Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've head it before too. I think the worry that employers have is that if you are over-qualified, they think they won't be able to pay you the salary you want, and might not be as challenged in the role - which in the end would result in you leaving once you find a position you do want. Therefore, they avoid the situation since it takes time and money to bring you on and train you.
Correct!
However, how much money they may lose in that kind of situation? No biggie.
How do you explain their willingness to risk selecting a bad CEO, (or a president) then a bad technician?
I simply don't understand why employers take this approach. Sure, there may be concerns that the interviewee is just taking the job while they continue their search. However, if they're a decent interviewer, they should be able to drill down and discover the interviewee's motive. I've been a "finalist" for a couple of positions. And I'm certain that they couldn't believe that I was willing to take a 30% salary reduction. I was. I didn't NEED the job, I WANTED the job. There's a big difference. I'm at the stage of my career that I want to work for a good company, with good people and have a good lifestyle balance. I can bring a wealth of experience without the demands of a huge salary. The total compensation package is more important to many.
In these days when there are sooooo many "overqualified" applicants, I think companies are shortsighted for not taking advantage of their skills, experience and their ability to mentor less senior colleagues.
Companies hiring process is a copycat of others. They are like sheep following the leaders in their field. Management and HR departments are the least creative people I met.
I worked in R&D, engineering and marketing and dealt with very talented and creative people in several countries. They would examine the competitor's idea, but always dump it and declare "we can do it better!". They always try to be better. I never met a top manager or a HR person with the same approach.
Technically, an employer isn't supposed to give this as a reason. Stating that you are not hiring someone b/c they are overqualified can intimate age discrimination and has been challenged before. Technically if the person is qualified having more qualifications is not a legitimate reason to decide on hiring someone else with less qualifications.
They would examine the competitor's idea, but always dump it and declare "we can do it better!". They always try to be better. I never met a top manager or a HR person with the same approach.
Unfortunately, I worked for a couple multinational companies that, while innovative in their technologies, took the NIH approach- not invented here. That's very stifling for a marketing guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b75
Technically, an employer isn't supposed to give this as a reason. Stating that you are not hiring someone b/c they are overqualified can intimate age discrimination and has been challenged before. Technically if the person is qualified having more qualifications is not a legitimate reason to decide on hiring someone else with less qualifications.
Actually, I disagree. There are probably MANY overqualified 20-30-somethings out there looking for a job now. So I don't necessarily equate the overqualified tag with age discrimination. My point was that most interviewers simply think one is taking the job until a better one comes along. And that's probably true in many cases.
A good HR person, hiring manager or interviewer can gauge the candidates interest by simply asking "Why is someone with your experience and salary level interested in this position? Are you just a short-timer or is there something about this position that really interests you?"
A good HR person, hiring manager or interviewer can gauge the candidates interest by simply asking "Why is someone with your experience and salary level interested in this position? Are you just a short-timer or is there something about this position that really interests you?"
It's not ALWAYS about making more money.
And as I said before, the risk they take isn't that bad. Even if you choose to move on, their loss isn't terrible. At the same time, they are willing to risk it all with a new CEO from another industry or so.
Being overqualified is a real problem and causes problems in the work force. Some people can come down from a more responsible position and some can't. The over qualified person usually ends up either taking the boss' job or getting fired for not doing his job.
As with all the threads (well, at least most of them) on CD, it depends. The job or responsibilities can be a lateral move and may often carry higher responsibilities. In my case, I did product marketing for a couple of Fortune 100 companies over nearly 25-years. I'm interested in using and building upon that experience in a smaller tech company or start-up that can't meet my last salary level. And, due to their size, the responsibilities are usually greater. Fine with me. Should be the best of both worlds. They get experience at a cut rate. And we're not talking outdated experience. I get a position that still requires brain cells to fire. Win-win if you ask me. I think many are facing the same obstacle these days. Even those with a much shorter work history.
I heard these dreaded words yesterday, but I really want the job.
I know I am over qualified, but not by that much!
But, I really like the company, the location, the commute and the corporate culture.
I tried to convey this to the company.
I am hoping my professional contacts are enough to sway the hiring manager.
Has this happened to you before?
Any tips on trying to dumb down your qualifications?
Who knows the real reason behind the decision? Overqualified is just an easy phrase to use without needing to define the real reason. Could it be age? Could it be the tatoo? Could it be the weight? Could it be the cheap suit?
So maybe you are "overqualified" or maybe you are not when you hear these words. Let's eliminate the cuteness and get back to the days when Henry Ford's reason for firing Lee Iacocca was more to the honest truth - "I just don't like you."
As with all the threads (well, at least most of them) on CD, it depends. The job or responsibilities can be a lateral move and may often carry higher responsibilities. In my case, I did product marketing for a couple of Fortune 100 companies over nearly 25-years. I'm interested in using and building upon that experience in a smaller tech company or start-up that can't meet my last salary level. And, due to their size, the responsibilities are usually greater. Fine with me. Should be the best of both worlds. They get experience at a cut rate. And we're not talking outdated experience. I get a position that still requires brain cells to fire. Win-win if you ask me. I think many are facing the same obstacle these days. Even those with a much shorter work history.
Who knows the real reason behind the decision? Overqualified is just an easy phrase to use without needing to define the real reason. Could it be age? Could it be the tatoo? Could it be the weight? Could it be the cheap suit?
So maybe you are "overqualified" or maybe you are not when you hear these words. Let's eliminate the cuteness and get back to the days when Henry Ford's reason for firing Lee Iacocca was more to the honest truth - "I just don't like you."
We usually don't talk the kind of position Iacocca had and frankly I don't see how someone can be overqualified for that.
Most frequently, you get this response from people who didn't meet you in person, just got your resume. And if you show up in a suit to lower level positions, you are already overqualified. Once, when I was looking for a job, people advised me to wear a suit, white shirt and tie to the interview. When I stepped in, the interviewer stared at me and after a few moments asked "tell me frankly, what salary do you expect? And, without waiting for my answer continued: "we cannot pay that kind of money here"...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) then a bad technician? 
"You Might Be Over Qualified"
