d time stating that every time a candidate with XYZ experience applies to role A the manager will pass for a specific reason. From my viewpoint the breakdown is something like this:
Entry level - if somebody who is truly well above the minimum qualifications applies for an entry level job the organization is likely to pass and have legitimate concern backing this decision. Retention, job satisfaction, and solid fit into the group will likely be sacrificed if hiring somebody with as much (or more) experience than his or her supervisor.
Taking a step back - if the same person as above applies to a position one (or even a couple) steps back in the career progression there could be a very good reason and it may be a great opportunity for the company and candidate. In this case the company is getting an employee with more experience than they needed at a minimal level, and there is a chance he or she will stick around. Depending on the personality of the candidate, there may be a sincere desire to stay long-term and get back to the original career level or beyond with the company who was good enough to give him/her a chance.
Aggressive/desperate candidate - no matter how many steps back they are taking a candidate with an aggressive growth vision is going to raise red flags as they will likely jump ship at the first sign of something better. A dire need hire may also do the same. While there is a possiblity that the employee will show some loyalty for putting food back on the table, it takes a unique personality to do this, and many will start seeking something at a more appropriate level once the market allows, thus making this hire a risky one as well.
Again, there is no clear black and white here, but as long as the person is still competent and in touch with the skills necessary to perform the job I see no problem with hiring somebody a level or two below the most recent responsibility. However, I get nervous with the VP turned analyst myself.…