4 ms·

"Overqualified" has got to be the softest insult you can throw at a job seeker. It ostensibly says "we aren't secure in ourselves as employers to challenge our

by dvtrn 8y ago

"Overqualified" has got to be the softest insult you can throw at a job seeker. It ostensibly says "we aren't secure in ourselves as employers to challenge our workers to produce great work, nor do we value original thought, so we'd rather hire drones that don't rattle the cage".

reaperducer 8y ago
In some industries it means, "You've got a ton of experience, and know this stuff inside and out. But we don't want to pay for someone who knows what they're doing." As you stated, they're looking for inexperienced drones.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Sometimes all you need are inexperienced drones. If you just need a developer to help write the next software as a service CRUD web app and you have experienced developers already, a drone with three years of experience may be good enough.
  - pc86 8y ago
    You must be new, three years is senior, practically architect-level!
CPLX 8y ago
As someone that's hired a lot of people being overqualified is an actual reason not to want to hire an applicant. The reason is because they are not likely to last in the position. Not every company is some high growth engineering phenomenon. Sometimes you need someone to fill a specific role and you'd like them to be stable in that role.
- tremendo 8y ago
  In which case the applicant's employment history would be a lot more relevant. As in, have they been job-hopping, historically "not-lasting" at a job? or do they commit to their work and see it through. If you're offering a decent job and pay fairly, there's no reason to assume an applicant will simply "not last" only because of them being "over-qualified", whatever that means.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    I’ve personally applied for jobs I’ve been overqualified for with the intent of getting in the door and moving out of that position as fast as possible. That might be good for me, and good for the hiring organization, but I totally understand the hiring manager blowing me off, because I wouldn’t be filling his need, and in a couple months he’s back to sorting through resumes and doing interviews.
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      and in a couple months he’s back to sorting through resumes and doing interviews So you're saying this person would...be doing their job like normal?
      - GFischer 8y ago
        A candidate that lasts under 6 months is a very bad candidate that has cost the company money (for a technical position, that is). It's in the interest of both the candidate and the company not to make such a match. If it was only the resume-sorting part, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's also all the work spent training the candidate.
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    No, sorry. The issue is that a job that pays fairly for the position doesn’t feel fair to someone who is settling until they get the job they really want. That kind of person really is likely to leave quickly. Whether it’s worth hiring someone who wants to leave immediately depends on how quickly the company can get new hires up to speed and how much effort they put into interviewing. Now, a company can define overqualified incorrectly. And they can misjudge the cost of a temporary hire. But people really do apply for jobs they think are beneath them until they get an offer.
    - tremendo 8y ago
      I disagree, and feel as I mentioned that they candidate's history is more relevant than their age and a non-defined over-qualification. In any case, when that's a worry, bring it up as a concern during the hiring process, work it out with the candidate. Now I cannot deny it happens, as demonstrated by @WillPostForFood in this sub-thread, but that does not mean everybody, not even most candidates think along the same lines. A lot just want an honest job that pays fairly, and as I stated originally, their history would likely be more telling in that regard.
ASalazarMX 8y ago
I guess you could hire an overqualified employee as a favor, because he really seems to need the job. He will be happy for a few months until he finds something better. It's up to you.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Every employee will be happy until they find something better, no? I mean I guess sure one could make a valid rebuttal that "overqualified" people are probably working on less borrowed time, if we take the metaphor all the way to the end of the line, right? But I guess where I'm finding myself endlessly perplexed is the default assumption you're describing (and I'll gladly offer a concession to), versus the alternative of overqualified employees being seen as potential force multipliers for increasing productivity by allowing them to use their additional qualifications via some kind of tract towards management or specialized role? Even if it's on a small team? Bob is overqualified for X, yet exceptional at Y. X+Y just happens to be a thing the team could possibly benefit from, helping the company as a whole. Maybe we should think about hiring Bob and grooming him to take ownership of X+Y and stewarding the rest of the team, helping them learn and become masters of X+Y in due time. Does that make sense? Hopefully the phrasing isn't too god awful there, coffee hasn't hit the lower brain yet :P
  - ASalazarMX 8y ago
    I had the luck of being overqualified for my first job, straight out of college. I did X (CAD), but I chose my career because I wanted to be a developer. I did Y (sysadmin) because I showed my employer that I could do more. For half a year I did X+Y for the salary of X because I was young, optimistic and eager to please... until they hired a real sysadmin because surely he could do Y better than someone who does X and Y on the side. From this I learned that being overqualified is a risky proposition. Even if your team appreciates the added value, your company might have other plans. I believe it's better to tighten your belt and wait for a more suitable opportunity than risk hurting your career growth. BTW, your phrasing is perfectly fine. Try to read mine.
dgudkov 8y ago
It may also mean that the employer has reasons to believe that the candidate is well aware of his/her skill level and will treat this job as temporary while looking for a higher position in another company.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  All jobs are temporary, some more so than others.
  - pbourke 8y ago
    Yes, and no one jumps ship like a young tech worker at the base of their salary curve. The flip side of being able to code all day as a younger engineer is that nothing’s tying you to a job or location. One call from a recruiter in NYC, SF or Seattle and you’re gone.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  If an employer fears this and truly feels this way that should be a signal to look at what's going on in their workforce, where gaps exist, and how someone with an "overqualified" work background can help the company close those gaps. You get to evaluate someone without feeling slimy for asking interviewees to work for free, the employee gets valuable experience and increases their worth to you as an organization and it makes it easier to promote them or give them commensurate pay (which: if this is what it took to pay someone overqualified what they're worth to begin with, then you probably deserve to have that person leave). Sorry if it sounds abrasive-coming from a long history of being tired of the shallow excuses employers have for disqualifying great candidates while simultaneously bemoaning a "talent shortage".
pc86 8y ago
When it reality what it actually means is "your experience suggests you are worth more than what we're paying, and we'd rather not spend the time onboarding you just to have you leave in 6 months when you a job more commensurate with your experience and skills." I've been on the employer side of taking a chance on overqualified folks and it's a waste of a lot of time and a lot of money.
- GFischer 8y ago
  Obviously depends on location and stuff, but you can get overqualified people to stay due to life circumstances (for example due to their significant other doing a postgraduate degree which means they can't easily move cities or country).
mattmcknight 8y ago
Another variation is, "you are better than the person we selected to run this team, and they are too insecure to have you working for them." I feel this is silly fear, but I have heard it.

