Two and a half years ago, I wrote about a job candidate being told they were overqualified for a position. Here is a quick excerpt:
I wouldn’t hire a VP of Sales to mop the floors (however much I would enjoy the sight). You want someone who will like the job, who will do well, and who will stay (i.e. not turnover). People within the range of experience (and not above or below) do the best. That’s why we develop, test and use job descriptions.
I got an e-mail responding to my post that was as interesting as it was long (three very long pages). I read every word but I obviously can’t reprint the whole thing here. Here’s the point:
I sincerely hope that you will not promote the notion of not hiring people who seem to be over-qualified for a position. There are many reasons why people may be applying for positions that they seem over-qualified for. I was reading an excerpt from a book on the Internet that talked about CZUs (comfort zone underachievers) who are people who are highly-qualified but they don’t necessarily like being challenged.
…
These low-paying positions that are often receptionist and customer service positions and administrative positions can make a contribution to the company’s bottom line. Doctors, optometrists, and other professionals have no idea how man patients/clients they lose because of poor customer service and rudeness from these inexperienced, unappreciative, and rude young employees. I’d be so grateful to have a regular routine and to be in a position where I could once again take care of myself and live with dignity.
I thought this e-mail would be worthwhile to take a shot at updating my stance on hiring people who seem to be overqualified. Yes, amazingly my stance has shifted as the business climate and my own education progresses.
A Bad Excuse
Out of all the lousy reasons to not hire someone, saying that they are overqualified (and telling them that it’s the reason) is one of the worst. If you look at it logically, either a person is qualified or unqualified. Overqualified implies that there is some upper limit of expertise needed for any given position. And I can’t think of a worst thing to say than:
“You were great. So great, in fact, we gave the job to someone with less experience. This job isn’t good enough for you!”
Every job candidate that hears “You’re overqualified” hears this phrase. It leaves them stuck. How can they get less experience in a field so they look just qualified enough? It is incredibly stupid.
What HR is really saying?
In my experience, HR is usually saying one of four things when they say you’re overqualified:
- You’re not actually qualified but you think you are – Often this is a manager looking to go back down to a technician level where they haven’t been hands on for five or more years. Supervising someone doing a job is different than doing the job day to day. If you have been a director of marketing and are looking to downgrade to a PPC position but you haven’t been hands on for three years (or you’ve jsut supervised PPC), you’re probably not qualified to do that job.
- You have years of experience but your experience is too broad – If you are a jack of all trades, it makes it hard for people to envision you in a specialist role. For example, this is a tough thing for an HR generalist to get over if they don’t have a specialization in a part of HR. Employers come to the conclusion you don’t have enough specific experience, that you wouldn’t be interested in doing the same thing day after day or both.
- You’re not a good fit for the position – The position requires a lot of detail and you say you prefer (or your experience points to) an environment where you work in the big picture without a ton of detail. Even if you are qualified (overly so!), you may not be a good match. People that say these people are overqualified are just not being honest.
- What the heck are you doing? – You go from VP of Sales to applying to be the custodian? No matter your reasons (however legitimate), this is a crazy career move that should instantly bring questions up. You should step down (like down stairs, not down a cliff).
How Should HR Approach These Situations Then?
Either be honest and use the four points above as assistance to “overqualified” candidates (who actually aren’t overqualified) or don’t say anything at all. If you don’t have the guts to tell someone the truth about why they were rejected, you shouldn’t water it down with some platitude that can only make things worse.

January 22, 2009 at 1:51 pm
This post begs the question:
Does anyone’s HR department actually tell (in writing or verbally) people why they’re being rejected?
While I know that the suggestion that a candidate ask for feedback about what he/she could have done better/differently in order to secure the job is widely promoted on job-hunting forums, I can’t fathom a situation where responding to the question with anything more than “Thank you for your time and interest. Another candidate was chosen” would be a good idea. You’d leave yourself wide open for complaints at a minimum, and lawsuits at the very worst.
January 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I agree with Janet – less is better and good manners is very important
– Kim S
January 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Janet and Kim – I personally wouldn’t advise HR departments to give out reasoning to candidates not selected. You’re just going down a path full of problems.
Some HR people like to “keep it real” or help a person out (especially one that may have gone very far but not been selected). It must be happening on a regular basis because (based on the emails I receive) people get told why they weren’t selected on a frighteningly high basis.
I’ve done it before when I felt the risk was minimal and there was something specific, job related that we really needed. Those are limited to less than a handful on hundreds of hires.
January 23, 2009 at 9:10 am
What kind of verbage are you using? I try to let candidates know either by email or phone that they are not being considered as a courtesy.
I recruit mainly commissioned salespeople and am seeing more sales manager/ directors applying for our inside sales positions along with many others that have no experience.
I think by not responding at all that it could develop a bad reputation for your company. I work for a small business and recruit locally.
Thanks for the discussion!
January 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
Edward,
I would communicate with the candidates that applied and let them know that another candidate was selected. If they ask why they weren’t selected, I would normally say that we don’t discuss the selection process but that it takes many factors into account. The shorter the better. But certainly, communicate with them to let them know.
