying, "They were probably sour anyway." Many smart jobseekers seem to behave the same when confronting rejection. "They don't want to hire smart people," they say, or "I think the person who interviewed me was jealous of my degree." Okay, but this was Goldman Sachs. Really? At Google, someone was jealous of your Stanford degree? That seems unlikely. In my experience, many smart people have found they can excel in academic-like endeavours and environments, but when hit with the (real world) necessity to apply themselves in another domain, rationalise when dropping the ball or being ill-equipped. In the end, dissonance is a resolution to a mental tension: One knows the truth but refuses to acknowledge it. The only solution here is to obey one's conscience; accept when you mess up; learn from your mistakes and again, get an outsider's advice and actually take it.

There were many more biases that I noticed in reviewing my friends's cases, but these were the main ones. The point is: Biases are real and potentially career-damaging--but before one gets a job and on the job. Only a conscious and most importantly, humble, effort to re-arrange the decision-making problem has a hope of stemming the negative effects.

Maurice is a globally-experienced executive and consultant who led the team that launched the first mobile-lending product suite. To follow Maurice on Twitter, you can find him @mauriceewing. For some of his other posts, see, his personal blog at www.maurice-ewing.com, his blog page at The Harvard Business Review or elsewhere on Pulse:

Why Smart People Don't Get Promoted

Why Purpose is More Important than 'Happiness'

7 Laws for Letting Go

Why Recruiters Hire the Wrong People

How Smart People Should Craft Their Resumes

How to Avoid Mental Biases When Interviewing (revised)

How to Get Respect From Your Boss

How to Choose a Startup Partner Using Science

How to Choose Between Job Offers Using Science

How to Manage Biased People

How to Cut Costs Without Cutting People

How to Strengthen Your MBA in 5 Steps