I understand this, in the sense that I have seen this concern in the business world. Even at Farmers, where they knew me and knew my work, there was obviously resistance to my taking a lower job that I could clearly have done well; in fact, they never said so, but I think they just decided it was a bad idea and blocked me from doing it. This seemed curious at Farmers, because just within Finance I knew of several cases where former managers, or people with the potential to be managers, just decided to work as individual contributors, and in every case, they were some of the very best senior accountants we had.
Not hiring overqualified workers runs counter to simple supply and demand theory. Companies should prefer the most qualified worker. It's like you have two TV sets for the same price, with all the same features, except one is 40" and one is 50", but you reject the 50" TV because, uhh, at that price you just expected a 40" screen. Of course it isn't quite that simple, but almost. Employers are worried about those overqualified workers -- will they fit in, work well with their (maybe less-qualified) managers, get bored, try to find something better? And I did find at least one article that indicates that over-qualified workers are generally less satisfied than average. (Probably because they are smarter, but let's not get into that.)
But what about their overall performance? Are the concerns really fair, and are they enough to offset the strong skills overqualified workers bring to the job? My anecdotal evidence says no, but what about more authoritative sources? Googling "overqualified applicants" mostly leads to articles suggesting that there is no reason companies shouldn't hire overqualified employees, although it is clear that many of them won't. From a Harvard Business Review article called The Myth of the Overqualified Worker:
"New research shows that overqualified workers tend to perform better than other employees, and they don’t quit any sooner."
"The prejudice against too-good employees is pervasive. Companies tend to prefer an applicant who is a “perfect fit” over someone who brings more intelligence, education, or experience than needed."
"This kind of thinking has tossed untold numbers of experienced, highly skilled people into the ranks of the long-term unemployed, a group that now constitutes nearly half of all U.S. jobless."
Overqualified workers perform better. What a shock; next we'll find out that people prefer the 50-inch screen. I anticipated this problem though, and it is one reason I wanted to go into contracting. However, even there, recruiters are telling me that they are reluctant to send me to a job where I used to make more than the manager I would work for makes now, or where I might be more qualified for the manager's job than the manager is.
I don't want to whine too much -- just a little -- about age discrimination, but there is an element of it in the "overqualified" talk. I applied recently, through a recruiter, for a senior accountant role that sounded really good for me and paid pretty well. The company decided not to interview me, and the feedback from the recruiter was that they wanted someone "less seasoned" and " an up-and-comer." Actual quotes, I wrote them down. Those were the recruiter's words, not the company's, and I'm sure she would say that those are references to work experience, not age. Still, have you ever met an over-seasoned 30-year-old or a 50-year-old up-and-comer?
It's something I have to deal with. I think that I can demonstrate my value to a company if I can work there for awhile, but that isn't working out so far. Being "overqualified" makes it harder to even get a foot in the door.
No comments:
Post a Comment