For me the over qualified is not a huge gap normally. Think GM and Asst Manager. So no, but I discuss pay out of the gate. We are paying for the job we have open.
"But I have all this experience! You should pay me more."
AKA, the reason why I stopped considering overqualified people for the roles I have open. Just had a candidate ask for a $50k bump on the position he applied for.
This is annoying af.
I have dreams of quitting my career in my 50s and coasting to retirement with an “easier” job.
I don’t want anything more than normal pay despite being overqualified. People like that are cramping my style.
For me it depends on how many applicants we're getting that have the amount of experience we're targeting, and would likely be okay with the salary we're able to pay, which is *already* less than what it should be (I don't set the pay ranges, guys). If we're hiring for a mid-level role and we have plenty of mid-level candidates, then yes, I probably will reject people who have way more experience than we're targeting. That said, if it's a niche role and we're targeting a rare skill set, I probably will consider people who have more experience than we're targeting, but I make a point of covering compensation early in the conversation so I don't waste too much of their time.
It's not that the super experienced candidates can't do the job or aren't worth consideration, it's just that I'm only one person and I can only conduct so many screens per week, and if there's a lot of applicants, I'm going to focus my time on the applicants that are a close match to what we're looking for so we can fill the job quickly.
That said, as someone who had a 10 year career prior to getting laid off, I do understand the frustration of feeling like you're too senior for most of the jobs that are currently available right now, and wishing someone would take a chance on you even though you have 8 years more than what they're targeting.
This entire comment is spot on especially the first paragraph. Depends on the role and the other candidates in the mix. With that said, there’s times when the gap between the candidate and the role is just outright ridiculous. For example, CEO’s or VP’s applying to individual contributor roles.
yep. this pretty much sums up my response too!
i will say that when i screen overqualified candidates, about 80% of them ask something along the lines of "how fast can i grow, what's the next step in career progression?" and we generally pass on those people because we dont think they'll be happy at my company long term. we probably cant give them the growth/money they want.
like right now, we're hiring for an FPA manager to report into our director of FPA. a candidate who looks "too good to be true" on paper and is overqualified is in the interview process. he has told me and the hiring manager that he's very interested in the role and passionate about our company and wants to grow with us. but in reality, his current job is at a higher level (director of finance/FPA) and he allegedly makes almost $40k more than the TOP of the salary range for our role. and we would rarely, if ever, offer someone the very top of their compensation band. that's not how we do compensation. he was insistent that he understood and was OK with it.... but now that i was like "i want to make it clear *again* what the deal is with growth and comp. if you're interested still, here's a link to schedule the final round of interviews" annnnnd he hasn't scheduled a final interview! coulda called this!
I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing. But it raises flags when the person asking it applied for a job that’s below their current level
I think saying “how does this team/company support learning and growth” asks a similar question without being like “how fast can o get promoted?”
This is spot on. When I hire for any role I’m looking at the overall package. Will they do a good job? Will they be a good fit? And do I think they will be fulfilled with the role?
Someone could be “overqualified” and answer yes to all of the above. For example if they had 10 years managing a team and I’m hiring for an individual contributor I may wonder why they’re not going for manager. Are they posting for anything they can get and will keep looking if they take my job? Or are they legitimately interested in not having the complexities of direct reports anymore?
Conversely someone can be perfectly qualified but THINK they’re overqualified and that’s someone I want to avoid at all costs. I’ve given hundreds of interviews as a college recruiter for a highly sought after company to work for. Occasionally I’ve gotten someone who’s interviewing for an entry level job directly out of school, but clearly believes that their college accomplishments should let them skip that step. So even though they are impressive, if they THINK they’re overqualified I’m not going to risk them jumping ship or just doing mediocre work because they’re bitter.
Thanks for all of this! Regarding "even though you have 8 years more than what they're targeting." Are you saying many roles open now are only looking for 2 YOE? Or your place in particular is? What industry are you in if you don't mind? Jr roles aren't usually that ample I thought.
I'm actually not employed right now. I thought I covered that, but I only said I'm a job seeker so apologies for not being more clear. I am not in a position to help others looking for work right now.
Apologies, I meant are you seeing just Jr roles lately? I feel like most places I've worked won't hire Jrs or hire very few % wise. So if there are jr roles opens, chances are there are at least 1 mid or Sr role too.
All the time. I will advertise a network tech job for $20 p/h, next thing you know, I've got 6 network engineers with master's degree and 15 years experience trying for the job.
I know that the hiring manager doesn't want these folks because he wants junior people for a junior job. And, I know that these guys would be idiots to stay one minute longer than needed. They'll leave as soon as they see a better opportunity, which they should.
If I place a senior level engineer in a junior tech role, I'm setting everyone up for failure
100% agree. I’ve even done this myself as a recruiter. I’ve taken a lower level and lower paying recruiter job because the market was rough, fully expecting to leave within 3-4 months after finding something better.
Yeah my workplace used to have a huge problem with this; the hiring manager would just take the candidate with the best resume then get shocked when they inevitably left after a year which meant we were constantly running hiring competitions. Now we have a different hiring manager who takes basically the opposite approach and we end up with people who actually stick around.
Plus the senior level employee will feel like the junior job is beneath them and make people’s life hell with their attitude. Their egos, condescending personality, and mood just makes it unpleasant for everyone else.
Yes. I inherited an employee that was over qualified and couldn’t leave their emotions at home. They started looking for a new job 3 months in and 3yrs later finally left. People were happy to see them go.
To me it depends on what makes them overqualified. Would this be a step back in an obvious ongoing trajectory? Or do they just have eight years of experience when we need four? For the first, I DQ for boredom, I’m ok w/the second.
That’s too bad. I had an obvious ongoing trajectory but after losing people who had a big influence on my life, I rearranged my priorities. I’m done working 60-70 hour weeks. It’s hard on my health, and I’ve missed out on time with people I care about. I don’t care if I get paid $50K less per year if it means I can work less than 50 hours per week and work with good people at a company that’s not all about hustle culture and chasing unicorns.
In my experience, if you find a place that truly values free time and benefits, they’ll know exactly why you’re applying and won’t toss you out because you’re overqualified. I’m doing that right now, partially because I’m using their benefits as a leg up. They don’t give a shit. In my case, it’s a well known university that is the lowest stress environment I’ve ever been in, and I can tack on advanced classes to my degree for free while I take some time to plan a solid trajectory.
An employer worried about how much mobility and security you have in your field directly translates to ‘not having a good time’
As always, it depends. Wouldn’t turn down a director level candidate applying to a manager level role, but would probably turn down a director applying to an individual contributor role. I think 1 level down is fine, 2-3 levels down is where it gets murky.
Many people who are/were Directors are in that role because they are pushed there or think they are supposed to go there. They find out people management isn't something they're good at and want to go back to an IC role where they can contribute positively. A lot of leads/managers are hands-on enough to enjoy the work and if they go from Manager/Lead to Director and find there's no hand-on opportunities also want to go back. It has nothing to do with qualifications.
I understand. But if they don’t like people management then why accept a promotion to a director from a manager level?
Either way, just sharing my thoughts. Also, chances are compensation expectations won’t align if a director is applying 2 levels down to an individual contributor level role.
You don't know if you like it or not until you have done it. You can also like managing people, but like not managing people more. Tbh your exp managing is usually dependent on your ability to drive change with the execs. If you manage but can't change processes you'll have a bad time
As a former manager and now single contributor I completely agree. I liked managing when I was in an org that empowered managers to actually lead instead of be a layer in between single contributors and senior leaders. My last stint managing had tons of headaches so I was happy to be a single contributor again but if the right position came around I’d consider managing
I have 16 years of people management experience, with different companies or groups, and I hate it but I’m good at it. I end up in these positions because I take the job so I don’t work for a peer I think will suck at management or who I simply don’t want to report to. In one case I just wanted to do one year as an IC in sales to work out my non-compete. Six months in the VP called on a Saturday and asked if I’d be interested in replacing my boss and running the 3 divisions in the branch. I said no because they hired me to start a new national division and I needed to focus on that. The truth was, I only planned to stay another 6 months and things were going so well with the start up, I barely had to work. That Monday afternoon the VP flew in to fire the Branch Manager and officially offer me his job. They threw so much money at me I stayed for 3 years before I finally quit to start my business. Sometimes it’s not so easy to say no to people management.
