Overqualified? Then you have a better chance as a woman!

Englis version

Getting a rejection because your ‘overqualified ’, it still seems to be common. Of course, there's also a certain logic to it (even if you don't agree with it as a candidate): recruiters and hiring managers have to weigh up several things, and the likelihood that the candidate will stick with it and stay for a long time is certainly part of that. If people have so many qualifications that they are likely to get bored quickly or that the competition will approach them often, it is not crazy to choose another candidate.

?

A rejection because you are ‘overqualified ’, it still seems to be very common.

The problem, however, is that being overqualified is viewed very differently in female than male candidates, according to research by Elizabeth Lauren Campbell (Rady School of Management at the University of California at San Diego) and Oliver Hahl (Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University). The two created a series of resumes with stereotypical male and female names, but otherwise identical qualifications. One set of male and female resumes were given qualifications that made them well-suited to a specific job description, while the other set looked "overqualified" for the role. The researchers then asked recruiters and hiring managers to assess candidates' suitability for the job.

?

Man previously rejected

The results, published in Organization Science, showed that male resumes in the group that was "overqualified" were rejected more often than the female resumes in the same group. The hiring managers in the study, on the other hand, were less likely to hire qualified women than qualified men. The reverse was therefore true for the candidates who were overqualified.

?

'For women, managers see overqualification as a sign that they are enthusiastic.'

?

Well, women with more qualifications than are required for the job have a better chance. But is this really good news? Not really, writes Carrie Webber on Quartz. "First of all, it means that men just have to be qualified to get the same job, while women still need something extra. But the other problem is the managers' reasoning behind their decision-making. If a male candidate is overqualified, they apparently assume that he is committed to his career, but that he will not be committed to the company he wants to work for. They think he's "too good" for the job and soon leave. In the case of women, managers saw overqualification the other way around. Here they saw it as a sign of enthusiasm about the work and that they are more likely to stick to it.'

?

Escaping discrimination

The researchers (who previously conducted a study on this subject) also asked two open questions to the respondents. In it, the recruiters and hiring managers appeared to 'rationalise' the applications of overqualified women in a special way.? The respondents said they assumed that the women were trying to escape gender discrimination at a previous job. They also said they believe that women value relationships more. That's why they thought women are less likely to leave the company once something better comes along. Furthermore, there are issues such as age discrimination that are still common.

?

"Women still need to invest more, simply to prove that they are equal."

When it came to qualified candidates, the managers assumed that men are more committed to their overall careers than women with identical resumes. "Another proof that to simply prove that they are equal, women still have to invest more and work harder than their male counterparts," Webber said.

?

Why it's so good to hire overqualified people

Overqualified people don't have an advantage with many recruiters. Wrongly, recent research shows (once again). They can actually take an entire team in tow, as it turns out. As long as you, as a manager, are open to them.

Overqualified candidates? In these corona times, many will present themselves again. And the traditional response from recruiters is: reject. After all, they would get bored sooner, be less satisfied with their work and their remuneration, and therefore want to leave earlier, is the prevailing thought. But a recent study from the scientific Human Resource Management Review shows that things are a little different.

?

Overqualified candidates improve the learning curve and the performance of the entire team.

This research shows that overqualified people not only perform significantly better than their peers, they are also more engaged than average in other activities outside of their own role. And, also important: they improve the learning curve and the performance of the entire team, according to Tilburg assistant professor Hans van Dijk, one of the three lead researchers of the article Welcome to the bright side: Why, how, and when overqualification enhances performance.

?

Good for the self-esteem of others

For example, there are four areas in which overqualification can have a positive effect, he states in a recent interview with Oxford Review. 'You can benefit a lot from overqualified people. They can perform better, and others can learn a lot from them and enjoy working with them. We believe this can also help the whole team move forward. One of the reasons people like to work in teams is because it's good for our self-esteem.'

?

"You want to be part of the winning team. That boosts your self-confidence.'

