Cafe Classic: Passing Over Over-Qualified Candidates

Editor's Note:  In this Cafe Classic, which generated a lot of passionate debate in its first publication (September 2010), our intrepid reporter Jim Brennan takes us to school on the perennial issue of what he terms "overqualified rejection syndrome."  Go Jim!

Recruiters have commented in various venues about meeting highly seasoned and qualified unemployed candidates that are being passed up for jobs that they are willing to take for bottom dollar. Instead, less or no experienced alternatives (even new grads) are being hired, they complain. The recruiters wonder if employers are acting against their own best interest.

In some cases, it appears that the companies they applied to didn't think that these more seasoned applicants would stay in the lower paying job when the market turned around. It should come as no surprise that companies faced with floods of resumes are looking ahead and actually acting in accordance with long term expectations.

This is not anything new.  I've lived thru many cycles of the "overqualified" rejection syndrome.

First time I lost a great hire who returned to his former employer when they called him back, I learned the truth of the axiom, "never expect anyone to act against their own interest."

Inexperienced employment managers might eagerly snap up this sudden flood of super-qualifed candidates, but that can easily backfire.  Yes, when the economy rebalances, they will either demand that you restore them to "their rightful proper level," wanting to be "made whole," or they will abandon you for another who will give them closure with fair pay.  Funny, how fair pay seems to always mean more pay.  Some perceive that you are obligated to meet their entitlement expectation, you see.  The fact that you gave them a job when they were unemployed will cut no ice then.  A need once satisfied is no longer a motivator.

Experienced corporate recruiters understand this and more.  An occasional over-hire is typical but only (in my experience) when hiring many at the same level. You may want to salt an old pro among the newbies to give them additional perspective and to "spread the seasoning" with a mentorish co-worker.  A voice of experience at the peer level may deter someone from jumping ship just for a few dollars when the unstable economic climate might leave them unemployed again shortly after changing jobs.  Nevertheless, if recent acquisitions get the chance to revert to their old superior lost employment situation or their "usual" pay level, you should not be surprised or hurt by their betrayal, if you saw it coming and provided for it.

I've noticed past rants on discussion sites from recruiters upset that their clients refuse to consider these desperate but seasoned and mature refugees and cling to more typical fresh new hires; they see that as a macroeconomic sin.  Maybe so, but it's consistent with a specific company's microeconomic best interest, not to hire new folks with obvious built-in grievance potentials.  Such selfishness is neither rare nor restricted to the employer.

Today, an employee's first loyalty increasingly is to self, career and family; no longer to the employer of the moment.

E. James (Jim) Brennan is an independent compensation advisor with extensive total rewards experience, specializing in job evaluation, market pricing and pay budget distribution. After corporate HR jobs in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing, he consulted at retail, government, energy, IT, tax-exempt and other industries throughout North America before becoming Senior Associate of pay survey software publisher ERI until returning to consulting in 2015. A prolific writer (author of the Performance Management Workbook) and speaker, Jim gave expert witness testimony in many reasonable executive compensation cases both for and against the Internal Revenue Service and also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

Image "Hammers On White" courtesy of artur84 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Comments

[Edward Fletcher]

This article seems to contradict itself. One paragraph says folks always act in their own self interest and the next bemoans them as 'entitled' for wanting more when their market value increases.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

-Upton Sinclair

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

The separate statements stand on their own merits, Edward. Check the full phrases for context. Both recruiters and their targets can be expected to choose what each see as best for themselves. And "some perceive" that their personal entitlement expectations are mandates which the company must gratify or be declared "unfair." In some cases, subjective expectations are objectively true and sometimes they are not. But we all have them and act upon them, don't we?

Likewise, what managers might view as betrayals, departing workers may see as simply pursuing equity elsewhere for the welfare of their families. Thanks for bringing up a very important point of contrast. Good eye ...

[Jay Schuster]

Does it really make sense to not hire a highly talented person because they don't 'fit' in some sort of pre-ordained concept of what an 'open work slot' requires? If we believe that talent matters to organizational performance does it not make sense to hire the best people and make the 'administrative systems' match the potential the individual brings to the table?

Now I clearly am not informed about all the 'best performing organizations' and how they view talent but in the hundreds of interviews we did a couple of years ago with CEOs of some of the top organizations in the US preparing for the series of articles we published in "WorldatWork Journal" the leaders said that talent matters most and that they will adapt to get the best possible people.

About the only organizations that were not able to offer reward solutions for the best talent from outside were the government agencies.

Again, paying for skill and competency is the best solution for encouraging talent growth and making your organization attractive to as many 'overqualified' people as you can get. When was the last time that your CEO told you to 'go out and recruit 20 people from the VA or Post Office:? Bet you a buck they never say that sort of nonsense.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

No, this standard traditional CYA practice does NOT make sense, Jay, absent the conditions I outlined. Underlings tend to be more concerned about avoiding making a decision that can be criticized (a "mistake") than in selecting the best candidate. In my experience, they simply sort out the dangerous outliers and go with the safest choice who can garner unanimous approval. CEOs are paid to take chances, but not their minions, I fear. Hope I'm wrong, though.

[Jay Schuster]

There is nothing wrong with people leaving one organization and joining another. True professionals do this all the time.

So an organization hires someone they view as 'overqualified' and they add value while they are there and move on. Or the organization recognizes their value and 'makes room' for them. Is not the real issue the 'qualified' person who is an under performer and the organization fails to 'cull' them out in order that they can find a talent 'fit' elsewhere?

In many instances 'loyalty' to an organization or a long-service employee is a 'death trap' for both the organization and the professional worker.

This is a good topic with many 'paths to follow' and you deserve credit for bring it up.

[Ross]

Not a good situation for me in the 3 jobs that I was hired into for which I was overqualified. I was perceived as a threat to the supervisor, the status quo, or the plan specialists, and saw my work sabotaged and ignored. The company may say they look for the most talented person, but in reality the organization is sometimes not supportive. Cannot recommend the practice, based on my experience.

[Jay Schuster]

Honestly sorry to hear that, Ross. Having it happen three times in three different companies is perhaps a record? Hope you were able to get on the right course after these experiences.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Since I also have had many bad experiences both hiring and being the "overqualified" person, I would ask for a success story or two to balance this discussion. While I fully agree with Jay and others that smart organizational leaders sincerely believe that top talent SHOULD be hired and developed, where is the proof that their underlings actually follow those lofty ideals? Who has seen a clearly overqualified new employee stick around and prosper after being brought on board to perform a role far beneath their abilities?

Theory is nice but reality can bite.