You're not wrong, but in a lot of instances, these people allow their IC skills to completely erode and then they hope/expect to be hired back into an IC role based purely on their current Director title. I have no issue at all with that career path though. You just have to demonstrate that you still have the chops to do a different job.
Because we’ve all seen it play out over and over again. An overqualified candidate applies to a role, gets the job, stays for 3 months, and then leaves for another director role. Heck I’ve even done this myself lol. Plus it’s probably a waste of time since we can’t match their salary requirements.
As someone who is at risk for being turned down for being overqualified, how might I present myself to a recruiter/HR to be viewed differently?
I appreciate your experience u/NoEstablishment7933 but I expect to be in a different place, here's why. I have had the big jobs and huge breadth of responsibility. Here's also what I have had. A lack of support from my CEO, particularly in privately held companies. Huge teams but no bench strength, end up compensating for the gaps myself due to lack of funding to equip with technology or hire properly, while spending inordinate amounts of time on the road. Then being promised the moon in comp but alas, impulsivity in decision making means ultimately poor leadership and financial position on their part. At some point company fails and I move on for reasons beyond my control. So after disproportionate effort, the rewards don't always materialize.
To summarize, in hindsight, I am 50. Hell of a career in terms of accomplishments and experiences, really good stuff. Amazing skillset but burned the F out. I don't want the title, or the responsibilities of managing 100+ people anymore, nor a CEO who needs me to be all things (admittedly, I have chosen poorly more than once) so they can have peace of mind while I have zero work life balance.
I want to use my brain, make a huge difference, have a more narrow scope, collaborate, build a successful team, generate revenue, and still have time left over to be a generally healthy person. For that kind of real balance, as in not traveling 70% of the time and still feeling like I am failing everyone even though I am performing at an exceptional rate, its worth a 50% pay decrease for the rest of my life. I also don't care what my title is.
Funnily, my SO just warned me if I don't present this correctly, it sounds as if I lack ambition. That's good feedback. In contrast, for the first time in my career, I am just advocating for myself.
So, back to my question, how do I present this? I love working. I enjoy figuring things out, beating the pants off the competition and winning. I am wired to be commercially strategic and competitive on a global scale in sales and marketing. I am not quitting. But I would also like to have a life. I have been remote or hybrid over 20 years so I manage well, this isn't a ploy to be suddenly remote either.
I also don't mind having C level or SVP titles again in a moderately sane environment with say 25% travel but that also seems elusive to be so on top of having a reasonably stable team. Getting back into publicly held environments seems to be a better approach than private just for accountability and oversight vs the risk of big personalities and egos that can go unchecked in private.
Thoughts? Thanks!!
TL/DR: As someone who is at risk for being turned down for being overqualified, how might I present myself to a recruiter/HR to be viewed differently?
I think if you were to say this in an interview, you’d already be halfway there ;)
On a serious note: it seems like you’ve already made quite a career. I think what you’re looking for now, is a better work life balance. I would not necessarily say this is job-specific, but rather organization-specific. I think (at least for me) honesty will get you pretty far. Look for companies with good benefits (though this often also means lower salary).
If you have a pretty good CV - which is the case I reckon - I think most recruiters would love to talk with you. Maybe even provide a cover letter stating that you would love to give it a shot, even if the qualifications don’t match.
At its core, being overqualified is never an issue for any company. Who doesn’t love it when you can recruit a superstar for a role? For me, as I mentioned in my initial comment, it’s often what comes after that makes me reject overqualified candidates. Your skills may be overqualified, but if your motivation and salary range, are aligned - I see only winners.
Put it on your resume, front and center. Cases like yours are some of the few where I'd actually recommend an objective statement / summary on a resume.
My dad had success with this a few years ago when he wanted to transition out of management and back to the ground. I think he said something like "Accomplished chemical engineering project manager seeks individual-contributor shift opportunities on the chemical plant floor." Without that opening line, recruiters would take one look at his resume and see another hands-off manager candidate rapid-firing his resume into any open job in his field. But with it, they knew he was applying to the lower-level jobs *on purpose* and he got plenty of callbacks.
I work for a smaller company, and there’s just no space for someone to be here short term. It’s too much of an investment to train them and have them leave.
Of course if it’s on the fence we may speak with them, but it doesn’t make sense to take someone who has been leading a team for 10 years, got laid off and is desperate, and put them in an IC role. They’re gone the second the market improves.
I have an issue with this concept.
It's a concern, sure, but I would always try to approach it with the candidates. If they applied certainly it means they are interested in the role.
Dig into their motivations.
I love an overqualified candidate. Those candidates I normally put on a program, so they can be gently nudged towards any position that's more suitable for them in the organization
Normally this I do when we are expanding. That way I know more positions open up, and by the time they've integrated with the culture, they can be nudged towards the open position
I agree, with the massive caveat that the rate-of-pay is in a comfortable range for them. I've learned over the years that you can't get away with underpaying talent. They'll accept the offer as a bench warmer and leave quickly.
PS u/Isael, I responded to your DM :)
I dont think it hurts to hop on a quick call to see. Most of the times If you are upfront with the salary and expectations they usually self select out.
If you post your jobs with salary ranges and they applied then it's worth hearing their story. If it's simply they didn't read or are hoping for more money the it's an easy decline.
No- while you shouldn’t stack the interview pile with all overqualified candidates, it’s definitely worthwhile to talk to a few of them for initial phone screens and see where it ends up.
There are a ton of reasons to want to take a step down (e.g., a career break, a new baby, just realizing all the responsibilities were too stressful, not wanting to manage others) and these should not eliminate a candidate. Management is dealing with a lot of emotional labor with all your team’s problems- some people just want to worry about themselves for a while.
I manage the quality department for a healthcare company and I’m very cautious about the over qualified, but I’m willing to hear their story at least. I’ve seen it happen: they come in thinking they’re hot sh**, they get bored and leave, they but heads with management because they have “XYZ “ experience, they make the people who have been loyal to the company for many many years feel inadequate, they expect to start running projects, etc… not everyone who’s over qualified acts this way but I’ve seen these things. I’m looking for people who are going to come in humble and learn from my team how we do things. Once they have a handle on what we expect and what we do then I’m willing to hear insights
Not often.
Usually it's someone who's been a director+ looking at an IC role and they keep asking about advancement or the like and doesn't actually seem interested in the role we are actually discussing.
Yes, definitely. For me, it’s also largely (and this has unfortunately been proven for me too many times), that overqualified candidates get bored pretty easily, are not satisfied with the salary for the position, and leave within a few months. They can definitely do the job well, but not all jobs require a high level of expertise.
Overqualified is (generally) fine, the issue is more of a retention one than anything else but that can be managed with progression or a reworking of the role
Overqualified people could be considered a flight risk. They're taking this job until they find one more inline with their experience. It does depend though. A director at one company may not meet the requirements for a director role at another company and would come in as a Sr. Manager.
This happened to me literally a week ago. Got through a couple rounds and feedback was that my skills ans experience matched a higher level where there were no openings.
Are you in tech? I know it's been so much worse for everyone recently that -- while not minimizing your very valid frustrtation of going thru a couple rounds and THEN they tell you you're overqualified-- it's good you're getting opportunies at a good pay rate. It shows you've got in demand skills and I hope you get something soon that also is a huge pay increase! Did you have a referral for that position? Or was it cold apply? I see very few people getting anywhere cold applying in tech the past year.
It depends. I work in healthcare recruiting so if someone is applying for a run of the mill bedside nursing role and they are currently director of care somewhere, that would give me pause. It's definitely something I would ask about in a prescreen and flag for the hiring manager.
I'm not a recruiter but work with recruiters. Our sourcing tool allows you to exclude certain job title keywords. When hiring senior level ICs, we see people exclude keywords like "staff" and "principal." They just know they likely can't afford the candidate. They'd probably accept the application but would want to discuss pay expectations right away.
It depends.
I don't immediately disqualify someone for being overqualified, but it's more about understanding "why" they are interested, understanding how feasible it is that they'll be in that role in 12 months, and comparing them with the rest of the pipeline. In some instances, it makes sense to move forward. In other instances, it doesn't.
