Overqualified
The employer perspective
This email is about the dreaded word Overqualified, drawn from a LinkedIn post I’ll publish soon.
And it isn’t so much an advisory post, rather an explanation to try to help with expectation management (which is a key part of navigating this market).
This is something I’ve talked about previously when looking at the meaning of feedback.
However, there is a flipside to feedback, which is why the feedback may have happened in the first place - from the employer's perspective.
If you’ve worked with me as an employer you will know that I prioritise accessibility and inclusiveness in my process, which results in a diversity that includes candidates some may consider overqualified.
(It’s not a term I typically use, instead, I aim to break down what it actually means.)
What does it look like when someone ‘overqualified’ is hired?
In the past 12 months, I’ve secured roles for six such candidates.
Three are doing well, fulfilling the roles they were originally hired for. I hear they are enjoying it too.
One was made redundant when their employer went into administration (similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US).
Two signed employment contracts, agreed start dates, then withdrew having accepted significantly higher offers with other employers. Both were some time after their original offer.
These last two are notable for this article.
So - they got a job, before accepting the job. Somewhat oddly, I got the feeling with one that they’d followed advice similar to how I help jobseekers.
I don’t blame them – both were in tough job searches and played their cards close to their chests that our vacancies were the ones for them. When you need income to secure your future, it’s a fair tactic, especially when the jobs they went on to accept weren’t guaranteed.
In both cases I had a shortlist we could revert to, which led to those vacancies being filled by people who were more traditional fits with their requirements.
Had I not, this would have created a problem for the employers.
It’s fair to hope that employers will give people a chance.
Yet, I’m sure many employers have given people a chance, then had their fingers burnt, so won’t be prepared to risk that in future.
It’s common feedback to me when I’m in early discussion with new potential client partners: “we tried that once and it didn’t work, so we won’t try it again.”
Even if those same things that didn’t work once prove to be a great solution for them.
If they’re prepared to say that to me, I’m sure many will feel the same, yet not venture an opinion because they don’t want the conversation.
It may not be fair that a bad experience informs how employers appoint. But we’re all people, and similar things happen when candidates share bad experiences of hiring processes (commonly referred to as candidate resentment).
For example, have you ever decided not to apply to an advert because of a bad experience elsewhere? One example might be choosing not to apply to adverts that only list a £competitive salary, because of the expectation of being lowballed.
I can tell you some employers who use this statement pay very well indeed, even if they are an exception to the norm.
I’ll continue to advocate for great candidates who may not be the square peg for the square hole – it’s the path for better retention.
These things are never as clear-cut as they seem, especially when the consequences can be a setback.
Sometimes overqualified can mean the role isn’t enough to sustain your interest, and those roles can’t be changed.
Sometimes it alludes to the consideration of flight risk, especially when it’s happened before.
Or sometimes, it may be a hiring manager feeling threatened by taking on someone more capable than they are.
Sometimes it hides a low salary and sometimes discrimination.
And sometimes it’s easy feedback to give an answer that’s hard to complain about.
Whatever it is, it’s always a reason to move on, not something to dwell on.
Thanks for reading,
Greg