January 23, 2009 at 11:06 am
I am in the insurance industry and have all the designations I was hereforto told would “guarantee” job satisfaction (CPCU, CLU, CIC, etc). I also have a Bachelor degree in business and a Master degree in Public Administration. I have received the “overqualified” excuse for not getting jobs, like others. I thought 39 years experience in the industry was going to be a help but the experience has to be pigeon-holed unfortunately to EXACTLY fit what the recruiter is seeking. I try not to think I am now too old to be employed, or OMG over-experienced/educated/qualifed for anything. After 1 1/2 years looking for a career opportunity it gets discouraging.
January 23, 2009 at 11:32 am
This economy has been making it very challenging for those of us who are on the front line hiring. Applicants are getting aggressive and are perfectly willing to say… “Yes, I was an SVP at my last position, but I need to pay the bills, so please consider me for your junior position. Even if it is a $30-40k pay cut!” In this marketplace, this type of applicant needs to understand that employers do not want to go through the trouble of bringing them on board, only to have them leave when the job market picks up in their favor.” Very challenging, indeed.
January 24, 2009 at 11:43 am
It took over 30 years in HR and finally volunteering to help unemployed people find employment to realize how poor a job we did in HR by not seriously considering “over qualified” people for our open positions. I certainly understand Lance’s comments about these people no longer being qualified but there are so many people that are “over qualified” and not given a chance by employers. How about new imigrants who need that chance to have American experience, or the person returning from taking care of their child.
Are we that arrogant to believe everyone we hire will stay in the same position for ever? Do you actually have every hire stay with you for a long time? If you do, you are much better than I ever was.
If you can get 3-4 years from a person, give them a chance, treat them with the respect they deserve, you will find that you may have an incredibly dedicated, hard working, high performing employee that will add significant value to the department, company and customer and feel a loyalty to the company that gave them the opportunity. So what if they find a better job in a couple of years, you had the opportunity to use that persons talent and maturity for that period of time. In addition, that better job may be with your organization.
Regarding them taking a 30K – 40K pay cut, they are currently unemployed, so they are going from zero. That is not a cut, it is an opportunity.
If you consider taking advice from an old retired HR guy who has worked in HR positions from front line to senior executive, don’t discount these very talented people just because you think they are “over qualified” and won’t be happy doing the work. Make sure the candidate knows specifically what the job entails and let them know your concerns about them not being satisfied or challenged enough with the work, but if they insist and they are qualified and know what they are getting into, then give them that chance, you may be surprised.
January 24, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I have to agree with Greg. I have worked in HR and am currently unemployed. I have gotten the “overqualified” thing a lot! It really hurts my feelings because I have the type of work ethic that is very dedicated to an employer no matter what level I start at. If I have to start in a lower level position, so be it. But my goal would not be to stay there! It would be a never ending goal to advance my skills and knowledge so that I can move up when the opportunity presents itself. It is unfair and disheartening when someone send me a “dear John” letter telling me that “they’ve decided to go with someone else who closely matches our current needs”, when I know that I am beyond qualified to do the job! It sucks! Do you mean that all the years I worked hard getting an education means nothing? Does it mean that all the years I spent sharpening my skills means nothing? Really, someone tell me. What is it?
January 25, 2009 at 11:11 am
In certain fields there are often ‘standardized’ pay scales. Thus, someone with a PhD would have to be paid a certain rate even if they were working in a job where only an MA was required.
This practice discourages companies from even considering candidates who are ‘over-qualifed’ even if they would have been willing to take a lessor salary.
So many times, ‘policy’ works against both the company and the employee. A case by case consideration would be a much better practice.
January 28, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I just heard the “overqualified” excuse, and I just graduated college this summer. Is there no hope? I have had 3 years sales experience and an excellent internship, but seriously… I am entry-level.
February 1, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I’m a recently unemployed engineer.
I have been told that I’m overqualified.
I think this equates to we don’t want to hire anybody over 40.
Pingback: SmartBlog on Workforce » Blog Archive » This week’s most clicked
February 27, 2009 at 3:59 am
Under Data Protection laws in the UK, you can demand to see a potential employer’s interview notes.
The trouble is an employer will never confess, or write down, the real reason why they won’t employ you.
My previous employer, when looking for my replacement, for example simply went through an agency saying ‘no thank you.’ What they didn’t say was ‘we know it’s bad practice these days for you to put candidate age on a CV, but we worked out how old he was based on when he left school and started work. When we worked that out we put his CV in the bin’ and ‘we liked your candidate, but when we realised she had grey hair we decided she was too old for the job.’
I’m actually feeling guilty for not whistle blowing back then because of how the credit crunch is biting ever harder so they might be facing a lawsuit sooner or later.
When your ‘face doesn’t fit’ it means your more relaxed, more confident and more intelligent than the person interviewing you. Either that or the manager is a homophobe who thinks you’re gay. Very occasionally it might be because they find your religion offensive and are worried you might ruin their Friday night binge drinking sessions.
The trouble is this is real life. It’s not right but it’s not possible to do much about either. The only way to combat it is to beat it in the market place. Most people, in my view, are appalled by ageism, racism, homophobia, religious discrimination and sexism in the workplace. The only way to defeat it is to refuse to work for that sort of culture. I can promise you even today there are plenty of companies out there, big companies in fact, who are on the right side.
Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for Being Overqualified Is A Crappy Way To Tell Someone “No” | YourHRGuy.com [yourhrguy.com] on Topsy.com