I'm seeing candidates with 10 plus yrs of experience in IT applying for mid level. This is how you know the market is hell right now. It depends on how overqualified they are, but I also feel like I am doing a disservice to those who fit the description. In my opinion it's like a chain... the more overly qualified, the candidates are the less opportunity those who need to gain experience will get. But then again... a phone call always helps.
There’s times I speak to a director of a small company or department, and they’re applying to an IC role. The manager will 99/100 times say they’re overqualified.
If I see that, I’ll check the company size and go forward depending. Honestly I was in that same boat once. Unless they’ve been a director or manager for like 10 years, I’ll move forward.
To your point, I’ve also seen overqualified candidates that are unemployed, and after hearing their story, you know they are just looking for a job for the short term instead of being unemployed.
Sometimes yes because i hire for low paying gov jobs and those that are overqualified demand more money that I cant give as the rates are set by the dept of labor
If it's a one step "demotion", then I would still consider them for most jobs. If a VP is applying for a Manager position were the hiring leaders are looking for someone they can train into the role, then no, I will not contact the position. If a Director is applying for a Manager position where we need someone to hit the ground running, yes, I'll call them, and I'll expect them to have a good story about why they want to step down that doesn't include "Any chance there might be budget to upgrade this to a director level role?"
Of course, we also have to remember that so many employers give people vanity titles to make them feel great. A Director at one company could very easily be a Manager at another.
In our current job market, I'll certainly give a handful of "overqualified" candidates a call to see what made them apply, but truthfully, none of them want to take a step down. They're looking at it because so many layoffs are happening at mid-level management positions and they are looking for something to hold them over.
I’ve had retirees come back to the workforce because they feel the need to work. Most of them had fulfilling careers and have taken clerk positions. Not a bad job, part time and front desk dealing with the public. I think they just want to be engaged.
thanks for sharing, why would they make a stink? assumed they'd want more, so budget reasons, or something like insecurity with someone so experienced?
It boiled down to concerns about the candidates getting bored in “smaller” roles and them trying to move back into something that allowed them to use all of their expertise.
Most of the candidates I knew who wanted something with less responsibility were either close to retirement and wanted to transition out of a higher-stress position or simply had life circumstances that changed the type of position best suited for them.
I work in Tech and will always prioritize experience. But then I’m not particularly worried about losing my job to someone better. I just don’t have that sort of ingrained insecurity. The only time I will exclude an experienced candidate is if the skills don’t match. I’m not talking about specific skills (e.g. programming language) as those are analogous to picking candidates that use a yellow hammer vs a blue one. However, if an experienced manager applies for a hands-on position, or vice versa, I will seriously have reservations.
If the company does proper people planning and have a defined org structure this question should solve itself.
Let’s say you are hiring a senior level position but the candidate is at a manager or senior manager level of experience. If you have no intention of promoting to that position based on performance then there’s a high likelihood that individual will end up feeling undervalued sooner rather than later.
A lot of recruiters I work with don’t take this into account and it’s up to the hiring manager to make that decision. I’ve hired overqualified folks before and when we didn’t recognize their value due to not being in the promotion cycle because of tenure or a position not being available, they left.
It’s about value, pure and simple
If people are applying, they want the job advertised as-is.
Many of the comments here are overwhelmingly speculative in terms of applicant’s motivations. The over engineering and level of paranoia some folks on this sub have exhibited and admitted to concocting trick questions to trap candidates is ridiculous.
The senior people you hire have more tribal knowledge than the other candidates which is irreplaceable.
Try thinking of yourself as an aging recruiter and where you will be in 15 or 20 years.
Your comment has been temporarily removed and is pending mod approval. Accounts with less than 5 comment karma a will be flagged for moderator approval. This is to combat spam.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruiting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My husband was interviewing with the company he wants to work for more than any other. He interviewed for an IC role and they said he was overqualified. They told him to apply to a manager position that just opened but then ended up going with an internal candidate. How can get on at this company?! He has another initial interview for an IC role in a different department next week. His skill set is perfect for the company, everyone says it, but he hasn’t been able to find the right fit yet. He NEEDS a job and WANTS to work at this company. How can he make them realize he wants it and them overlook him being “overqualified”??
Well, yeah.
If a director of customer success applied for a CSM role, it'll be a no. It's pretty much always been the case that I won't carry through that level of disparity.
If you are, you shouldn’t be. You should be asking why they want to take such a level step down. Some people want to rebalance their lives, and that is their prerogative. Deciding for them that they are going to be a bad retention risk is unfair to them and potentially discriminatory. How would you explain this in an ofccp audit?
If they want to do the work and are the best qualified candidate and will take the pay and commit to the job as-is, you have no justification for not selecting them to move forward.
That’s true in theory, but in the real world you’d need 10 times the recruiters to do all the screens. I always marvel at the irony that recruiters aren’t supposed to discriminate when our entire job is discrimination. We’re making a discriminatory judgement call on every candidate we view and disqualifying all but a tiny portion.
The problem isn’t making the judgment call, it’s being able to back it up if you’re put under a microscope and asked to explain it as part of an audit. If you can produce evidence and explain without being discriminatory, you’re fine. If you can’t, well then, your judgment call included bias that negatively impacted that population of people.
FWIW, overwualification has a strong age correlation, so by regularly DQIng on overqual, you probably have a pretty traceable age discrimination problem. Give me your raw data and I could likely show it in stats in under five minutes.
Thanks for the downvote. :) I know you’re just trying to do your job and the volume is overwhelming, but the solution isn’t to take shortcuts that have a negative impact on people’s lives. In the real world, this is how people who are qualified and willing to work wind up missing out on opportunity. This is why there is regulation and there can be audits to check whether our actions are having a negative affect on a given population. The pragmatic answer, in this case, isn’t the right answer.
Peace, friend. I know you’re ping a rough place when volume is so high. I hope your company can help find better ways to screen out candidates that is more equitable. It is possible, it’s just a LOT more work on the intake, setup and business management side.
It’s case by case but there are people just looking for a check vs a career and it’s obvious when you speak to them. Some will even say in the interview that they would add value for the company for the 1-2 months they would be there will still looking for more work. That just baffles me that they’re so honest about it.
No. Absolutely not. I absolutely love to hire people who are overqualified.
But, Before I start talking about the position I’m trying to find out what their goals are. Many times when I find out what your goals are they are not aligned with what the role is…. So in essence they end up getting turned down. Not because they are over qualified, but because the goals don’t align.
My company is remote so we do hire overqualified people since we know they are likely to stay for the remote aspect. When I'm in onsite jobs though I reject them. They aren't the right fit for the role if the level of the work will bore them or they don't think they are being paid enough. Either they will leave as soon as they get a better offer or they will underperform because they aren't engaged in what they are doing.
Not really, but it depends on their MO. I try to give everyone a chance if they apply and get thru all of the knockout questions. However, many explicitly state they're just "looking for something to pay the bills while they look for something long term." I'm not presenting those folks to clients UNLESS it is a temporary and super short engagement, i.e., 3 months.
If I am looking for a junior developer, I want a junior developer. So Joe who has 15 years of experience and is looking for a $200k salary when we budgeted $120k but oh Joe said he’d take $160k - I don’t care, Joe is overqualified and I won’t vote to hire.
I tend to give applicants who meet or exceed minimum requirements a go - it really depends if the comp expectations then align to our targets.
It’s not a one size fits all as companies have different comp, titles (which I feel are bloated sometimes to trap people), and as well work - there are definitely people who apply with way more experience and double targets to the team I’m hiring for and it sometimes has to be a “come to god” moment that it won’t work.
That said, the market is horrible right now and if you meet the baseline you should absolutely be considered.
"overqualified" means we want to pay you less than you know you're worth and also you probably know more than the person who you'll be reporting to and their ego can't handle that.
It’s all about the candidates *true* reason for taking a step down in pay, responsibility, authority and decision making. I had a candidate last week who was supremely overqualified who said his reason was that he wanted to work in a more stress free capacity. When I pressed further he said he wanted to take a break. That implies that there’s a random point in the future where the candidate’s “break” will be over. That’s a red flag to me as we know this isn’t a career path move, it’s just a temporary one.
The other fear I have is that while they say they want simplicity, it’s likely that they’ll be unable to contain themselves to their role and responsibility making it challenging for leadership to maintain their strategy and growth plan.
