Overqualified? NOoooo!!!!!

In my opinion, candidates who are deemed overqualified are viewed through the following lens: 1. You lack the ambition to apply all of your skills and experience to a "higher level" job. Or why would you be applying to a job you are overqualified for. 2. If you in fact have said ambition (which is often the case), you will leave the job you were overqualified for as soon as an opportunity you are more qualified for (that will make you more $) comes your way. Which is why a common response candidates give when asked why they are looking is "I always keep my options open". For these reasons companies pass. Because you either lack ambition, or they are afraid you will jump ship as soon as you can. In my opinion these are valid concerns.

And history repeats itself... As my father used to tell my older brother: Business is really all just a game (and my father had several small successful businesses in his lifetime) and at the end of the day whoever has the biggest pile of money wins. I told a recruiter on the phone the other day that we who have jobs in offices do not really work. We just get paid to have fun. Digging ditches is real work. Working in a coal mine is real work. That is not to slight anyone who has fun doing those jobs, but I do not think most people working in offices would derive much pleasure from those occupations, unless they are trying to save money on personal trainers.

And for some of us, it translates to "you're too old."

Helpful article. It's a double edge sword, and here is my perspective for what it's worth because I encounter this more often than not. There's no fast tracking solutions or quick answer how to address overqualified/"glass ceiling". Overqualified or not, on-boarding training is still needed. The risks and evaluation period go both ways. It is absolutely necessary, even 30-60-90-etcetera. I believe it should be mutually agreed upon as terms of hiring. if I were hiring someone overqualified I would absolutely ask for this. Write your why, story and proposal. I myself have presented this proposal to potential clients/employers. Let's evaluate together in 30-60-90 days if this is still a mutually beneficial arrangement or terms or whatever you want to call it. It's a graceful exit, don't blame one way or the other-- shake hands and part as professionals. It's a mismatch/misalignment is all. Accountability goes both ways . The truth must be more important that fear or blame. It's important to evaluate and understand root/cause - fear and the underlying misplaced righteousness and perceptions in order to make the best decision. At the end of the day, to quote "we can walk out the door, die or get hit by a bus. There are no guarantees in life or career - end of story. We adapt and change because that is the only thing permanent in life (which came first the chicken or the egg is irrelevant). It's contract or full time employment, permanent jobs don't exist anymore maybe only in the government - that needs overhaul because it's so screwed up (I digress) There's a lot of variables to this. So here's 5 key considerations: 1 - stepping down is an intentional move for many (because we can afford to do so), but just because we are stepping down doesn't mean we will give it away for free either. Fair market value is a must. The company is getting great talent/capabilities and potential so why not give the individual something to work with- if you can't afford to pay(and don't want to admit it) then be flexible with PTO or remote work or something but show flexibility, if you don't then it's a given that you will be inflexible with anything else so early in the process never mind later. Do I really wanna keep working here if this is the case? Flexibility must be a 2 way street. 2 - the 30-60-90-beyond plans and review is necessary for something like this 3 - set expectations both ways by having #2- the 30-60-90-beyond days review with open dialogue understanding. 4 - Listen to each other. you hired an overqualified person, learn from each other and improve for the greater good. Leave your ego at the door. when you have an overqualified person, they've been around the block a few times, safe to say they have some level of wisdom, street- smarts and the been-there-done-that perspective. What is that worth to your company and business? Don't be penny wise dollar foolish. leverage best talent for best results. Be open and flexible. 5- Ask yourself, what would you do if you were not afraid? What are you willing to do to retain great talent? I would much rather have smarter people under me for great results and outcomes. When you hire overqualified smart people, let go of rigid rules, don't stifle or choke their ability to provide value - embrace and respect them. Healthy professional conflict is good - it's growing pains. Micro management is a thing of the past that worked for 1900s industrial era not for 21st technological century, so stop applying the old ways to new era. Stop doing the same things over and over expecting a different result. Let me share a true story (and I have a few of these). Jane Doe is hired, great company, remote work - great. Company processes and tools broken and dysfunctional. Culture even worst. Jane pointed out that I can't do quality job well or with accuracy because our processes and tools are broken. I'm lying about business information to clients. Jane was told - oh no, follow our broken rules, go ahead and lie to clients/guess to make deadlines and processes first before you can even suggest improvements. Your ideas are great but...blah blah blah. They parted company but in the end, Jane did not sell her soul to the devil. She can always find a job, but selling her soul, lying, integrity and reputation - are not negotiable. That's not in any company MOAT/brand/reputation or job description I know of, well I think you get the picture.