Compare it to the Dutch national team, he says. When that happens, the whole country dresses in orange, and we Dutch behave like a (quite) united group. Until the Dutch lose. Then we don't know how quickly we have to put the stuff away again. 'That's actually how it goes in every organisation,' says Van Dijk. "You want to be part of the winning team. That boosts your self-confidence.'

?

A few superstars on your team

So let's say you have a few superstars on your team. Or at least: you work with very competent people. 'Then you're usually even more proud of your team. And that, in turn, means that you can identify more with the team members, and that you also want to do more for them. In football terms, I would train harder if I was on the team with better players because I don't want to look like a complete idiot next to them. In this way, overqualified people bring out the best in the entire team.'

?

Overqualified people can bring out the best in the whole team."?

There is little evidence for the idea that overqualified people are more likely to get bored, it turns out. According to Van Dijk, it is rather 'the perception of people around the overqualified candidates' that is important in this. "They can either cause and exacerbate the problem, or they can help the overqualified people actually use that qualification, become superstars themselves and help the organization at the same time. So the overqualified candidate is rarely the problem, it is often more the perceptions of the managers and colleagues.'

?

'Hey, I see you'

This is partly due to 'ego defense', says Van Dijk. Some executives see overqualified candidates as a threat. But it's better to assume their positive contribution, the researcher advises. 'Fortunately, there is a tendency in psychology towards a more strengths-based approach.' So it's not just about the overqualified candidate, he emphasizes. 'It's about the social context: the candidate as part of a team in a larger organisation.'

Some executives still see overqualified candidates as a threat.

If you do this well and give the candidate permanent attention, you can easily prevent boredom – and as a result: early departure – according to the researcher. "Because you're basically saying, 'Hey, I see you. I can see that you are someone who can really contribute to the team." And people around this person see that. They can then learn from him or her. That really gives a boost to the identification with your team and organization.' It therefore stands or falls with the 'learning orientation' of the team in which the overqualified candidate ends up, according to the researcher. Do you have a high willingness to learn as a team? Then it's easier to take advantage of overqualified applicants than if you don't.

?A short example;

?

Someone works in the field of security and compliance, then this person is expected to keep himself or herself informed about this and to obtain the necessary certificates for this, which is also what is expected from the market and the employer/client. Now this person has obtained so many certificates that he or she quickly falls under the category 'overqualified', but is this justified? The answer is simple: No, it is not because this person is a professional and takes his/her responsibility with the performance of his/her job. And this is therefore of very great added value for the company. And can therefore be called a blunder by the recruiter and/or hiring manager, partly because he/she does not know the market demand?

Overqualified candidates? 20 reasons to hire them

?

It's a persistent myth that you shouldn't hire overqualified people. In reality, there are no better candidates imaginable.

?

Overqualified candidates would quickly become demotivated and leave the organization, according to popular wisdom. But there is no evidence for that myth, writes recruitment guru John Sullivan. In fact, according to him, there are more than enough reasons to hire people who have more on their CV than is necessary for the position. He mentions no less than 20 of them:

?

? 1. You make the pond too small

Due to unemployment, there are simply many overqualified candidates in the market. Rejecting them would reduce your candidate pool quite a bit.

?

? 2. Their desire to work may be stronger

Because many overqualified people have been sidelined in times of unemployment, they are now very inclined to show themselves. Especially people who are tied to a certain region are often willing to accept a job below their level, in order to move up the ladder if possible. They may even go the extra mile just to prove that it was a good move to hire them.

?

? 3. It's stupid to reject 'more for less'?

In the supermarket or at the car dealership, you are also sensitive to the argument 'More for less'. So why wouldn't you be in the job market? If you're putting together a regular golf team, why not hire Tiger Woods when he signs up?

?

? 4. Even if they leave early, they still add a lot of value

In practice, it doesn't turn out, but even if you believe that overqualified people will leave quickly, that's not always a reason not to hire them. Even if you only have Lionel Messi in your team for a few months, it can be the difference between becoming champion and being second. Your organization can learn from such a person, hear and develop ideas, and pull itself up from them. Ask yourself: would you rather have someone overqualified for 6 months or a mediocre candidate for 5 years?

