THE BIG “O” WORD: OVERQUALIFIED
Today, many companies are reporting that their number one constraint on growth is the inability to hire workers with the necessary skills.
Overqualification is the state of being skilled or educated beyond what is necessary for a job.
- Wikipedia
I’ve been out of work since January of this year; it’s now October! I’ve put every ounce of energy that I have into my job search. I’ve freshened up my resume, sharpened my skills by taking computer and other seminars, networked, Linkedin and out, and of course applied for work via any and all mediums available.
I received quite a few interviews during my first couple of months of being unemployed. And even though I wasn’t offered any positions, I was still very optimistic that the perfect job for me was right around the corner. Why wouldn’t it be? I’ve got years of experience, top-notched computer skills, a very good education and a winning personality. Potential employers will be beating my door down. It may just take a little more time. Or so I thought.
One failed interview (I say failed because it didn’t yield a call back or a job offer) introduced a term that has been following me ever since: Overqualified. If I had a dollar for every time a human resource director or recruiter told me that I was overqualified, I wouldn’t need a job because I’d be rich!
Now given former President Clinton’s statement above, I would say that no one should ever hear that he or she is overqualified. Companies should just hire the person and reap the extra benefits they’ll bring using those additional skills. But that’s my thinking, which doesn’t seem to be the norm.
I started to wonder if overqualified was a new code word for something else. I needed to do some research. Things have changed drastically since I first started job-hunting so many years ago. It’s a totally different ballgame now. My tools back in the day were the New York Times’ Sunday and Wednesday help wanted ad sections, a telephone and a resume (but it was okay if you didn’t have one – however, you did have to fill out an application). You could also just randomly drop by a building, look at the companies listed in the lobby and then drop a resume off or ask to fill out an application. Bam, you had job! I’m realistic. I know that those days are long gone, probably never ever to return again except in a time period movie. I’m okay with that.
What I’m not okay with is with some HR jargon that diminishes my years of experience and hard work down to zip.
My research led me to several reasons this term is used. The most frequent and honest is that a job applicant is truly overqualified. For example, you have a Ph.D and have been laid off from your college professor position. You’ve applied to every position you heard about in your field. You’ve searched and searched with no results, so you finally start sending out applications for administrative assistant. Guess what? You’re overqualified. And the chances of a company seeking to fill the position of an administrative assistant hiring you are slim to none. The company’s thinking: The minute something better comes along, this person is gone like the wind! And that would probably be a correct assessment.
Still, people take jobs every day with the thought of I’m out of here the minute something better comes along. I personally know of someone who was hired as an assistant in March, got some contacts through her boss’ Outlook and quit in August to work for one of his former colleagues. Well don’t hate the player, hate the game, right?
Another reason given was that your skills might out match those of the person you’d be working for. The first thought that will go through that person’s mind is that you could do his or her job. Nobody wants to hire their own replacement, especially if they are not planning on leaving their current position.
So what’s a highly skilled, unemployed person to do when faced with this dilemma? A 2010 SmartMoney article by Anne Kadet gives some really good tips (please take an opportunity to read the article in the link below). One major one that she states is that it’s important to turn one’s experience into an asset not a liability.
I also think that companies have a responsibility to start considering an overqualified candidate. Companies should also understand the difference between someone being overqualified and being over-experienced since they are two different things.
Not everyone is looking to jump ship after being hired. Many people would be happy to stay with a company with hopes that their experience will enable them to move up the ladder faster. Do employers really expect that the fresh-out-of-college new employee with some internship and one real job under his or her belt is going to retire at their organization? Of course they don’t. So why attach these unrealistic thoughts to candidates deemed overqualified? Not fair, not fair at all.
I personally have been given a variety of ways to combat the problem. From “dumbing down” my resume to simply outright lying about my experience - something that I am not only uncomfortable with but that I simply refuse to do. My experience is what it is. I’m proud of it. I worked hard to get the education that I have and I also have worked extremely hard at each and every position that I’ve held over the years.
Overqualified? Really? My response: Hey, I’m not overqualified to eat and live indoors!