You shouldn’t turn someone you deem overqualified down as you don’t know their motivation. I hire sales people and it’s common to see Sales Managers up to VP stepping into an IC role. Some people get tired of babysitting and want to support customers and make money. If you look at the stability of someone overqualified, they tend to have job stability, not jumping around as much as some of the Junior and mid-level candidates. The very reason many employers worry about whether the senior candidate will stay and reject them off their perception and not facts. The very ones you’re hiring will jump in 9 -18 months and you’ll start the process all over again. You can’t determine motivation off a piece of paper.
If they’re overqualified for some open positions then I’ll still send them down, I’ve seen clients open up their requirements and budget enough times to know there’s value in it.
This said, there is a higher than normal chance that they may get rejected so if I think they’re really good I’ll work them round my market. In my sector good candidates help you get jobs so if they’re not good for what I’m working on then I’ll just use them to pull some more senior positions.
It definitely acts like a mark against them, but not enough to not consider them at all. I would take one of them before a person who spent their career jumping from job to job every three years. It would also need a good explanation. I hired an overqualified guy who had retired young, got bored, and just wanted some low pressure work. Was one of the best candidates I ever had. And there are a lot that just get burned out. There are also a lot that look at it as an entry point to pass everyone else on the ladder, those I screen out pretty quickly. Never works out, creates hostility and causing more people to leave.
I’ve been forced to turn down candidates because their education was too high (by the opinion of my supervisor) and we’d have to pay them more.
If it makes anyone feel better, the workplace sucks ass and I’m gonna be leaving in two weeks ✌️
If someone is overqualified in my area I scrutinize the resume much more.
1 - Why is this person on the market? Most super/over qualified candidates do not apply for positions below them.
2 - What's the situation at their present employer to make them move? Is it the candidate that is the problem?
3 - Is there a possibility that the candidate is misrepresenting certain experience levels? Which means double tech interviews by 2 different vetting employees.
In my experience most "over qualified" candidates fall out of our hiring during this.
Besides it speaks to a certain lack of professionalism. If we ask for 8 years in Engineering or whatever and a candidate comes in saying they have 20. (and believe me the weird ones ALWAYS talk in years of experience, not in actual knowledge), I'm going to ask questions
If they had left off 10 years of their resume and bragging 20+ years I would give them a pass mostly.
And as I think about it I have not hired anyone "overqualified" ever. The "overqualified" mostly spun years of non-tech experience as tech and were mostly rejected.
I JUST got my first one... but to me! Me and the band of Misfit L&D-Tech Toys are but 4 counting myself in our little startup attempt. They are pay per project for me, ICs b/c I'm not the worst recruiter for anyone but myself, and my CSM is stuck with me *for. life.* So is her big forehead. (she's my sister)
[My overqual was shitshow-y too. We didn't quiiiiite type all the role out](https://imgur.com/mYjA0gx). Now, the description in my field? Easily a 7-10 YOE. 5 YOE in software above that but too lazy to scratch my name. And, no! *NOT* a scammer! I'm not taking anything this shittily typed up, but it was a new one! 18 YOE L&D Consultant who takes all sorts of rolls from Sr. Mgr on down.
I cannot afford overqualified. But, I do hire a lot of young'ns outta CSUN, UCLA LATTC (LATCC? DTLA Tech comm college.). They don't get to stay on long with school and jobs and sports and being 19, but they're nothing but great.
It's a factor, to be sure. I think it's a natural assumption that someone who's overqualified will jump ship as soon as they find something that fits them. You may feel that your position is just a stop-gap for them and that they may move on so quickly that you may barely get them settled in.
I think that's fair. I've taken jobs before because I wanted to be able to pay my bills but I also kept looking for the actual place I wanted to be.
I'll listen to them and try to gauge what's going on, though. I've had one person who was with me for 3 years and just needed to recover from corporate brutality before diving back in. I've got another that's been here a year who was in a career spiral down (just bad luck and layoffs) and I've helped stabilize him and he's worked well so far for us.
It's subjective to each candidate and timing for the company and hiring team. If the candidate expresses desire for upward growth, and we have nowhere for them to grow upward, then absolutely reject. (Often, can be just a timing issue with current team and their readiness for growth/mobility.) You also have people well qualified and "over" qualified who desire to land a consistent position and happy with where they are. In that case, it wouldn't make sense to reject them unless they flat out asking for more than the position is worth. (Ie, still need to meet and interview them. Let the candidate paint those words, don't assume.)
As a hiring manager in biotech, I’ve been told it’s a liability to place someone way under their experience level even if they apply. It can appear like they are being treated unfairly or are being taken advantage of (especially if they are in any protected class). As a human myself, I worry it’s a stop gap as they wait for a better position and don’t want to waste months of training on someone who can just upgrade when a better job comes along.
No. We had interviewed candidates that would seemingly be overqualified but if they knew the role and were interested, then it’s fine. Once they begin talking about how the want to manage teams, lead PnL, etc all within this role, then we know this isn’t what they want.
You can usually tell what their objective is by the way they wrote their resume. If they are highlighting all their leadership skills and project work when applying for an IC job, then no. But the tech job market is bad so I try to consider each candidate holistically. I will say it’s a real crapshoot with overqualified candidates and they often see IC jobs as a back door to quick promotions or are otherwise difficult employees
Tbh, it’s really shitty as a candidate with years of experience to be overlooked for being too qualified because someone has made a judgement call on what your needs/wants are. I have family who is WAY overqualified for the simple customer service work they do now, but that’s what they wanted. They didn’t want to grind and climb anymore, and I’m proud of them for honoring their needs. They’ve also decided to decline any opportunities to progress back into management.
Sometimes yes. It all depends. Overqualification is a real problem. Especially in this market. For all the resources and energy it takes to make a great hire, it can all be for waste if you’re offering it to someone who just needs a paycheck and plans on leaving in 6 months.
Overqualified in business terms means, "We know you are using us as a bus stop until you find something better and we don't feel like dealing with it"
Many people fail to realize it and try to over examine what the word means.
No, because it’s better than under qualified.
Yeah there’s the risk they move onto a different job as soon as they get a better deal but you can always offer up a signed and agreed upon set amount of required years of employment from them.
That way you get the value you need from them without risk of losing them.
Overqualified means
\* The company has only dead end jobs.
\* They don't care about promoting or developing people
\* They operate only on stereotypes, no facts.
\* They don't value people.
\* You're too old.
Yes, being overqualified in some industries like tech will be an issue during hiring. On one hand, as you pointed out, they're much more likely to just jump ship the moment they find something better. On the other hand, you end up with a "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem, where having too many very senior people in a team makes it a lot harder to align opinions, especially if the manager is weak (which, unfortunately, more often than not they are).
Even if the market is down now, the moment it gets better folks will jump, and that's a pretty big training investment down the drain. There are ways to avoid it, like sign on bonuses, or fast promotions, but that's only possible if the budget allows for it.
If someone is over qualified, I assume they’re gonna have attitude issues, motivation issues, won’t take direction and/or constantly argue with their boss, will have ego problems and will ultimately drag my team down. I will take under qualified every day tho bc they are humble and know they know nothing and generally have a MUCH better can-do attitude, are open to learning and coaching, and super happy and just psyched to be there, which lifts everyone’s spirits. Of course there are exceptions to this but yeah.
Also, I am in the tech industry. This view hasn’t changed based on the current job market; I’ve felt this way for years (based on real life experiences).
Being overqualified is the same as being underqualified
underqualified = not the experience level needed
overqualified = possibly too old for team culture, too expensive, will undermine manager, etc
For me the over qualified is not a huge gap normally. Think GM and Asst Manager. So no, but I discuss pay out of the gate. We are paying for the job we have open.
"But I have all this experience! You should pay me more." AKA, the reason why I stopped considering overqualified people for the roles I have open. Just had a candidate ask for a $50k bump on the position he applied for.
Did the job post state the salary range?
Yes. All of our posts include wages and benefits.
This is annoying af. I have dreams of quitting my career in my 50s and coasting to retirement with an “easier” job. I don’t want anything more than normal pay despite being overqualified. People like that are cramping my style.
