5 ms·
Job mismatch and early career success
- Moosdijk 1y agohttps://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34215/w34215.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34215/w342... this is the direct link to the paper.
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago>We find that being overqualified for a job causes worse performance evaluations...and these individuals are more likely to be promoted. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction, specifically in the context of the Air Force/military?
- colonCapitalDee 1y agoI think they mean worse performance evaluations relative to others with similar test scores, but more likely to be promoted compared to other people working the same job
- lazide 1y agoSo cranky, maybe a pain in the ass, but still deliver the bacon?
- PaulHoule 1y agoCould be the credentials themselves get you marked for promotion. Monsieur Bouvier was a high school French teacher who was one time the only teacher with a PhD in my school district. He knew a lot about pedagogy and evaluation and certainly French but being in his classroom I think he lacked "soft skills" and was not good at dealing with bullshit which is a lot of what the teacher job entails. He got promoted to assistant principal on the basis of his credentials and put in charge of gifted and talented programs, I think the honors program succeeded precisely because people above him bypassed his authority and overruled him quite often. He was not really a good leader or manager -- as assistant principal he got to do some of what he was good at but he had to do more of dealing with the bullshit that the first and second tier couldn't deal with. My school had Roy Downton as principal for the longest time and he was really great at the job and hard to replace. There was a lot of jockeying for the position and Bouvier lost out and Mr. Adamankos finally won. I think Boivier's credentials got him a certain advantage in promotion but fortunely he didn't get promoted too far beyond his competence.
- boogieknite 1y agoim considering the possibility that the performance reviewer is harder on the overqualified candidate for any subjective assessment because expectations are greater or the goal of the lukewarm assessment is to motivate or challenge more capable candidates. an underqualified candidate only has to keep up to pass subjective assessment and the motivation is built-in many people are immune to basic motivation tactics but im surprised how many of my peers i see influenced by reviews which seem mostly motivational, and occasionally political, to me
- Sleaker 1y agoMaybe not in the context of military as I haven't served, but in private sector reviews can often determine your bonuses.
- dilyevsky 1y agoif performance reviews are based on peer feedback likely this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
- sillygoose14 1y agoI think it's stating that overqualified individuals are likely to get worse performance evaluations than if that same individual was in a job they were qualified for (e.g. they try harder when challenged and earn better ratings for themselves on a comparative basis), but are still more likely to get promoted than qualified/underqualified peers.
- DaveZale 1y agofor sure. sometimes getting stuff done involves stepping on the wrong person's toes, even if it was completely unintended. we've all been there before! a strong boss is required to smooth things out in those situations
- phkahler 1y agoThey did say they outperform persons better aligned to the job even though they are less happy. I'm guessing their review is worse relative to the same person in a job they aren't over qualified for, as opposed to comparing to another person in the same job who is not overqualified.
- jimmygrapes 1y agoMy interpretation based on experience is that the underqualified individuals will often be more prone to volunteering, participation in clubs and committees, and politicking. The overqualified individuals also do this, but will likely be required to do "the real job" more often, leaving a less qualified individual more free to do those things. Community involvement is a significant factor on both enlisted and officer performance reports. Gotta fill that section in no matter what, and if your section is poor it drags your overall score down. However, promotion testing is purely knowledge and skill based. A good test taker can overcome the weight of lower performance report scores. Just my opinion, though.
- siva7 1y agoNot about your specific context, but this contradiction has a name: Dilbert Principle
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- andy99 1y agoReminds me of the Gervais framework that someone made (as a kind of parallel to The Office) where you had three groups, confused, losers, psychopaths (don't read too much into the names). Confused work really hard at things they don't get recognized for (Dwight), psychopaths underperform and get promoted (Ryan).
- stefan_ 1y agoA Straight Shooter with Upper Management Written All Over Him
- cwmoore 1y agoCool, clever, noted plagiarist, a true breath of fresh air.
- sdenton4 1y agoEver seen Office Space?
- dkga 1y agoWell, people that are better evaluated at a job should have a higher chance of staying in that job, no? (Only half joking)
- giantg2 1y agoMost of the highly qualified people I know in the military have went reserves or left entirely due to poor leaders or bureaucracy. At ta certain point you can't change the system so you have to change. I'm guessing the ones who stay in that environment get demoralized by not being able to do what they believe is productive/best.