by dvtrn 8y ago

reaperducer 8y ago

In some industries it means, "You've got a ton of experience, and know this stuff inside and out. But we don't want to pay for someone who knows what they're doing." As you stated, they're looking for inexperienced drones.

scarface74 8y ago
Sometimes all you need are inexperienced drones. If you just need a developer to help write the next software as a service CRUD web app and you have experienced developers already, a drone with three years of experience may be good enough.
- pc86 8y ago
  You must be new, three years is senior, practically architect-level!

CPLX 8y ago

As someone that's hired a lot of people being overqualified is an actual reason not to want to hire an applicant. The reason is because they are not likely to last in the position. Not every company is some high growth engineering phenomenon. Sometimes you need someone to fill a specific role and you'd like them to be stable in that role.

tremendo 8y ago
In which case the applicant's employment history would be a lot more relevant. As in, have they been job-hopping, historically "not-lasting" at a job? or do they commit to their work and see it through. If you're offering a decent job and pay fairly, there's no reason to assume an applicant will simply "not last" only because of them being "over-qualified", whatever that means.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  I’ve personally applied for jobs I’ve been overqualified for with the intent of getting in the door and moving out of that position as fast as possible. That might be good for me, and good for the hiring organization, but I totally understand the hiring manager blowing me off, because I wouldn’t be filling his need, and in a couple months he’s back to sorting through resumes and doing interviews.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    and in a couple months he’s back to sorting through resumes and doing interviews So you're saying this person would...be doing their job like normal?
    - GFischer 8y ago
      A candidate that lasts under 6 months is a very bad candidate that has cost the company money (for a technical position, that is). It's in the interest of both the candidate and the company not to make such a match. If it was only the resume-sorting part, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's also all the work spent training the candidate.
- 1123581321 8y ago
  No, sorry. The issue is that a job that pays fairly for the position doesn’t feel fair to someone who is settling until they get the job they really want. That kind of person really is likely to leave quickly. Whether it’s worth hiring someone who wants to leave immediately depends on how quickly the company can get new hires up to speed and how much effort they put into interviewing. Now, a company can define overqualified incorrectly. And they can misjudge the cost of a temporary hire. But people really do apply for jobs they think are beneath them until they get an offer.
  - tremendo 8y ago
    I disagree, and feel as I mentioned that they candidate's history is more relevant than their age and a non-defined over-qualification. In any case, when that's a worry, bring it up as a concern during the hiring process, work it out with the candidate. Now I cannot deny it happens, as demonstrated by @WillPostForFood in this sub-thread, but that does not mean everybody, not even most candidates think along the same lines. A lot just want an honest job that pays fairly, and as I stated originally, their history would likely be more telling in that regard.