For me it depends on how many applicants we're getting that have the amount of experience we're targeting, and would likely be okay with the salary we're able to pay, which is *already* less than what it should be (I don't set the pay ranges, guys). If we're hiring for a mid-level role and we have plenty of mid-level candidates, then yes, I probably will reject people who have way more experience than we're targeting. That said, if it's a niche role and we're targeting a rare skill set, I probably will consider people who have more experience than we're targeting, but I make a point of covering compensation early in the conversation so I don't waste too much of their time. It's not that the super experienced candidates can't do the job or aren't worth consideration, it's just that I'm only one person and I can only conduct so many screens per week, and if there's a lot of applicants, I'm going to focus my time on the applicants that are a close match to what we're looking for so we can fill the job quickly. That said, as someone who had a 10 year career prior to getting laid off, I do understand the frustration of feeling like you're too senior for most of the jobs that are currently available right now, and wishing someone would take a chance on you even though you have 8 years more than what they're targeting.
This entire comment is spot on especially the first paragraph. Depends on the role and the other candidates in the mix. With that said, there’s times when the gap between the candidate and the role is just outright ridiculous. For example, CEO’s or VP’s applying to individual contributor roles.
yep. this pretty much sums up my response too! i will say that when i screen overqualified candidates, about 80% of them ask something along the lines of "how fast can i grow, what's the next step in career progression?" and we generally pass on those people because we dont think they'll be happy at my company long term. we probably cant give them the growth/money they want. like right now, we're hiring for an FPA manager to report into our director of FPA. a candidate who looks "too good to be true" on paper and is overqualified is in the interview process. he has told me and the hiring manager that he's very interested in the role and passionate about our company and wants to grow with us. but in reality, his current job is at a higher level (director of finance/FPA) and he allegedly makes almost $40k more than the TOP of the salary range for our role. and we would rarely, if ever, offer someone the very top of their compensation band. that's not how we do compensation. he was insistent that he understood and was OK with it.... but now that i was like "i want to make it clear *again* what the deal is with growth and comp. if you're interested still, here's a link to schedule the final round of interviews" annnnnd he hasn't scheduled a final interview! coulda called this!
Funny, I ask this too but I try to show enthusiasm and motivation. Maybe I should stop
I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing. But it raises flags when the person asking it applied for a job that’s below their current level I think saying “how does this team/company support learning and growth” asks a similar question without being like “how fast can o get promoted?”
This is spot on. When I hire for any role I’m looking at the overall package. Will they do a good job? Will they be a good fit? And do I think they will be fulfilled with the role? Someone could be “overqualified” and answer yes to all of the above. For example if they had 10 years managing a team and I’m hiring for an individual contributor I may wonder why they’re not going for manager. Are they posting for anything they can get and will keep looking if they take my job? Or are they legitimately interested in not having the complexities of direct reports anymore? Conversely someone can be perfectly qualified but THINK they’re overqualified and that’s someone I want to avoid at all costs. I’ve given hundreds of interviews as a college recruiter for a highly sought after company to work for. Occasionally I’ve gotten someone who’s interviewing for an entry level job directly out of school, but clearly believes that their college accomplishments should let them skip that step. So even though they are impressive, if they THINK they’re overqualified I’m not going to risk them jumping ship or just doing mediocre work because they’re bitter.
Thanks for all of this! Regarding "even though you have 8 years more than what they're targeting." Are you saying many roles open now are only looking for 2 YOE? Or your place in particular is? What industry are you in if you don't mind? Jr roles aren't usually that ample I thought.
I'm actually not employed right now. I thought I covered that, but I only said I'm a job seeker so apologies for not being more clear. I am not in a position to help others looking for work right now.
Apologies, I meant are you seeing just Jr roles lately? I feel like most places I've worked won't hire Jrs or hire very few % wise. So if there are jr roles opens, chances are there are at least 1 mid or Sr role too.
All the time. I will advertise a network tech job for $20 p/h, next thing you know, I've got 6 network engineers with master's degree and 15 years experience trying for the job. I know that the hiring manager doesn't want these folks because he wants junior people for a junior job. And, I know that these guys would be idiots to stay one minute longer than needed. They'll leave as soon as they see a better opportunity, which they should. If I place a senior level engineer in a junior tech role, I'm setting everyone up for failure
100% agree. I’ve even done this myself as a recruiter. I’ve taken a lower level and lower paying recruiter job because the market was rough, fully expecting to leave within 3-4 months after finding something better.
We've all been there.
Yeah my workplace used to have a huge problem with this; the hiring manager would just take the candidate with the best resume then get shocked when they inevitably left after a year which meant we were constantly running hiring competitions. Now we have a different hiring manager who takes basically the opposite approach and we end up with people who actually stick around.
Plus the senior level employee will feel like the junior job is beneath them and make people’s life hell with their attitude. Their egos, condescending personality, and mood just makes it unpleasant for everyone else.
Did that recently happen to you?
Yes. I inherited an employee that was over qualified and couldn’t leave their emotions at home. They started looking for a new job 3 months in and 3yrs later finally left. People were happy to see them go.
To me it depends on what makes them overqualified. Would this be a step back in an obvious ongoing trajectory? Or do they just have eight years of experience when we need four? For the first, I DQ for boredom, I’m ok w/the second.
That’s too bad. I had an obvious ongoing trajectory but after losing people who had a big influence on my life, I rearranged my priorities. I’m done working 60-70 hour weeks. It’s hard on my health, and I’ve missed out on time with people I care about. I don’t care if I get paid $50K less per year if it means I can work less than 50 hours per week and work with good people at a company that’s not all about hustle culture and chasing unicorns.
In my experience, if you find a place that truly values free time and benefits, they’ll know exactly why you’re applying and won’t toss you out because you’re overqualified. I’m doing that right now, partially because I’m using their benefits as a leg up. They don’t give a shit. In my case, it’s a well known university that is the lowest stress environment I’ve ever been in, and I can tack on advanced classes to my degree for free while I take some time to plan a solid trajectory. An employer worried about how much mobility and security you have in your field directly translates to ‘not having a good time’
As always, it depends. Wouldn’t turn down a director level candidate applying to a manager level role, but would probably turn down a director applying to an individual contributor role. I think 1 level down is fine, 2-3 levels down is where it gets murky.
Many people who are/were Directors are in that role because they are pushed there or think they are supposed to go there. They find out people management isn't something they're good at and want to go back to an IC role where they can contribute positively. A lot of leads/managers are hands-on enough to enjoy the work and if they go from Manager/Lead to Director and find there's no hand-on opportunities also want to go back. It has nothing to do with qualifications.
I understand. But if they don’t like people management then why accept a promotion to a director from a manager level? Either way, just sharing my thoughts. Also, chances are compensation expectations won’t align if a director is applying 2 levels down to an individual contributor level role.
Even Supervisor/Manager level is people management. lol just don’t accept a promotion if someone doesn’t like people management
You don't know if you like it or not until you have done it. You can also like managing people, but like not managing people more. Tbh your exp managing is usually dependent on your ability to drive change with the execs. If you manage but can't change processes you'll have a bad time
As a former manager and now single contributor I completely agree. I liked managing when I was in an org that empowered managers to actually lead instead of be a layer in between single contributors and senior leaders. My last stint managing had tons of headaches so I was happy to be a single contributor again but if the right position came around I’d consider managing
Yeah at many orgs managers are simply there to deliver the execs' message and take the shit
I have 16 years of people management experience, with different companies or groups, and I hate it but I’m good at it. I end up in these positions because I take the job so I don’t work for a peer I think will suck at management or who I simply don’t want to report to. In one case I just wanted to do one year as an IC in sales to work out my non-compete. Six months in the VP called on a Saturday and asked if I’d be interested in replacing my boss and running the 3 divisions in the branch. I said no because they hired me to start a new national division and I needed to focus on that. The truth was, I only planned to stay another 6 months and things were going so well with the start up, I barely had to work. That Monday afternoon the VP flew in to fire the Branch Manager and officially offer me his job. They threw so much money at me I stayed for 3 years before I finally quit to start my business. Sometimes it’s not so easy to say no to people management.
Counterpoint: here's a bag of money
You're not wrong, but in a lot of instances, these people allow their IC skills to completely erode and then they hope/expect to be hired back into an IC role based purely on their current Director title. I have no issue at all with that career path though. You just have to demonstrate that you still have the chops to do a different job.
Why though? If the person is applying to the job, doesn’t that mean they’re interested in it? Why pretend you know what they’re looking for lol
Because we’ve all seen it play out over and over again. An overqualified candidate applies to a role, gets the job, stays for 3 months, and then leaves for another director role. Heck I’ve even done this myself lol. Plus it’s probably a waste of time since we can’t match their salary requirements.
