In a time when people are struggling to find jobs and have reached a point where they will take anything to end their unemployment, it seems pertinent to bring up the rejection response of "you're overqualified" and pose the question: Is it "BS" or a valid response?
The answer is both.
When on the other side of the table, being the interviewee and in dire need of a job, that response feels like a load of crap. If I can do the job and am more than qualified to do it, why shouldn't I be hired? How dare they assume I won't do the job because I have more qualifications than are needed?
If that is you, I want first to validate that feeling. It makes sense that we see this explanation for a job rejection as contradictory. Doesn't this organization prefer the most skilled person for the job? Isn't an overqualified candidate by definition the most qualified person? Can't they see that this candidate adds value to their team?
As someone who has been a hiring manager for over 7 years, I have learned, through trial, error, and critical thinking, that there is great logic in not hiring someone overqualified.
When overqualified, it is not a good thing
Being qualified for a job does not solely refer to a technical skill set; it also encompasses other essential qualities. Eye roll, if you will, but we all know highly technical and intelligent people who lack practical communication skills and are unable to effectively articulate a concept to diverse individuals, rendering their ability or efforts moot.
Or that person who is limited in their technical abilities yet seems to be able to move mountains. They are seen as the go-to individuals if you want to get anything done. This person has advanced rapidly through the ranks.
There is a reason for that.
Aside from the education and the numerical data splattered across your resume, because AI told you that it works, there is something in between the lines that only the best leaders and, ultimately, hiring managers can detect. It's the soft skills. While there is nothing soft about understanding people and knowing how to work with others to produce optimal outcomes, soft skills are the most valuable attribute of an employee.
We need people who can play well in the sandbox. Adaptable individuals have a good work ethic, can problem-solve, and, most importantly, will be here for a while. Please don't ask me what amount of time a while is, as that can vary. Sometimes one year and other times two. Any more than that, in the same position, rest assured companies are then asking for cattle.
It is the ability to collaborate and longevity concerns that make hiring someone over-qualified a risk.
Before I knew better, I hired several individuals who were overqualified for the role. To be more specific, they had four or more years of experience, whereas we only needed one or two. They had master's degrees or PhDs when we only needed a bachelor's degree, and, if I'm being honest, they were often more veteran in the workforce. However, we needed someone in the role, and they were willing to take it on.
That is when I first learned that being overqualified had, in fact, not been made up by people being ageists or people trying to dictate what someone wants. There is a genuine reason for not hiring individuals who are overqualified for the job.
Let's dig in.
Overqualified — and under-engaged
It started with anonymous feedback. "Someone on your team does not like being told what to do. This individual appears to push back constantly and act like things are beneath them." I knew who it was immediately.
A contract employee whom I had hired for my team, in a one-on-one, shared his feelings about being shunned in the industry.
He was intelligent, but he chose a path that did not lead him to obtain his PhD, a requirement for his original route in crop science. He constantly talked about being smarter and how ridiculous it was that he couldn't get a particular role because he was not a PhD.
He took the role I was hiring for as a pivot. To see what it was like. I took a chance because it was a contract role, so if it did not work out, we could part ways and bypass the red tape.
It was a mistake. The work assigned to him was remedial from his perspective. He didn't engage, and I received numerous complaints. In meetings, his withdrawal was palpable. He wasn't happy, and he was not a good fit.
In this case, being overqualified for the role meant he wasn't being sufficiently challenged, and his peers were (in his eyes) beneath him. How could they tell him what to do when they are less educated and much newer to their career?
He was a great and interesting guy, but he was not a good fit for the work or the team. In this instance, not hiring him because "he was overqualified" would have been the right approach.
Too smart to follow the rules?
Early in my leadership journey, I recall hiring a PhD for a role that only required a B.S. In my eyes, this meant a twofer. How could this not be a win-win?
It did not take long for the complaints to come rolling in. The individual was not following the standard operating procedures (SOP). She wouldn't listen to her trainers or the subject matter experts (SME). She was a PhD and how dare these people try to tell her how to do it.
In the biotech industry, there is an additional nuance with hiring a PhD in a "production" environment; it isn't research. You follow the SOP, or you are out. We are not reinventing the wheel, and the repetition is not for the faint of heart.
Many times, PhDs want to create, research, and do what is needed to achieve success. They may view the standard methods as remedial and wish to implement their historical knowledge to reinvent the wheel. In a highly regulated environment, this is not allowed.
