Overqualified Candidates

Is the term “overqualified” code for too old, or too expensive? Should an employer be wary of hiring overqualified people? The answer to both is sometimes.

Overqualified truly means a person who possesses skills way beyond what is required to do the job, AND the job being considered represents a step down for the person.

There are a few valid reasons why an overqualified person could safely be hired and could do a good job. A lifestyle change could be valid – kids at home (or elderly relative) who need attention; spouse moved for a new job with much higher pay; person is recovering from injury or other trauma. Cash infusion could be another valid reason: a recent cash-out at prior company (stock option redemption or exit package) or even an inheritance, could cause a person to think “I could

afford to throttle back a notch for a while.”

If a company simply desires a younger worker, and in comparing skills, rules out a baby boomer in favor of a Gen-Y’er when both are equally qualified and would cost the same, that is simple age
discrimination, and I think it is wrong. I’ve seen baby boomers do an outstanding job, leveraging their stronger experience, and yet not demand or expect as much as some of today’s younger workers.

When cost is a factor, a company is justified in hiring the least expensive person they feel can do the job, and that does not represent age discrimination, in my opinion.

The one real issue with overqualified candidates is whether they will stay. When a person steps down a level, and takes less pay, there is a real risk they will be vulnerable to recruiters, or will even seek another opportunity, seeing your position as only a stop-gap, or a way station on the path to something better. We ask candidates directly, “Why wouldn’t you make a move next year if a higher paying more responsible position became available?” If a candidate doesn’t have a really solid answer to this question – they are overqualified, and then I wouldn’t recommend the hire.

For more insights, visit the Headhunter's Secret Guide!

Comment by Sandra McCartt on December 4, 2010 at 3:04pm: Mark,
All good points and certainly valid but i think there is more than one real issue with an overqualified candidate. As an example. What about a CFO who has taken a company public, cashed out his options and makes the decision that he doesn't want that kind of press again.

He takes a position as a controller in a solid medium size company is sure beyond a doubt that he will never move again, loves running the financial accounting department etc. etc. etc. The company decides to go public. They start the IPO process, the current CFO has never taken a company public, the guy who is now the controller disagrees with the way the CFO is handling the IPO. He knows better but when he says so feathers get ruffled. Now he is not so happy and feels that his experience is being ignored. Or he says he disagrees and he is well received then finds himself in exactly the situation he didn't want...the heat of taking another company public, wakes up and thinks. I didn't want this. The situation has changed from what he wanted and thought it would be. Not unlike the reason a lot of changes in direction cause people to make a job change but in this case if he had not been overqualifed for the position he took it would never have happened.

My question being , since we can never know what will happen in the future does it really depend on each individual and how can we predict how someone will feel in six months or year after they take a position for which they are overqualified.?

If a person has an inheritance, an ailing relative or a wish to throttle back for a while how can we determine when or if they will run through the inheritance, blow it in the market, have the money to be able to say, "take this job and shove it", a relative will improve or no longer need care or boredom will set in so they want to push the throttle up a notch.

I would be interested if there is any kind of metric related to the overqualified who were hired and how long they stayed. It's always a risk for a company and for me as a recruiter it's always been a little hard to sell that overqualified candidate with the same confidence because of the ones who came back around in a year or 18 months.

From my experience with my clients it has really been a hesitancy to put a person in a lesser role more than age discrimination unless the demands of the position required extreme long hours or physical demands that some individuals in their late 50's or early 60's simply can't or don't want to commit to for the long haul. Maybe that's not valid and is age discrimination.

Your thoughts will be of interest as well as any stats or examples either way.

Comment by C. B. Stalling!! on December 5, 2010 at 10:26am: Lots of bosses will not hire people smater than them becasue they fear loosing their job. So they hire just ok people. What a shame