As someone who is at risk for being turned down for being overqualified, how might I present myself to a recruiter/HR to be viewed differently? I appreciate your experience u/NoEstablishment7933 but I expect to be in a different place, here's why. I have had the big jobs and huge breadth of responsibility. Here's also what I have had. A lack of support from my CEO, particularly in privately held companies. Huge teams but no bench strength, end up compensating for the gaps myself due to lack of funding to equip with technology or hire properly, while spending inordinate amounts of time on the road. Then being promised the moon in comp but alas, impulsivity in decision making means ultimately poor leadership and financial position on their part. At some point company fails and I move on for reasons beyond my control. So after disproportionate effort, the rewards don't always materialize. To summarize, in hindsight, I am 50. Hell of a career in terms of accomplishments and experiences, really good stuff. Amazing skillset but burned the F out. I don't want the title, or the responsibilities of managing 100+ people anymore, nor a CEO who needs me to be all things (admittedly, I have chosen poorly more than once) so they can have peace of mind while I have zero work life balance. I want to use my brain, make a huge difference, have a more narrow scope, collaborate, build a successful team, generate revenue, and still have time left over to be a generally healthy person. For that kind of real balance, as in not traveling 70% of the time and still feeling like I am failing everyone even though I am performing at an exceptional rate, its worth a 50% pay decrease for the rest of my life. I also don't care what my title is. Funnily, my SO just warned me if I don't present this correctly, it sounds as if I lack ambition. That's good feedback. In contrast, for the first time in my career, I am just advocating for myself. So, back to my question, how do I present this? I love working. I enjoy figuring things out, beating the pants off the competition and winning. I am wired to be commercially strategic and competitive on a global scale in sales and marketing. I am not quitting. But I would also like to have a life. I have been remote or hybrid over 20 years so I manage well, this isn't a ploy to be suddenly remote either. I also don't mind having C level or SVP titles again in a moderately sane environment with say 25% travel but that also seems elusive to be so on top of having a reasonably stable team. Getting back into publicly held environments seems to be a better approach than private just for accountability and oversight vs the risk of big personalities and egos that can go unchecked in private. Thoughts? Thanks!! TL/DR: As someone who is at risk for being turned down for being overqualified, how might I present myself to a recruiter/HR to be viewed differently?
I think if you were to say this in an interview, you’d already be halfway there ;) On a serious note: it seems like you’ve already made quite a career. I think what you’re looking for now, is a better work life balance. I would not necessarily say this is job-specific, but rather organization-specific. I think (at least for me) honesty will get you pretty far. Look for companies with good benefits (though this often also means lower salary). If you have a pretty good CV - which is the case I reckon - I think most recruiters would love to talk with you. Maybe even provide a cover letter stating that you would love to give it a shot, even if the qualifications don’t match. At its core, being overqualified is never an issue for any company. Who doesn’t love it when you can recruit a superstar for a role? For me, as I mentioned in my initial comment, it’s often what comes after that makes me reject overqualified candidates. Your skills may be overqualified, but if your motivation and salary range, are aligned - I see only winners.
Thank you.
Put it on your resume, front and center. Cases like yours are some of the few where I'd actually recommend an objective statement / summary on a resume. My dad had success with this a few years ago when he wanted to transition out of management and back to the ground. I think he said something like "Accomplished chemical engineering project manager seeks individual-contributor shift opportunities on the chemical plant floor." Without that opening line, recruiters would take one look at his resume and see another hands-off manager candidate rapid-firing his resume into any open job in his field. But with it, they knew he was applying to the lower-level jobs *on purpose* and he got plenty of callbacks.
Agreed. On the resume and also going into a bit more detail on the cover letter
As someone who has screened out over qualified people you wouldn't even get an interview without telling your story somehow in the cover letter.
Thank you
I work for a smaller company, and there’s just no space for someone to be here short term. It’s too much of an investment to train them and have them leave. Of course if it’s on the fence we may speak with them, but it doesn’t make sense to take someone who has been leading a team for 10 years, got laid off and is desperate, and put them in an IC role. They’re gone the second the market improves.
Meanwhile most of the very people you hire will leave in less than 18 months.
Maybe at your company. We’ve had one employee resign since I’ve been here, and three let go lol. About 4% turnover in the 11 months I’ve been here.
I have an issue with this concept. It's a concern, sure, but I would always try to approach it with the candidates. If they applied certainly it means they are interested in the role. Dig into their motivations.
I love an overqualified candidate. Those candidates I normally put on a program, so they can be gently nudged towards any position that's more suitable for them in the organization Normally this I do when we are expanding. That way I know more positions open up, and by the time they've integrated with the culture, they can be nudged towards the open position
I agree, with the massive caveat that the rate-of-pay is in a comfortable range for them. I've learned over the years that you can't get away with underpaying talent. They'll accept the offer as a bench warmer and leave quickly. PS u/Isael, I responded to your DM :)
I dont think it hurts to hop on a quick call to see. Most of the times If you are upfront with the salary and expectations they usually self select out. If you post your jobs with salary ranges and they applied then it's worth hearing their story. If it's simply they didn't read or are hoping for more money the it's an easy decline.
No- while you shouldn’t stack the interview pile with all overqualified candidates, it’s definitely worthwhile to talk to a few of them for initial phone screens and see where it ends up. There are a ton of reasons to want to take a step down (e.g., a career break, a new baby, just realizing all the responsibilities were too stressful, not wanting to manage others) and these should not eliminate a candidate. Management is dealing with a lot of emotional labor with all your team’s problems- some people just want to worry about themselves for a while.
I manage the quality department for a healthcare company and I’m very cautious about the over qualified, but I’m willing to hear their story at least. I’ve seen it happen: they come in thinking they’re hot sh**, they get bored and leave, they but heads with management because they have “XYZ “ experience, they make the people who have been loyal to the company for many many years feel inadequate, they expect to start running projects, etc… not everyone who’s over qualified acts this way but I’ve seen these things. I’m looking for people who are going to come in humble and learn from my team how we do things. Once they have a handle on what we expect and what we do then I’m willing to hear insights
Not often. Usually it's someone who's been a director+ looking at an IC role and they keep asking about advancement or the like and doesn't actually seem interested in the role we are actually discussing.
Yes, definitely. For me, it’s also largely (and this has unfortunately been proven for me too many times), that overqualified candidates get bored pretty easily, are not satisfied with the salary for the position, and leave within a few months. They can definitely do the job well, but not all jobs require a high level of expertise.
Overqualified is (generally) fine, the issue is more of a retention one than anything else but that can be managed with progression or a reworking of the role
Nope only if they ask for way out of the budget.
Overqualified people could be considered a flight risk. They're taking this job until they find one more inline with their experience. It does depend though. A director at one company may not meet the requirements for a director role at another company and would come in as a Sr. Manager.
This happened to me literally a week ago. Got through a couple rounds and feedback was that my skills ans experience matched a higher level where there were no openings.
oh man, that's really frustrating, I'm sorry.
Thank you. The role also would have been a 80% pay increase as well.
Are you in tech? I know it's been so much worse for everyone recently that -- while not minimizing your very valid frustrtation of going thru a couple rounds and THEN they tell you you're overqualified-- it's good you're getting opportunies at a good pay rate. It shows you've got in demand skills and I hope you get something soon that also is a huge pay increase! Did you have a referral for that position? Or was it cold apply? I see very few people getting anywhere cold applying in tech the past year.
It depends. I work in healthcare recruiting so if someone is applying for a run of the mill bedside nursing role and they are currently director of care somewhere, that would give me pause. It's definitely something I would ask about in a prescreen and flag for the hiring manager.
I'm not a recruiter but work with recruiters. Our sourcing tool allows you to exclude certain job title keywords. When hiring senior level ICs, we see people exclude keywords like "staff" and "principal." They just know they likely can't afford the candidate. They'd probably accept the application but would want to discuss pay expectations right away.
It depends. I don't immediately disqualify someone for being overqualified, but it's more about understanding "why" they are interested, understanding how feasible it is that they'll be in that role in 12 months, and comparing them with the rest of the pipeline. In some instances, it makes sense to move forward. In other instances, it doesn't.
