brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (08/26/85)
In article <3256@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) writes: >After fifteen years in which she learned quickly, maintained the highest >standards of quality in her work, and was refused advancement to most of >the positions she sought on the basis of any petty excuse, she is now >being told that she is "too qualified". What the hell does that mean? I have often wondered about this, but recently I have received a few insights. There are three ways that a person can be overqualified for a job. The first is the result of unions and collective bargaining. Unions often negotiate contracts that specify certain wages or jobs depending on the experience, seniority and education level of the applicant. For example, there might be a rule that PhDs get at least $25K per year at company X. This means that you can't hire one to be a clerk or drive a truck, because you would have to pay them far above the normal pay for that job. Seniority is even worse. Collective agreements often say that the longer you have been with the firm, the more you must be paid. If you go away and your job does too, you can't return to a lower paying job because the union doesn't allow it. This sounds like what happened to your mother. The second is job specific. For example, I recently hired a software tester and I am beginning to think he is overqualified. His job is to test the software and verify the manuals. But he sometimes comes to me with comments like "you should redo this whole section" which I have repeatedly told him are a total waste of his time and mine three weeks before release. The third is similar, and is related to attitude. With my education and experience, there are many jobs I could never get excited about or interested in. While capable, I would not do the best job because I would not be interested in the work or appreciative of the pay - I would always think I was worth more, because in today's world, I am. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (08/31/85)
> In article <3256@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) writes: > >After fifteen years in which she learned quickly, maintained the highest > >standards of quality in her work, and was refused advancement to most of > >the positions she sought on the basis of any petty excuse, she is now > >being told that she is "too qualified". What the hell does that mean? > > I have often wondered about this, but recently I have received a few insights. > There are three ways that a person can be overqualified for a job. > > The first is the result of unions and collective bargaining. Unions often > negotiate contracts that specify certain wages or jobs depending on the > experience, seniority and education level of the applicant. For example, > there might be a rule that PhDs get at least $25K per year at company X. > This means that you can't hire one to be a clerk or drive a truck, because > you would have to pay them far above the normal pay for that job. > Seniority is even worse. Collective agreements often say that the longer you > have been with the firm, the more you must be paid. If you go away and your > job does too, you can't return to a lower paying job because the union doesn't > allow it. This sounds like what happened to your mother. > > The second is job specific. For example, I recently hired a software tester > and I am beginning to think he is overqualified. His job is to test the > software and verify the manuals. But he sometimes comes to me with comments > like "you should redo this whole section" which I have repeatedly told him > are a total waste of his time and mine three weeks before release. > > The third is similar, and is related to attitude. With my education and > experience, there are many jobs I could never get excited about or interested > in. While capable, I would not do the best job because I would not be > interested in the work or appreciative of the pay - I would always think > I was worth more, because in today's world, I am. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Your first point is understandable. However there should be some way to work around the system if company policies are detrimental to the company. Your second point is not strong. Apparently the person you hired is doing his job verifying the manuals. Unfortunately for you he is finding that whole sections are not acceptable by the standards he is using. Maybe your standards are lower than his. Does that make him overqualified or the person writing the manual underqualified? Perhaps with the deadline rapidly approaching you are compromising your standards - should he be penalized for that? Perhaps you should recieve his comments and say "Good work, unfortunately the deadline approaches and we cannot do anything about this. Write up your objections so that we can deal with these problems in the next release". To tell him that doing his job is a "waste of his time and mine" is to assure that he will not do his job in the future. Of course, when that happens you can always contend that he did a poor job because he was overqualified. Your last point is dangerous. You should not assume that a person with a particular background is disinterested in the job they are applying for. Why are they applying for it? You may find in an interview that their goals for the job are different from the company goals, does that make the person overqualified or just incompatible with the particular job? If the computer industry had a great crash and you could not find work at the level you are at now, how would you feel to be turned down for a job as software tester because you were overqualified? You do a great diservice to a person by discounting there sincerity and dedication on the basis of a resume. To me rejecting a person because they are overqualified is a shallow way of hiding your real reasons for not hiring a person. If you have concerns about whether they will be happy in their job, do the courtesy of telling them that so that they may try to allay your fears. Unfortunately, people are all too often rejected as being overqualified by insecure bosses that believe the person may be better qualified to handle the bosses job than the boss (why hire someone that may replace you?). "Overqualified" is an excuse, not a reason!
esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco) (09/06/85)
> To me rejecting a person because they are overqualified is a shallow way > of hiding your real reasons for not hiring a person. If you have concerns > about whether they will be happy in their job, do the courtesy of telling > them that so that they may try to allay your fears. Unfortunately, people > are all too often rejected as being overqualified by insecure bosses that > believe the person may be better qualified to handle the bosses job than > the boss (why hire someone that may replace you?). > > "Overqualified" is an excuse, not a reason! Telling someone they are overqualified for a job often means just that: they are overqualified for the job. The job will not satisfy them and they are likely to leave it as soon as something they are more suited for comes up, making the employer find and train someone else. If you were trying to hire a computer operator, would you choose an out- of-work programmer with a four-year degree? Of course not, because you would have to replace him within a short time. Michael Esco