ASalazarMX 8y ago

I guess you could hire an overqualified employee as a favor, because he really seems to need the job. He will be happy for a few months until he finds something better. It's up to you.

dvtrn 8y ago
Every employee will be happy until they find something better, no? I mean I guess sure one could make a valid rebuttal that "overqualified" people are probably working on less borrowed time, if we take the metaphor all the way to the end of the line, right? But I guess where I'm finding myself endlessly perplexed is the default assumption you're describing (and I'll gladly offer a concession to), versus the alternative of overqualified employees being seen as potential force multipliers for increasing productivity by allowing them to use their additional qualifications via some kind of tract towards management or specialized role? Even if it's on a small team? Bob is overqualified for X, yet exceptional at Y. X+Y just happens to be a thing the team could possibly benefit from, helping the company as a whole. Maybe we should think about hiring Bob and grooming him to take ownership of X+Y and stewarding the rest of the team, helping them learn and become masters of X+Y in due time. Does that make sense? Hopefully the phrasing isn't too god awful there, coffee hasn't hit the lower brain yet :P
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  I had the luck of being overqualified for my first job, straight out of college. I did X (CAD), but I chose my career because I wanted to be a developer. I did Y (sysadmin) because I showed my employer that I could do more. For half a year I did X+Y for the salary of X because I was young, optimistic and eager to please... until they hired a real sysadmin because surely he could do Y better than someone who does X and Y on the side. From this I learned that being overqualified is a risky proposition. Even if your team appreciates the added value, your company might have other plans. I believe it's better to tighten your belt and wait for a more suitable opportunity than risk hurting your career growth. BTW, your phrasing is perfectly fine. Try to read mine.

dgudkov 8y ago

It may also mean that the employer has reasons to believe that the candidate is well aware of his/her skill level and will treat this job as temporary while looking for a higher position in another company.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
All jobs are temporary, some more so than others.
- pbourke 8y ago
  Yes, and no one jumps ship like a young tech worker at the base of their salary curve. The flip side of being able to code all day as a younger engineer is that nothing’s tying you to a job or location. One call from a recruiter in NYC, SF or Seattle and you’re gone.
dvtrn 8y ago
If an employer fears this and truly feels this way that should be a signal to look at what's going on in their workforce, where gaps exist, and how someone with an "overqualified" work background can help the company close those gaps. You get to evaluate someone without feeling slimy for asking interviewees to work for free, the employee gets valuable experience and increases their worth to you as an organization and it makes it easier to promote them or give them commensurate pay (which: if this is what it took to pay someone overqualified what they're worth to begin with, then you probably deserve to have that person leave). Sorry if it sounds abrasive-coming from a long history of being tired of the shallow excuses employers have for disqualifying great candidates while simultaneously bemoaning a "talent shortage".

pc86 8y ago

When it reality what it actually means is "your experience suggests you are worth more than what we're paying, and we'd rather not spend the time onboarding you just to have you leave in 6 months when you a job more commensurate with your experience and skills." I've been on the employer side of taking a chance on overqualified folks and it's a waste of a lot of time and a lot of money.

GFischer 8y ago
Obviously depends on location and stuff, but you can get overqualified people to stay due to life circumstances (for example due to their significant other doing a postgraduate degree which means they can't easily move cities or country).

mattmcknight 8y ago

Another variation is, "you are better than the person we selected to run this team, and they are too insecure to have you working for them." I feel this is silly fear, but I have heard it.