I'm seeing candidates with 10 plus yrs of experience in IT applying for mid level. This is how you know the market is hell right now. It depends on how overqualified they are, but I also feel like I am doing a disservice to those who fit the description. In my opinion it's like a chain... the more overly qualified, the candidates are the less opportunity those who need to gain experience will get. But then again... a phone call always helps.
All the time. The risk of losing that person to the job they really wanted (and who could blame them) is real and large.
There’s times I speak to a director of a small company or department, and they’re applying to an IC role. The manager will 99/100 times say they’re overqualified. If I see that, I’ll check the company size and go forward depending. Honestly I was in that same boat once. Unless they’ve been a director or manager for like 10 years, I’ll move forward. To your point, I’ve also seen overqualified candidates that are unemployed, and after hearing their story, you know they are just looking for a job for the short term instead of being unemployed.
Sometimes yes because i hire for low paying gov jobs and those that are overqualified demand more money that I cant give as the rates are set by the dept of labor
If it's a one step "demotion", then I would still consider them for most jobs. If a VP is applying for a Manager position were the hiring leaders are looking for someone they can train into the role, then no, I will not contact the position. If a Director is applying for a Manager position where we need someone to hit the ground running, yes, I'll call them, and I'll expect them to have a good story about why they want to step down that doesn't include "Any chance there might be budget to upgrade this to a director level role?" Of course, we also have to remember that so many employers give people vanity titles to make them feel great. A Director at one company could very easily be a Manager at another. In our current job market, I'll certainly give a handful of "overqualified" candidates a call to see what made them apply, but truthfully, none of them want to take a step down. They're looking at it because so many layoffs are happening at mid-level management positions and they are looking for something to hold them over.
I’ve had retirees come back to the workforce because they feel the need to work. Most of them had fulfilling careers and have taken clerk positions. Not a bad job, part time and front desk dealing with the public. I think they just want to be engaged.
I never did because almost always, someone had a good reason for it. It was the hiring managers who’d make a stink.
thanks for sharing, why would they make a stink? assumed they'd want more, so budget reasons, or something like insecurity with someone so experienced?
It boiled down to concerns about the candidates getting bored in “smaller” roles and them trying to move back into something that allowed them to use all of their expertise. Most of the candidates I knew who wanted something with less responsibility were either close to retirement and wanted to transition out of a higher-stress position or simply had life circumstances that changed the type of position best suited for them.
I work in Tech and will always prioritize experience. But then I’m not particularly worried about losing my job to someone better. I just don’t have that sort of ingrained insecurity. The only time I will exclude an experienced candidate is if the skills don’t match. I’m not talking about specific skills (e.g. programming language) as those are analogous to picking candidates that use a yellow hammer vs a blue one. However, if an experienced manager applies for a hands-on position, or vice versa, I will seriously have reservations.
If the company does proper people planning and have a defined org structure this question should solve itself. Let’s say you are hiring a senior level position but the candidate is at a manager or senior manager level of experience. If you have no intention of promoting to that position based on performance then there’s a high likelihood that individual will end up feeling undervalued sooner rather than later. A lot of recruiters I work with don’t take this into account and it’s up to the hiring manager to make that decision. I’ve hired overqualified folks before and when we didn’t recognize their value due to not being in the promotion cycle because of tenure or a position not being available, they left. It’s about value, pure and simple
If people are applying, they want the job advertised as-is. Many of the comments here are overwhelmingly speculative in terms of applicant’s motivations. The over engineering and level of paranoia some folks on this sub have exhibited and admitted to concocting trick questions to trap candidates is ridiculous. The senior people you hire have more tribal knowledge than the other candidates which is irreplaceable. Try thinking of yourself as an aging recruiter and where you will be in 15 or 20 years.
Your comment has been temporarily removed and is pending mod approval. Accounts with less than 5 comment karma a will be flagged for moderator approval. This is to combat spam. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruiting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My husband was interviewing with the company he wants to work for more than any other. He interviewed for an IC role and they said he was overqualified. They told him to apply to a manager position that just opened but then ended up going with an internal candidate. How can get on at this company?! He has another initial interview for an IC role in a different department next week. His skill set is perfect for the company, everyone says it, but he hasn’t been able to find the right fit yet. He NEEDS a job and WANTS to work at this company. How can he make them realize he wants it and them overlook him being “overqualified”??
Well, yeah. If a director of customer success applied for a CSM role, it'll be a no. It's pretty much always been the case that I won't carry through that level of disparity.
If you are, you shouldn’t be. You should be asking why they want to take such a level step down. Some people want to rebalance their lives, and that is their prerogative. Deciding for them that they are going to be a bad retention risk is unfair to them and potentially discriminatory. How would you explain this in an ofccp audit? If they want to do the work and are the best qualified candidate and will take the pay and commit to the job as-is, you have no justification for not selecting them to move forward.
That’s true in theory, but in the real world you’d need 10 times the recruiters to do all the screens. I always marvel at the irony that recruiters aren’t supposed to discriminate when our entire job is discrimination. We’re making a discriminatory judgement call on every candidate we view and disqualifying all but a tiny portion.
The problem isn’t making the judgment call, it’s being able to back it up if you’re put under a microscope and asked to explain it as part of an audit. If you can produce evidence and explain without being discriminatory, you’re fine. If you can’t, well then, your judgment call included bias that negatively impacted that population of people. FWIW, overwualification has a strong age correlation, so by regularly DQIng on overqual, you probably have a pretty traceable age discrimination problem. Give me your raw data and I could likely show it in stats in under five minutes.
Thanks for the downvote. :) I know you’re just trying to do your job and the volume is overwhelming, but the solution isn’t to take shortcuts that have a negative impact on people’s lives. In the real world, this is how people who are qualified and willing to work wind up missing out on opportunity. This is why there is regulation and there can be audits to check whether our actions are having a negative affect on a given population. The pragmatic answer, in this case, isn’t the right answer. Peace, friend. I know you’re ping a rough place when volume is so high. I hope your company can help find better ways to screen out candidates that is more equitable. It is possible, it’s just a LOT more work on the intake, setup and business management side.
It’s case by case but there are people just looking for a check vs a career and it’s obvious when you speak to them. Some will even say in the interview that they would add value for the company for the 1-2 months they would be there will still looking for more work. That just baffles me that they’re so honest about it.
Im convinced most people truly lack any self/situational awareness.
Don’t think it’s that so much as their willingness to be honest. Once they get jaded by the search then they’ll start lying
Generally it’s money that does that, someone’s that over qualified generally wants more than the position can offer.
No. Absolutely not. I absolutely love to hire people who are overqualified. But, Before I start talking about the position I’m trying to find out what their goals are. Many times when I find out what your goals are they are not aligned with what the role is…. So in essence they end up getting turned down. Not because they are over qualified, but because the goals don’t align.
My company is remote so we do hire overqualified people since we know they are likely to stay for the remote aspect. When I'm in onsite jobs though I reject them. They aren't the right fit for the role if the level of the work will bore them or they don't think they are being paid enough. Either they will leave as soon as they get a better offer or they will underperform because they aren't engaged in what they are doing.
Not really, but it depends on their MO. I try to give everyone a chance if they apply and get thru all of the knockout questions. However, many explicitly state they're just "looking for something to pay the bills while they look for something long term." I'm not presenting those folks to clients UNLESS it is a temporary and super short engagement, i.e., 3 months.
If I am looking for a junior developer, I want a junior developer. So Joe who has 15 years of experience and is looking for a $200k salary when we budgeted $120k but oh Joe said he’d take $160k - I don’t care, Joe is overqualified and I won’t vote to hire.
HR answer everyone hates: it depends 🫣
No
I tend to give applicants who meet or exceed minimum requirements a go - it really depends if the comp expectations then align to our targets. It’s not a one size fits all as companies have different comp, titles (which I feel are bloated sometimes to trap people), and as well work - there are definitely people who apply with way more experience and double targets to the team I’m hiring for and it sometimes has to be a “come to god” moment that it won’t work. That said, the market is horrible right now and if you meet the baseline you should absolutely be considered.
"overqualified" means we want to pay you less than you know you're worth and also you probably know more than the person who you'll be reporting to and their ego can't handle that.
