In one of the forums that I belong to, a frustrated member related her husband’s experiences of the job market. According to her he applied for a 6 month contract position that was a little below his level of experience. Although the rate wasn’t great he figured that it was better to earn some money rather than none at all. He felt that he could probably do the job relatively easily and still continue with his job search.

Unfortunately he was not awarded the contract and the feedback given to him was that it would be like ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’! Rather than see his experience as an advantage it was seen as a disadvantage. In addition, the company decided the all the applicants were too skilled for the job and so they re-advertised exactly the same job with a lower day rate in order to attract a lower calibre of applicant!

Well, I found myself shaking my head when I read this story. Is that really the way to create a high performing organisation? Admittedly I only have one side of the story, but isn’t that just bonkers? A company gets a number of well qualified applicants, rejects them as being overqualified and then re-advertises to get a lower quality of candidate!

I tried to consider the dilemma from the side of the recruiting company and came up with the following reasons as to why they might have been reluctant to hire the ‘over-qualified’ candidate –

1.   They are just taking the job because they need one so they will lack commitment.

2.   They are used to more challenging work so they will get bored and leave.

3.   They will be working with people less qualified than them and existing employees may feel threatened.

The only problem with these reasons is that they are not very good ones if you take a longer term view! Let’s look at them one at a time and see how they stand up.

Lack of Commitment

Is it sensible to assume that an overqualified candidate lacks commitment? Is it possible that they may in fact be more grateful for an opportunity and isn’t there an equal risk that a less qualified candidate can lack commitment?
If delivery of results is a concern then the organisation should define the deliverables clearly and monitor the output. In the example above, the opportunity was a contract position which reduces the risk of ‘carrying’ someone who lacks commitment because contracts are fixed term with short notice periods.

Boredom

Boredom is not a function of qualified you are. Boredom is state of mind. If the organisation wants to know where a candidate is at, then all they need to do is ask them a few pertinent questions. Why do you want the job? What will you bring to the project? How will you work with those who are less qualified them you? An overqualified candidate may have better reasons for taking a 6 month opportunity than a less qualified candidate who is hoping for full-time employment and then grows frustrated when they realise that this is not on offer.

Tensions with existing employees

If an organisation is recruiting people based on how threatened existing employees feel, then they may want to reconsider who they have in their current talent pool! It is essential to communicate the role and deliverables of contractors to existing employees. It may even be appropriate for them to provide input into the recruitment process, but recruitment decisions should not be made based on whether existing employees feel threatened or not.

At the end of the day, an ‘over-qualified’ candidate presents an opportunity to get really good skills and experience at a lower cost. Yes, there are risks, but those same risks exist with other candidates. Also, it is possible to manage those risks with good communication, clear deliverables and effective management.

Don’t lose out on your opportunity!