Why are companies REALLY fearful of hiring an overqualified candidate? Experience matters, yet I often hear “overqualified” when the pay range is agreeable. My experience is in the 20+ year range. I understand a company is fearful of being used as leverage that an experienced candidate may quit when a better offer comes along. But in reality, junior/less qualified candidates can quit as easily and wouldn’t add as much value as quickly as an experienced candidate. Most experienced candidates are mature and understand the nuances of the hiring process so lying to experienced candidates would paint the company in a bad light.
Do you have a recruiting or hiring question you’d like us to answer? Send questions here.
Dear Mr. Overqualified,
Overqualification is a tricky topic. In my experience, it’s rarely simple. I’ve seen companies use it because it’s the easiest phrase to use to explain something that would be too complicated to write in a simple rejection email. Some companies have a strict policy around sharing feedback with candidates for legal reasons.
I can’t tell you exactly why companies are fearful of hiring “overqualified” candidates because it’s truly case-by-case. Instead, I can share my perspective and tell you where my recruiter brain goes when I see a clearly overqualified candidate’s application for an entry-level role.
Reason #1: The candidate and role don’t match, and questions raise uncertainty.
When I see a senior-level or experienced candidate applying for a junior or entry-level role, “caution” flags go up, and I have a lot of questions for the candidate.
This person has 15+ years of experience …
- Why aren’t they applying to a role that uses all their skill and experience?
- Why is this person seemingly going “backwards?”
- What happened in this person’s previous leadership role to make them apply for a junior/entry level?
Going “backwards” on your resume is usually not a good sign for reasons that depend on the recruiter or hiring manager. It’s helpful to include an explanation that acknowledges this gap because it reduces the assumptions that companies, recruiters, and hiring managers might make.
Reason #2: Experience doesn’t equal qualification.
As a recruiter, I’m looking to match the candidate’s skills and experience with the skills and experience of the role and lots of experience doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s relevant to the role or that the candidate is qualified for the role.
This is a BIG lesson in recruiting and a hard truth for candidates. Traditionally, companies and hiring managers have placed so much emphasis on experience. Many candidates believe that all they need is experience and they can qualify for almost anything they want.
That’s simply not true.
Recruiters holistically review a candidate’s application because they know that experience is only a piece of what makes a candidate qualified for a job.
Reason #3: Hiring biases come up.
Companies and hiring managers carry a lot of assumptions in the hiring process such as assuming a candidate is unreliable because they’re hopping from one job to another in a short time frame, assuming that an experienced candidate can’t adapt to technology changes, and more. I want to be very clear here that age bias is unacceptable.
Exceptional recruiters, companies, and hiring managers approach candidate’s applications with curiosity—not judgment—and want to explore how the candidate adds value to the company.
We want candidates to show up authentically as themselves. This is how we fit candidates and companies together! There’s a tremendous amount of trust involved in hiring from candidates and from those who are hiring. So when anyone uses hiring bias at any point in the process, they betray that trust.
I thrive on trust in my own recruiting process because I truly believe that if you show up authentically as yourself throughout your job search, you WILL come across the company that’s right for you.
I hope this perspective has been helpful, Mr. Overqualified. As I wrap up this newsletter, I’d like everyone to remember that there are so many reasons candidates aren’t a good fit for a role. If you’ve received “overqualified” as feedback, the reason may actually be more complicated. If you aren’t already, I recommend explaining gaps or pivots somewhere in your application, approaching the job search motivated by the role rather than just the salary range, and continuing to share yourself authentically. You will find a company and a role that suits you and your experience.
Signing off,
Sylvia Torres
TL;DR
I’ve seen companies use “overqualified” because it’s the easiest way to explain something that would be too complicated to write in a rejection email.
- Reason #1: The candidate and role don’t match, and questions raise uncertainty.
- Reason #2: Experience doesn’t equal qualification.
- Reason #3: Hiring biases come up.
Regardless of the reason you’re rejected for a role, I truly believe that if you show up authentically as yourself throughout your job search, you WILL come across the company that’s right for you. I recommend explaining career gaps or pivots somewhere in your application, approaching the job search motivated by the role rather than just the salary range, and continuing to share yourself authentically in your resume and interview.
Recruiter, Candidates, Hiring Managers: Do you have a recruiting or hiring question you’d like us to answer? Send questions for publication here.