- mooreds 1y ago> patterns suggest that overqualified individuals are less motivated, but still outperform others in their same job. Underqualification results in a polar opposite set of findings, suggesting these individuals are motivated to put forth more effort, but still struggle to compete when judged relative to others. So... the system works? At least within the very constrained universe of what the Air Force is doing/testing for?
- wer232essf 1y ago[flagged]
- gobdovan 1y agoIt's not about the system working or not, it's more about whether it's well calibrated. You'd expect performance to scale linearly with skill (f(skill) = job_quality * x), but the data look more like a sigmoid: overqualified people disengage and never hit their full potential. Underqualified folks aren't that far behind their peers, yet in a better-matched role, they'd perform better with less effort. I find it kinda sad, honestly. But these are aggregated statistics, I still think people can overcome their perceived limitations, I'm certain some of the underqualified folks are the ones that drag that curve up a lot.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- giantg2 1y ago"patterns suggest that overqualified individuals are less motivated, but still outperform others in their same job." At least they aren't using engagement as a core part of the rating like many companies do - you can outperform on metrics and still be rated low because of your intangible and subjective "engagement".
- wood_spirit 1y agoIt would be really interesting to know to what extent their definitions of being over or under qualified is an approximation of IQ test scores. IQ tests have lovers and loathers but a correlation or otherwise would say they are measuring something or not…
- zabzonk 1y agoPerhaps measuring how well people perform on IQ tests?
- chaps 1y agoTotal anecdata, but whenever I've had to take an IQ test for an interview process, it's never the IQ test that's used to disqualify me. It's usually something like culture fit. But these days if a job requires me to do an IQ test to join, I'll use that as a signal to get the fuck out of there and find a different role. So again, anecdata, but I suspect I'm not the only one who would eschew those results.
- spydum 1y agoI have never heard of IQ tests for hiring, is this for real? I've seen Myers-Briggs and similar personality sorting hats, but never IQ.
- whstl 1y agoIt used to be VERY popular in enterprise, where HR professionals often coming from psychology handle most of the hiring. I have no idea why they did this, I guess that was the idea of a hiring process at the time.
- chaps 1y agoMy personal theory is that it's an easy way to say "no" if nothing else is easier.
- 1y ago
- DaveZale 1y agoWell I worked as a civilian in that branch a decade ago. Purely technical work, and I got the assigned tasks done in about 7 months. You also have to look at the culture of the place- and although that varies from base to base, whether or not someone is more or less qualified may be completely irrelevant. Cultural fit is very important, for example. Favoritism may be rampant, just like any other workplace. High performers who concentrate solely on the relevant tasks have less time to make the rounds around the office, playing petty politics, just like anywhere.
- curtisszmania 1y agoJob mismatch can really set someone back early in their career. It's crucial to find the right fit from the start. But sometimes, those mismatches lead us to discover what we truly love. Every detour can be a learning opportunity.
- billy99k 1y agoI had job mis-matches for years, and it helped me. I could do most of my work for almost all of my roles in half or less time. I Used the extra time to start successful businesses and now a successful consulting career.
- luxuryballs 1y agohow did you know what to do with the extra time? I’m in this situation with similar goals but no idea how to approach them
- anal_reactor 1y agoI simply play video games and ride my bike.
- luxuryballs 1y agodang I could franchise this out to my kids and be 4x productive
- ghostpepper 1y agoI'm confused by the wording "we create simulated job assignments" Was this entire study based on real data or a simulation?
- dmurray 1y agoI think they mean the job assignments were real, and what they're "simulating" is a randomised controlled experiment where they tell the Air Force who to assign to which position. The wording is confusing, but the methodology sounds reasonable.
- jakedata 1y agoI was a mismatched match for my first job and it led to a career in IT. My qualifications were that I was young, cheap and didn't know any better.
- nextworddev 1y agoYou should always - always - get jobs that you are underqualified for. Because someone even more underqualified than you will get that job.
- BobbyTables2 1y agoWhile I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think it applies to high executive positions in the private and/or public sectors. Too under qualified is still a continuous train wreck…
- g42gregory 1y ago"Combined, these patterns suggest that overqualified individuals are less motivated, but still outperform others in their same job. Underqualification results in a polar opposite set of findings, suggesting these individuals are motivated to put forth more effort, but still struggle to compete when judged relative to others." Did Captain Obvious wrote this working paper or all NBER research is like this?
- m463 1y agoI wonder how that compares to the peter principle? basically "people rise to the level of their own incompetence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#The_Peter_Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#The_Peter_Prin...