?

? 5. Hire them for this job and the next

Smart companies like Google don't just hire people for 1 job, but also look at their potential, assuming they get promoted internally. And overqualified candidates already have the qualifications to do so. Very handy. Especially if you get opportunities internally quickly, these candidates will not easily remain overqualified.

?

? 6. They are fully deployable faster

Because they are overqualified, they need less onboarding time than less qualified candidates.

?

? 7. Less Training Is Needed

Because of their multiple qualifications and skills, they are likely to require less training, and also less time off for training.

?

? 8. They Can Help Others

People who are overqualified can serve as mentors and usually find a way to share their knowledge and experience with colleagues, which in turn helps them progress faster.

?

? 9. They Are Often Easier To Manage

Managers are sometimes afraid of overqualified subordinates, but this is usually not necessary: because of their extra experience, these candidates are usually easier to manage, and they are also more likely to work independently. In fact, they can often even help the manager with leadership.

?

? 10. Overqualified candidates are poised for growth

Growing organizations will usually eventually find the space for a candidate's qualifications and experience. Overqualified candidates may even see opportunities that you don't even think about at the moment, but that can take your organization further.

?

? 11. Overqualified candidates are often highly motivated

Their many qualifications usually don't come naturally, they are the result of hard work. Chances are, if you hire someone like that, his or her professionalism and pride will be so great that they will do anything to excel, regardless of the job they are in.

?

? 12. Avoid legal hassle

Calling a candidate 'overqualified' is not punishable in itself, but because this often correlates with age, and discrimination on age is punishable, it is dangerous as a ground for rejection. Especially if you don't have data that supports the fact that they have a low 'expectation of success'. So unless you explicitly state in your terms and conditions that someone can't be overqualified, you're always at risk. And why should you include it in your terms and conditions?

?

? 13. Most job descriptions are highly inaccurate

Most job descriptions are not scientifically established. They can't, because they're constantly changing. That means that many job descriptions are also highly inaccurate, and hardly determine whether someone will be successful or not. So there is no reason to reject someone on the basis of overqualification.

?

?? 14. Even accurate job descriptions usually only have a short life span

With so many rapid changes in the workplace, so many new technology, products and services, many job descriptions quickly become outdated. Then it is not so convenient to have someone who exactly fits the description, but it works better if you have someone who has more to offer.

?

? 15. The candidate may be a little less overqualified than you think

We know that many people exaggerate their CV and qualities quite a bit. Keep that in mind, and someone who initially seems overqualified may suddenly seem "more than good enough." And of course you want to have them...

?

? 16. Ask yourself: Is doubt the real reason for rejection?

Many hiring managers reject overqualified candidates out of uncertainty: won't the newcomer be a threat to their own position? As a recruiter, you shouldn't care about that: you have to hire the best for the organization, not the least threatening.

?

17. Give them freedom, and they give something back

It may well be that overqualified people are more likely to get bored. The solution to that is simple: hire them, but make sure they don't get bored. If you give them the space for their own activities, you will see that they will develop all their qualities automatically.

?

18. Give them responsibility

A bit of an extension of the previous point: by giving them more (or at least: different) responsibilities within the job, many of the potential problems can be avoided and the candidates can show more of themselves, without getting frustrated.

?

19. Make a development plan

Acknowledge that someone may be overqualified, but at the same time, work on a development plan. That alone shows that you take people seriously, and can allay concerns. Consider, for example, raising the bar for the employee in question, or having him or her rotate more throughout the organization. The latter is also more likely to ensure that the employee finds a position that is more in line with his or her qualifications.

?

20. You don't have to worry about referrals

If one of your own employees has nominated the overqualified candidate, you'll be fine. You can assume that the employee has already assessed whether the candidate will succeed in their position and will continue to do so, even though they may work below their level.