4 ms·

I keep getting amazing applicants but vastly overqualified for the roles for which I am hiring :( good luck out there, guys.

amitport 6y ago
They're overqualified and they applied so you at least had a talk with them, voiced your concerns, and given them a chance to explain, right? Otherwise, that's kind of part of the problem IMO.
jobigoud 6y ago
What is the concern with overqualified people exactly? That they be too experienced to do exactly what you ask them to without raising their doubts? That their compensation requirement be too high (but they applied already so they factored it in)? Something else? Would you consider them if they remove things from their CV to appear less qualified (not illegal, unlike adding imaginary things)? Or is it purely about age? (Honest questions, as I might be in this position in very few years).
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  It’s a polite way of saying something. So I’ll give you an example, I know I can’t really date certain people that post prolifically on Instagram (you can extrapolate a little more from what I just said). This is not a hypothetical, I’m genuinely very insecure about whomever I’m with doing it. Anyways, what’s a polite way to say that to a new person that you just got involved with? You just avoid it to begin with, nothing personal. Someone in leadership also has needs. They need a team that respects and looks up to them. If they hire someone that clearly has a better resume, this is just not going to work. They can’t tell the recruiter ‘no, I can’t interview this person’ because usually the resume is good enough for a phone screen, so they go through the process. But the answer is always simple.
  - amitport 6y ago
    "Someone in leadership also has needs. They need a team that respects and looks up to them. If they hire someone that clearly has a better resume, this is just not going to work." Not generally true. I've worked with people with management experience who got a chance as junior programmers (after getting tired from managing or not finding another job). They were incredibly loyal, nice, and easy to work with and manage. I've also worked with arrogant intolerable people with zero experience. Overqualification is really just a bad factor to consider.
- theshadowknows 6y ago
  I am very constrained in terms of compensation. I work for a large company and the salary bands are defined by the HR, so we don’t much “wiggle room.” I personally don’t have any issue with hiring folks who are overqualified. But when I say overqualified I mean I’m seeing guys with phd in computer science and guys with experience leading large engineering teams that apply for jr roles. These people deserve much more compensation than HR will let us give them. And most of the time comp isn’t given on the job posts (I’m trying to change that) so they don’t find out until they go to the first screen.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - amitport 6y ago
    You have two signals: - The applicant has relevant experience - He/She is interested in moving forward (they did apply for this job, and not some other higher-paying job) The rest is just human bias and lazy HR.
    - theshadowknows 6y ago
      Oh I agree 100% on the lazy HR point. My leadership and I battle with HR constantly on this. And again personally I don't even put much stock in resumes - especially when they come from a recruiter because the recruiter will beef up the resume so much. But the reality is that when you hire someone who's got a lot of specialist knowledge that more often than not they are just filling a gap until something better comes along. I don't expect my hires to be devoted to my enterprise for life, but I need to know upfront that they'll stick around long enough to justify the hire. And when you've got a guy that did 3 years at Google trying to get a job as an email developer...well...that guy may want to break into the email game but most likely he's just waiting until bigger fish come along.
      - amitport 6y ago
        That is the bias I'm talking about. No, the guy who did 3 years at Google is not more likely to be less committed to this position that he applied to. You don't know anything about him or his circumstances. You assume. I'm not against taking a statistically-based decision, but you don't even have the statistics. Juniors often enough job-hop while the guy with experience may actually know what he is getting into and have a reason to do so (I also don't have the statistics, and that's why I won't filter fresh grads...).

amitport 6y ago

They're overqualified and they applied so you at least had a talk with them, voiced your concerns, and given them a chance to explain, right? Otherwise, that's kind of part of the problem IMO.

jobigoud 6y ago

What is the concern with overqualified people exactly? That they be too experienced to do exactly what you ask them to without raising their doubts? That their compensation requirement be too high (but they applied already so they factored it in)? Something else? Would you consider them if they remove things from their CV to appear less qualified (not illegal, unlike adding imaginary things)? Or is it purely about age? (Honest questions, as I might be in this position in very few years).

runawaybottle 6y ago
It’s a polite way of saying something. So I’ll give you an example, I know I can’t really date certain people that post prolifically on Instagram (you can extrapolate a little more from what I just said). This is not a hypothetical, I’m genuinely very insecure about whomever I’m with doing it. Anyways, what’s a polite way to say that to a new person that you just got involved with? You just avoid it to begin with, nothing personal. Someone in leadership also has needs. They need a team that respects and looks up to them. If they hire someone that clearly has a better resume, this is just not going to work. They can’t tell the recruiter ‘no, I can’t interview this person’ because usually the resume is good enough for a phone screen, so they go through the process. But the answer is always simple.
- amitport 6y ago
  "Someone in leadership also has needs. They need a team that respects and looks up to them. If they hire someone that clearly has a better resume, this is just not going to work." Not generally true. I've worked with people with management experience who got a chance as junior programmers (after getting tired from managing or not finding another job). They were incredibly loyal, nice, and easy to work with and manage. I've also worked with arrogant intolerable people with zero experience. Overqualification is really just a bad factor to consider.
theshadowknows 6y ago
I am very constrained in terms of compensation. I work for a large company and the salary bands are defined by the HR, so we don’t much “wiggle room.” I personally don’t have any issue with hiring folks who are overqualified. But when I say overqualified I mean I’m seeing guys with phd in computer science and guys with experience leading large engineering teams that apply for jr roles. These people deserve much more compensation than HR will let us give them. And most of the time comp isn’t given on the job posts (I’m trying to change that) so they don’t find out until they go to the first screen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- amitport 6y ago
  You have two signals: - The applicant has relevant experience - He/She is interested in moving forward (they did apply for this job, and not some other higher-paying job) The rest is just human bias and lazy HR.
  - theshadowknows 6y ago
    Oh I agree 100% on the lazy HR point. My leadership and I battle with HR constantly on this. And again personally I don't even put much stock in resumes - especially when they come from a recruiter because the recruiter will beef up the resume so much. But the reality is that when you hire someone who's got a lot of specialist knowledge that more often than not they are just filling a gap until something better comes along. I don't expect my hires to be devoted to my enterprise for life, but I need to know upfront that they'll stick around long enough to justify the hire. And when you've got a guy that did 3 years at Google trying to get a job as an email developer...well...that guy may want to break into the email game but most likely he's just waiting until bigger fish come along.
    - amitport 6y ago
      That is the bias I'm talking about. No, the guy who did 3 years at Google is not more likely to be less committed to this position that he applied to. You don't know anything about him or his circumstances. You assume. I'm not against taking a statistically-based decision, but you don't even have the statistics. Juniors often enough job-hop while the guy with experience may actually know what he is getting into and have a reason to do so (I also don't have the statistics, and that's why I won't filter fresh grads...).