Also consider that many employers are very open to “overqualified” candidates especially those that have the skills to bypass recruiters and go direct!

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Agreed that you can’t send an ex-exec to your client if yoru client is afraid of dealing with the ex’s power and authority, and afraid of what the salary requirements might be.

Rather than the hamburger/filet analogy, I see it more as the opportunity to get a proven power car for the price of a starter car, but we’re afraid because the car used to go/could go really fast. It will take a different kind of manager to reap the rewards of hiring ex-execs: one who is confident, secure, interested in tapping other’s knowledge and experiences, and willing to adapt their management style to one that may need to be a little more egalitarian.

There actually are companies that are weary of the trials of hiring only the younger, entry-level candidates. These companies are finding out that the sometimes slightly higher wages of an ex-exec workforce are offset by reduced retention, reduced training, and more reliable productivity.

We can’t assume that ex-execs strut into lower-level jobs with arrogance. Many adopt a humble desire to bring the best of themselves to their new position combined with a willingness to respect authority and take time to learn the job well.

Recruiters can’t send what their clients don’t want, but maybe over time, through conversation, new thoughts can gain some ground.

Doesn’t it seem ironic that with more people needing work now, recruiters are having a harder time finding “qualified” people? Maybe the definition of qualified needs some rethinking.

In the past overqalification was equated with high salary, retention nightmares, and demanding personlaities. I want only to spark the thought that that may not necessarily be the case anymore.

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

You said, “All of the above aside, the concept that I find most offensive is the one that says an individual won’t be happy in a certain job for which they are “overqualified.” The audacity of an individual to assume they know what will make another individual happy and satisfied in a job, and then pretending to make that decision because they care—is enough to make my temper flare.”

Karen, I would not throw the baby out with the bath water. Good recruiters and H/R professionals don’t assume (as you have stated) but certainly DO qualify or disqualify candidates based on perceived ?job satisfaction.”

Job satisfaction and retention most certainly ARE under examination here.

It is about caring (but not in the manner you mentioned). It’s about caring about your customer (the one who pays you for your services) to screen and determine who is apt to be the best candidate not only based on qualifications, motivation, and past success, but other factors to include “job satisfaction.” To assert that a recruiter or H/R professional is not qualified to examine and consider a candidate’s future job satisfaction or dissatisfaction is just not true. As a matter of fact, we would be guilty in not doing a great job if we did less.

Ken

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Power: Who doesn’t like it? Post-50 ex-execs had a lot of it. They may still be attracted by it, but they have a clearer view of what it is and what it isn’t than those of us still aiming for it. What is it? A measurement of your success. What is it not? Something that brings long-lasting satisfaction.

For the most part, ex-execs know that their days of running the race are past–time has run out. They don’t expect to hold the power. Rather than dominating a meeting where they are a subordinate, they are often content to remain respectfully quiet until you ask their advice, knowing that sometimes the most valuable part of lerning is the process. They know their place and they show you the same respect that they demanded from their employees when they were in your shoes. They bring a maturity and wisdom to the company–without the price–that you would pay a fortune for if you had the position available.

Pay: Post-50 ex-execs are making ends by finding work as greeters in discount chains, clerks in giant hardware stores, and tax prepares for storefront chains. The pay? $7-$12 per hour. Are they miserable? No. In fact, they find themselves surprisingly happy in a lower-stress job that is focused more on helping people and making a contribution than on competing to get ahead. After the grieving, the depression, the sense of failure that comes from becoming an ex-exec, they discover aspects of working they never noticed on the rapid rise to the top. Sure, they want and need to make a decent living, but “decent” isn’t necessarily what they were making before. There are now other things they value–and they have the freedom to experience these things now that the kids are out of college and retirement is just a decade away.

Authority: The fear is that an ex-exec will be a problem and personality conflicts will arise if they have to report to a younger manager. But who knows better than an ex-exec that the joys of executiveship are overrated. Treat these individuals with respect and we find that they can be very content letting someone else bear the headaches of corporate leadership. This anomaly eliminates information hoarding–the ex-exec isn’t really interested in moving up, anyway. He or she finds pleasure in sharing experience and wisdom and watching someone with the energy and enthusiasm strive and succeed. That doesn’t mean overlook them for recognition and promotion, but don’t be fearful that they expect the fast track.

All of the above aside, the concept that I find most offensive is the one that says an individual won’t be happy in a certain job for which they are “overqualified.” The audacity of an individual to assume they know what will make another individual happy and satisfied in a job, and then pretending to make that decision because they care—is enough to make my temper flare.

Mature individuals have been through the corporate battlefield. If they say that they are willing to lay down a few intellectual or experiential tools to settle into a less “exciting” job, then they are. If they say they would be content in a job for a company that makes $10 million when they used to sell $10 million of product every month, why should we call them a liar? Yet, everything in our gut recoils against this.

But how can we understand what it feels like to have fallen from a $250,000 job to a $10 an hour job–through no fault of your own. Who are we to judge that they couldn’t find happiness somewhere in the middle?

All of our current recruiting and hiring tools are aimed at finding the candidate who will be least “short of the mark” for the job and who will have enough intitiative to grow into the job in an appropriate time frame. When we see a candidate who already fits the job and then some, we panic.

Instead, trust that person to step into the job calmly, and then let them bring executive experience to the table to enrich the job. Imagine if everyone of your front-line employees had a CEO mentality about customers.

Yes, we may have to refine your skills. Sure, there will be some hotheads or won’t ever accept a lesser position, or people who do indeed find they aren’t cut out for it. But we now have employees who don’t show up, have little motivation and even less self-discipline.

Instead of hearing about how they got a flat tire, again, or dealing with a lack of motivation and initiative in your workplace; we may find ourselves lending an ear as an ex-exec wonders out loud about why they find themselves so content serving at a lower level than in the past.

We may have to discover more creative ways to reward and promote individuals who aren’t on a track to C-level, but deserve recognition anyway. Is that so hard?

Be innovatoive, be willing to change. A new workforce always requires new thinking. We’re incorporating the issues of gender and race more each year into our processes and decions. It’s only a matter of time before age comes to the forefront. Comparatively speaking, it should be relatively painless.

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Apparently my first reply did not make it through so I will send another. I too am reaching that magical number in a few more years. There are other perspectives regarding the “Over Qualification Lie.”

Customers, who have told me, I?m sorry but he/she is over qualified, have exasperated me too. I?ve even rebutted on occasion, “Gee Mr./Ms. customer, do you really want me to send you someone LESS qualified?” My ego won the battle but my W-2 lost the war and in retrospect I was just being an @$$. “A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.”

Overqualified is justified and defendable:

You used the hamburger and fillet mignon analogy?It sounds good but you know, sometimes the customer just wants that greasy old slider with a side of fries and a shake. Could you imagine ordering a burger and having the waiter/waitress bring you back a fillet mignon and then ask you to pay $2.00 more. Neither could I. The fact is that sometimes we find our customer a “10″ when they only need and want a “5″

Yes the translation of “Overqualified” may be:
too expensive
illogical career progression
hidden agenda
retention headache

BUT

It?s still not only our job to qualify candidates based on their skills, ability to do the job (repeatable career successes), but also to dig deep and determine motiviation for change, and separate the logical from the illogical.

If the client knows they want a hamburger instead of the fillet mignon and they understand the difference (implication) then sell?em the hamburger.

“Overqualified” is not synonymous with “Age Discrimination.”

Sincerely,

Ken

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=A2B0066FCA7647E499094B0D3E700C43