The outcome of mixing this proverbial water and oil is that they argue with peers and sometimes their managers. They know it all. They know the science, and they are telling you what is right. It becomes a never-ending rollercoaster that no one expected to ride.
The imaginary boss
While I am confident I entered the world as a bossy person, ask my younger brothers; hiring someone who used to be in leadership for an individual contributor role can create a slew of issues.
I have found that these over-qualified individuals will assume a leadership role despite no authorization or encouragement from their peers. However, they immediately take charge the moment they feel comfortable in the organization, and in some cases, even sooner.
They quickly strip away the hierarchy that existed before their arrival and opt for a structure in which they are the leaders, causing turmoil and "Survivor"- like alliances. Ultimately, it undermines their leaders and veteran peers, creating a toxic work environment.
In either of these cases, it reinforces and explains why hiring someone overqualified is a risk with statistically more negative outcomes than positive ones. While some organizations may be projecting unfair practices under this label, namely ageism, more often than not, there is a very good reason not to hire someone overqualified.
When the risk pays off
It's not all doom and gloom when hiring someone overqualified. In entry-level or nearly entry-level roles, the majority of staff members are not yet professionally mature, which results in a high level of trial-and-error behavior. Resilience is typically low, agility is just beginning to be developed, and the concept of letting things roll off the shoulder is seldom practiced.
In these environments, it can be a gift from the heavens to bring in someone more seasoned in their career. The number of stories I have heard from interviewees about how they had a more mature coworker impart advice that has stuck with them or helped them through a work challenge.
Peer-to-peer support versus manager support takes on a different meaning, and having someone on the floor to help develop professional maturity in a team is powerful.
Troubleshooting masters is often what you can gain from these "over-qualified" individuals. They have been there before, and, as a seasoned individual, they frequently have a Rolodex of solutions floating around in their heads.
And, my favorite, the ones that just want to put their heads down and work. They've spent their careers grinding and even leading; they've put their superperson cape up and are ready to keep it simple. These are your responsible, straightforward team members who do the work they are asked to do, and while they will often do nothing more, they also will do nothing less.
They'll typically be quietly agile as inevitable change occurs. Alternatively, they can be the best change agents when an organization introduces necessary but unfavorable change. These individuals either managed to change themselves or experienced enough to guide their peers in adapting.
These and many more are the value of hiring someone over-qualified rather than passing them up in fear of the risks.
What can you do if you're overqualified?
Ask yourself the following questions:
- Why are you willing to take a step down?
- Are you doing this out of desperation?
- If you answered 'yes' to question #2, is the experience that may follow worth it?
- Will it feel like you failed or let yourself down?
- Are you comfortable with being humbled?
- Can you take direction from people less experienced than you?
- If this is a career pivot, what do you hope to gain from this experience?
- How long are you willing to work in this role? Will you leave as soon as your target role opens up?
- Will you be asking for a promotion in 6 months? What happens when the answer is no?
- Does taking this step down fulfill your current goals?
- Are you truly ready to take a step down?
The answers to these questions will help you navigate interviews and ease the concerns of potential employers. Because I understand the potential value of hiring someone over-qualified, I do not readily dismiss them. I have crafted questions that will help me determine whether this risk is more likely to have a positive or negative outcome.
For the right reasons, this match can be a win-win for the candidate and the organization. It is not unfathomable that people want to take a step down. I have written about one reason here. Whether it's leadership fatigue or a career pivot, there are several logical reasons why someone might take a step down, and as leaders, it can be a value-add to be their landing space.
Hearing "you're over-qualified" is not always a cop-out, and if you are honest with yourself, it could save you from a period of stress and unfulfillment. One thing I did not mention is that training is a costly endeavor for any organization.
There are increased errors, the cost of training materials, and reduced capacity from pulling an SME or lead for training duties. Wasting resources on someone who will only be there for less than a year is not cost-effective. Understandably, this would be a massive concern for hiring managers.
From a personal perspective, we always hear not to commit to an organization because they do not care about you. While I struggle to make that my mantra, I understand it. However, if organizations have that understanding of their employees, we can expect them to be more cautious about who they are willing to bet on.
So, I challenge interviewees willing to take a role that is a step down to ask those questions, and if you are not ready, apply accordingly. I challenge hiring managers to ask those questions that can ease your concerns about overqualified candidates because you never want to miss an opportunity to hire the best person for the role.