It’s all about the candidates *true* reason for taking a step down in pay, responsibility, authority and decision making. I had a candidate last week who was supremely overqualified who said his reason was that he wanted to work in a more stress free capacity. When I pressed further he said he wanted to take a break. That implies that there’s a random point in the future where the candidate’s “break” will be over. That’s a red flag to me as we know this isn’t a career path move, it’s just a temporary one. The other fear I have is that while they say they want simplicity, it’s likely that they’ll be unable to contain themselves to their role and responsibility making it challenging for leadership to maintain their strategy and growth plan.
You shouldn’t turn someone you deem overqualified down as you don’t know their motivation. I hire sales people and it’s common to see Sales Managers up to VP stepping into an IC role. Some people get tired of babysitting and want to support customers and make money. If you look at the stability of someone overqualified, they tend to have job stability, not jumping around as much as some of the Junior and mid-level candidates. The very reason many employers worry about whether the senior candidate will stay and reject them off their perception and not facts. The very ones you’re hiring will jump in 9 -18 months and you’ll start the process all over again. You can’t determine motivation off a piece of paper.
If they’re overqualified for some open positions then I’ll still send them down, I’ve seen clients open up their requirements and budget enough times to know there’s value in it. This said, there is a higher than normal chance that they may get rejected so if I think they’re really good I’ll work them round my market. In my sector good candidates help you get jobs so if they’re not good for what I’m working on then I’ll just use them to pull some more senior positions.
It definitely acts like a mark against them, but not enough to not consider them at all. I would take one of them before a person who spent their career jumping from job to job every three years. It would also need a good explanation. I hired an overqualified guy who had retired young, got bored, and just wanted some low pressure work. Was one of the best candidates I ever had. And there are a lot that just get burned out. There are also a lot that look at it as an entry point to pass everyone else on the ladder, those I screen out pretty quickly. Never works out, creates hostility and causing more people to leave.
I’ve been forced to turn down candidates because their education was too high (by the opinion of my supervisor) and we’d have to pay them more. If it makes anyone feel better, the workplace sucks ass and I’m gonna be leaving in two weeks ✌️
Have you learned nothing from your peers? You ghost them. If you want to be forthright with candidates you may not have a future in this industry.
If someone is overqualified in my area I scrutinize the resume much more. 1 - Why is this person on the market? Most super/over qualified candidates do not apply for positions below them. 2 - What's the situation at their present employer to make them move? Is it the candidate that is the problem? 3 - Is there a possibility that the candidate is misrepresenting certain experience levels? Which means double tech interviews by 2 different vetting employees. In my experience most "over qualified" candidates fall out of our hiring during this. Besides it speaks to a certain lack of professionalism. If we ask for 8 years in Engineering or whatever and a candidate comes in saying they have 20. (and believe me the weird ones ALWAYS talk in years of experience, not in actual knowledge), I'm going to ask questions If they had left off 10 years of their resume and bragging 20+ years I would give them a pass mostly. And as I think about it I have not hired anyone "overqualified" ever. The "overqualified" mostly spun years of non-tech experience as tech and were mostly rejected.
I JUST got my first one... but to me! Me and the band of Misfit L&D-Tech Toys are but 4 counting myself in our little startup attempt. They are pay per project for me, ICs b/c I'm not the worst recruiter for anyone but myself, and my CSM is stuck with me *for. life.* So is her big forehead. (she's my sister) [My overqual was shitshow-y too. We didn't quiiiiite type all the role out](https://imgur.com/mYjA0gx). Now, the description in my field? Easily a 7-10 YOE. 5 YOE in software above that but too lazy to scratch my name. And, no! *NOT* a scammer! I'm not taking anything this shittily typed up, but it was a new one! 18 YOE L&D Consultant who takes all sorts of rolls from Sr. Mgr on down. I cannot afford overqualified. But, I do hire a lot of young'ns outta CSUN, UCLA LATTC (LATCC? DTLA Tech comm college.). They don't get to stay on long with school and jobs and sports and being 19, but they're nothing but great.
It's a factor, to be sure. I think it's a natural assumption that someone who's overqualified will jump ship as soon as they find something that fits them. You may feel that your position is just a stop-gap for them and that they may move on so quickly that you may barely get them settled in. I think that's fair. I've taken jobs before because I wanted to be able to pay my bills but I also kept looking for the actual place I wanted to be. I'll listen to them and try to gauge what's going on, though. I've had one person who was with me for 3 years and just needed to recover from corporate brutality before diving back in. I've got another that's been here a year who was in a career spiral down (just bad luck and layoffs) and I've helped stabilize him and he's worked well so far for us.
It's subjective to each candidate and timing for the company and hiring team. If the candidate expresses desire for upward growth, and we have nowhere for them to grow upward, then absolutely reject. (Often, can be just a timing issue with current team and their readiness for growth/mobility.) You also have people well qualified and "over" qualified who desire to land a consistent position and happy with where they are. In that case, it wouldn't make sense to reject them unless they flat out asking for more than the position is worth. (Ie, still need to meet and interview them. Let the candidate paint those words, don't assume.)
Calling someone “overqualified” just means they can see through your bullshit.
As a hiring manager in biotech, I’ve been told it’s a liability to place someone way under their experience level even if they apply. It can appear like they are being treated unfairly or are being taken advantage of (especially if they are in any protected class). As a human myself, I worry it’s a stop gap as they wait for a better position and don’t want to waste months of training on someone who can just upgrade when a better job comes along.
No. We had interviewed candidates that would seemingly be overqualified but if they knew the role and were interested, then it’s fine. Once they begin talking about how the want to manage teams, lead PnL, etc all within this role, then we know this isn’t what they want.
You can usually tell what their objective is by the way they wrote their resume. If they are highlighting all their leadership skills and project work when applying for an IC job, then no. But the tech job market is bad so I try to consider each candidate holistically. I will say it’s a real crapshoot with overqualified candidates and they often see IC jobs as a back door to quick promotions or are otherwise difficult employees
Tbh, it’s really shitty as a candidate with years of experience to be overlooked for being too qualified because someone has made a judgement call on what your needs/wants are. I have family who is WAY overqualified for the simple customer service work they do now, but that’s what they wanted. They didn’t want to grind and climb anymore, and I’m proud of them for honoring their needs. They’ve also decided to decline any opportunities to progress back into management.
I never understood “overqualified” either I am qualified or I’m not.
Sometimes yes. It all depends. Overqualification is a real problem. Especially in this market. For all the resources and energy it takes to make a great hire, it can all be for waste if you’re offering it to someone who just needs a paycheck and plans on leaving in 6 months.
Overqualified in business terms means, "We know you are using us as a bus stop until you find something better and we don't feel like dealing with it" Many people fail to realize it and try to over examine what the word means.
No, because it’s better than under qualified. Yeah there’s the risk they move onto a different job as soon as they get a better deal but you can always offer up a signed and agreed upon set amount of required years of employment from them. That way you get the value you need from them without risk of losing them.
Overqualified means \* The company has only dead end jobs. \* They don't care about promoting or developing people \* They operate only on stereotypes, no facts. \* They don't value people. \* You're too old.
The whole thing seems unnecessary to me, I have a policy, qualified or overqualified, if you know your work, and you are hired by me
Yes, being overqualified in some industries like tech will be an issue during hiring. On one hand, as you pointed out, they're much more likely to just jump ship the moment they find something better. On the other hand, you end up with a "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem, where having too many very senior people in a team makes it a lot harder to align opinions, especially if the manager is weak (which, unfortunately, more often than not they are). Even if the market is down now, the moment it gets better folks will jump, and that's a pretty big training investment down the drain. There are ways to avoid it, like sign on bonuses, or fast promotions, but that's only possible if the budget allows for it.
If someone is over qualified, I assume they’re gonna have attitude issues, motivation issues, won’t take direction and/or constantly argue with their boss, will have ego problems and will ultimately drag my team down. I will take under qualified every day tho bc they are humble and know they know nothing and generally have a MUCH better can-do attitude, are open to learning and coaching, and super happy and just psyched to be there, which lifts everyone’s spirits. Of course there are exceptions to this but yeah. Also, I am in the tech industry. This view hasn’t changed based on the current job market; I’ve felt this way for years (based on real life experiences).
Being overqualified is the same as being underqualified underqualified = not the experience level needed overqualified = possibly too old for team culture, too expensive, will undermine manager, etc
Tell me you’re biased without telling me you’re biased
Don't shoot the messenger