• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why don't they hire overqualified people?

M

Martin

Lifer
I don't get it.

If someone overqualified applies for a job, they get turned down, but why? Is it that the boss wants to eliminate copetition? I've heard that HR ppl don't think an overqualified person will be "happy" at the job. But if that person applies for the job, it means they must really need it, so they'll be happy just to get it.

anyone care to explain?
 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I don't get it.

If someone overqualified applies for a job, they get turned down, but why? Is it that the boss wants to eliminate copetition? I've heard that HR ppl don't think an overqualified person will be "happy" at the job. But if that person applies for the job, it means they must really need it, so they'll be happy just to get it.

anyone care to explain?
Click to expand...
I think this is a repost, but to answer your question, I think reason number one is that "overqualified" is a synonym for "will want too much money." Second, an overqualified person might be more likely to split than a n00b because he might find a better job.
 
I would assume it also keeps people from taking jobs where they are overqualified, just to keep working, and then leaving a month or two after they find a job they are qualified for.
 
The best that I can figure is that they want to hire workers with the same qualifications as to not create conflicts and
competition among the workers, which would create a more efficient work place. Also, if they are overqualified it would be
easy for them to find a better job and leave, so they might not be employed for that company for too long before they quit
for a better job.

Edit: Scipionix beat me to it....
 
They may be taking the job out of desperation, and they will never really be happy, as they feel overqualified for the job. It basiclaly makes for an unhappy employee.. in the long run.
 
Originally posted by: Scipionix
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I don't get it.

If someone overqualified applies for a job, they get turned down, but why? Is it that the boss wants to eliminate copetition? I've heard that HR ppl don't think an overqualified person will be "happy" at the job. But if that person applies for the job, it means they must really need it, so they'll be happy just to get it.

anyone care to explain?
Click to expand...
I think this is a repost, but to answer your question, I think reason number one is that "overqualified" is a synonym for "will want too much money." Second, an overqualified person might be more likely to split than a n00b because he might find a better job.
Click to expand...

A lot of jobs have predetermined salary though...
 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Scipionix
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I don't get it.

If someone overqualified applies for a job, they get turned down, but why? Is it that the boss wants to eliminate copetition? I've heard that HR ppl don't think an overqualified person will be "happy" at the job. But if that person applies for the job, it means they must really need it, so they'll be happy just to get it.

anyone care to explain?
Click to expand...
I think this is a repost, but to answer your question, I think reason number one is that "overqualified" is a synonym for "will want too much money." Second, an overqualified person might be more likely to split than a n00b because he might find a better job.
Click to expand...

A lot of jobs have predetermined salary though...
Click to expand...

well, the second reason still applies.
 
If I owned a company I'd hire the most overqualified people for every position I could..then treat them really well. I'd sorround myself with people that were way smarter than me. Specifically, I'd be looking for people with something to prove, people that have searched for awhile with a job who would be so grateful that I gave them an opportunity that they'd lay their ass on the line for me. I'd rather hire a way overqualified bank teller than hire some 18 year old single mother who answers her cell phone during work and can't add(someone my mom actually works with). I'd go and take someone whos been out of work for awhile who at least knows what responsiblity is and knows how to handle htemselves in a job situation
 
The reason given me was an overqualified person will still be looking for a job that meets their needs/salary while working for you. Why train someone for a job if they will be leaving shortly.
 
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
If I owned a company I'd hire the most overqualified people for every position I could..then treat them really well. I'd sorround myself with people that were way smarter than me. Specifically, I'd be looking for people with something to prove, people that have searched for awhile with a job who would be so grateful that I gave them an opportunity that they'd lay their ass on the line for me. I'd rather hire a way overqualified bank teller than hire some 18 year old single mother who answers her cell phone during work and can't add(someone my mom actually works with). I'd go and take someone whos been out of work for awhile who at least knows what responsiblity is and knows how to handle htemselves in a job situation
Click to expand...

That is why you can only say "IF". Companies want to hire someone who will stay with the company for a while, not someone who will leave shortly.
 
Turnover rate in low paying jobs is high anyways...why not hire overqualified people? Lets say someone used to make 90k and I have a job and hes overqualified and I offered 40k, i just got myself a bargain. He can do the job easily, and I'm still payin him...hes actually got a job. Sure he might leave eventually, but if hes overqualified i probably don't have to train him. Also, if your company is doing a good job, your employees will want to stay. I had an interview with xilinx and some of their people wre overqualified and they were offered way more than what they were making at xilinx...but they also said they wouldn't trade the job in for anything because of the people working there and the great work and great environment. They all worked hard because they all loved what they were doing. I talked to 15 people in a 25 person group and all I kept hearing were raves about hte company. Everyone couldn't stop talkin about xilinx this xilinx that. If you provide a good working environment, good benefits, good opportunities for advancement, and treat your people well, they won't necessarily want to find a better job.
 
Why? 'Cause they quit for a better job.

It's ok if you are looking for a "temp".

EDIT: It's pretty obvious those of you arguing for hiring "overqualified" people have never been in management. 😉
 
About 3 years ago I read an article in The Wall Street Journal. It was a huge article that covered several pages.

It explained the now common business practice of hiring because of trainability and not experience. Workers that can be trained to do a task exactly the way the company says avoids all sorts of possible problems. That type of personality does not have a lot of ambition and will stay working in the job for many years. That avoids the HUGE expense of filling the position and the training it takes to fill it after it is vacated.

I wish I still had the article as it was a very informative piece!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top