6 ms·

> The "traditional understanding" of getting an applicant to your job that is over qualified is that they are just trying to get a paycheck while they look for

by neves 9y ago

> The "traditional understanding" of getting an applicant to your job that is over qualified is that they are just trying to get a paycheck while they look for something better. With the current lack of bonds between employer and employee, you must consider that all your employees are in this condition.

kgwgk 9y ago
That's the point: the over qualified are more likely to find something better. [Edit: that's the employer's logic. Right now I'm on the wrong side of that equation, but I can understand their concern. Even if it's true that you really want the job and not that "better" job that might not even exist or you may not really consider "better".]
- itsdrewmiller 9y ago
  But they don’t. https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-myth-of-the-overqualified-worker https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-myth-of-the-overqualified-worker
  - icebraining 9y ago
    You don't see the huge selection bias in that study? They're interviewing people that were hired despite the discrimination that already exists. It's like trying to see if alcohol leads to more crashes by only interviewing people in intact cars. It may be that overqualified workers don't in fact leave sooner - or it may be that the hiring manager correctly identified those who would and wouldn't, and only hired the latter. By studying only the people already hired, it's impossible to tell.
    - phaemon 9y ago
      Edit: original response was too harsh. I'm just grumpy I guess. The study was done properly. Have a read of: http://today.uconn.edu/2010/08/over-qualified-not-really/ http://today.uconn.edu/2010/08/over-qualified-not-really/ which provides better detail.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Thanks, but I don't see how that link contradicts my objection. Can you point me to how they're tracking the workers that didn't end up being overqualified because they were excluded by the hiring managers? From what I can tell, they tracked the jobs they took, but not the jobs they were denied for, so I don't see how they could've accounted for the selection bias.
        phaemon 9y ago
        That's because the selection bias you are asking them to account for is based on the psychic abilities of hiring managers. Even if it exists, it doesn't matter because there are still people hiring overqualified people and it only makes sense to talk about those in this context.
        icebraining 9y ago
        Either the effect exists or it doesn't, and you need to show that it doesn't if you want to claim that discriminating based on overqualification is not effective. And that study doesn't show that - it only shows that overqualified candidates that hiring managers thought wouldn't leave soon don't leave soon.
- mcguire 9y ago
  And the underqualified and overpaid...well, you're never getting rid of them.
- donw 9y ago
  And in the interim, that overqualified person can help upskill the rest of your team. Assuming you are not a complete muppet and have built mechanisms into your company culture to provide for rapid knowledge transfer, of course. Or, it could be that you offer something that a lot of other work environments don't. Kind, friendly people, a fun-yet-professional atmosphere, remote work, generous vacation, etc. Personally, I expect that every member of my team will matriculate out at some point. What's the harm in bringing somebody in that, assuming culture fit, will bring more benefit to my organization than I'm paying for?
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > Personally, I expect that every member of my team will matriculate out at some point. That's good - if your organization (even if not your team) has a need for the people that now have souped-up skills.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  In jobs - as with relationships - going with someone because they don't have any other options is unlikely to be a winning strategy. Think about what it says about your organization when everybody is there because they ain't got nowhere else to be.
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    If they can get the job done, who cares why they took the job? You can't read other people's thoughts.
  - rdlecler1 9y ago
    This was a good point. Real question for those with experience: How often do you see someone in the top decile of their professional peer group go unemployed for a long period of time? (I could see it with PhDs with lots of education but little experience—but for that reason they may be willing to cut their teeth and work up).
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      When I have seen this it is typically someone who 'grew up' in a company (10+ years of tenure) and had regular salary growth and now they've been laid off and their salary expectations are high but their network visibility is low. (hard to find someone who can validate their claims). There is a limit on how much salary anyone can command in a purely technical position. And at some point in a career there is so much critical information in your head at a company that they start paying for you to 'not leave' rather than 'compatible salary'. You can't pick up that 'don't leave' premium at the new job until you're indispensable. Working through that value equation can be hard, especially if you don't have a lot of self awareness to begin with.
      - pm90 9y ago
        This is a really great point and something that I keep in mind when considering my current job and future offers. Its really easy in a big org, to stick around for a long time, feel valued and wanted (intra-company professional network, regular raises and promotions etc.) and think that that is it, that its a good enough life. I see a LOT of people like that and I've always wondered if they could possibly move to another company and be as happy as they are in their current position. I'm still figuring out ways to not get into a rut like that...
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
No, theres no good reason to assume that.. I can make up stories that support the opposite view too - skilled employees are likely to be able to land many great jobs, so if they pick yours they are likely to stay. The story is just a rationalization for whatever you want to believe. You could simply evaluate the candidates record of tenure at earlier companies, ask them about their motivations etc. to get some idea of whether they plan to jump ship just like any other candidate.
- icebraining 9y ago
  But chances are the person was never in this situation (applying for a job for which they're overqualified) before, so their record of tenure doesn't tell you much.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  > so if they pick yours they are likely to stay. We all know that our idea of what a job is before we pick it is much different after we work there for 3 months. People are always looking to leave. More money is made leaving. Companies aren't willing to adequately pay to retain talent.

by neves 9y ago

kgwgk 9y ago

That's the point: the over qualified are more likely to find something better. [Edit: that's the employer's logic. Right now I'm on the wrong side of that equation, but I can understand their concern. Even if it's true that you really want the job and not that "better" job that might not even exist or you may not really consider "better".]

itsdrewmiller 9y ago
But they don’t. https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-myth-of-the-overqualified-worker https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-myth-of-the-overqualified-worker
- icebraining 9y ago
  You don't see the huge selection bias in that study? They're interviewing people that were hired despite the discrimination that already exists. It's like trying to see if alcohol leads to more crashes by only interviewing people in intact cars. It may be that overqualified workers don't in fact leave sooner - or it may be that the hiring manager correctly identified those who would and wouldn't, and only hired the latter. By studying only the people already hired, it's impossible to tell.
  - phaemon 9y ago
    Edit: original response was too harsh. I'm just grumpy I guess. The study was done properly. Have a read of: http://today.uconn.edu/2010/08/over-qualified-not-really/ http://today.uconn.edu/2010/08/over-qualified-not-really/ which provides better detail.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Thanks, but I don't see how that link contradicts my objection. Can you point me to how they're tracking the workers that didn't end up being overqualified because they were excluded by the hiring managers? From what I can tell, they tracked the jobs they took, but not the jobs they were denied for, so I don't see how they could've accounted for the selection bias.
      - phaemon 9y ago
        That's because the selection bias you are asking them to account for is based on the psychic abilities of hiring managers. Even if it exists, it doesn't matter because there are still people hiring overqualified people and it only makes sense to talk about those in this context.
        icebraining 9y ago
        Either the effect exists or it doesn't, and you need to show that it doesn't if you want to claim that discriminating based on overqualification is not effective. And that study doesn't show that - it only shows that overqualified candidates that hiring managers thought wouldn't leave soon don't leave soon.
mcguire 9y ago
And the underqualified and overpaid...well, you're never getting rid of them.
donw 9y ago
And in the interim, that overqualified person can help upskill the rest of your team. Assuming you are not a complete muppet and have built mechanisms into your company culture to provide for rapid knowledge transfer, of course. Or, it could be that you offer something that a lot of other work environments don't. Kind, friendly people, a fun-yet-professional atmosphere, remote work, generous vacation, etc. Personally, I expect that every member of my team will matriculate out at some point. What's the harm in bringing somebody in that, assuming culture fit, will bring more benefit to my organization than I'm paying for?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Personally, I expect that every member of my team will matriculate out at some point. That's good - if your organization (even if not your team) has a need for the people that now have souped-up skills.
nostrademons 9y ago
In jobs - as with relationships - going with someone because they don't have any other options is unlikely to be a winning strategy. Think about what it says about your organization when everybody is there because they ain't got nowhere else to be.
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  If they can get the job done, who cares why they took the job? You can't read other people's thoughts.
- rdlecler1 9y ago
  This was a good point. Real question for those with experience: How often do you see someone in the top decile of their professional peer group go unemployed for a long period of time? (I could see it with PhDs with lots of education but little experience—but for that reason they may be willing to cut their teeth and work up).
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    When I have seen this it is typically someone who 'grew up' in a company (10+ years of tenure) and had regular salary growth and now they've been laid off and their salary expectations are high but their network visibility is low. (hard to find someone who can validate their claims). There is a limit on how much salary anyone can command in a purely technical position. And at some point in a career there is so much critical information in your head at a company that they start paying for you to 'not leave' rather than 'compatible salary'. You can't pick up that 'don't leave' premium at the new job until you're indispensable. Working through that value equation can be hard, especially if you don't have a lot of self awareness to begin with.
    - pm90 9y ago
      This is a really great point and something that I keep in mind when considering my current job and future offers. Its really easy in a big org, to stick around for a long time, feel valued and wanted (intra-company professional network, regular raises and promotions etc.) and think that that is it, that its a good enough life. I see a LOT of people like that and I've always wondered if they could possibly move to another company and be as happy as they are in their current position. I'm still figuring out ways to not get into a rut like that...

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

No, theres no good reason to assume that.. I can make up stories that support the opposite view too - skilled employees are likely to be able to land many great jobs, so if they pick yours they are likely to stay. The story is just a rationalization for whatever you want to believe. You could simply evaluate the candidates record of tenure at earlier companies, ask them about their motivations etc. to get some idea of whether they plan to jump ship just like any other candidate.

icebraining 9y ago
But chances are the person was never in this situation (applying for a job for which they're overqualified) before, so their record of tenure doesn't tell you much.
ntsplnkv2 9y ago
> so if they pick yours they are likely to stay. We all know that our idea of what a job is before we pick it is much different after we work there for 3 months. People are always looking to leave. More money is made leaving. Companies aren't willing to adequately pay to retain talent.