As I read this article, a rush of aha moments flooded me. I am an overqualified worker.

I was laid of last year due to the recession. I was working for a Big 4 as a IT forensics specialist. I have two technical degrees. After having no luck finding a job; I got anxious. I have no family and I had just graduated from grad school. I NEEDED to work. So, I applied for an entry level job as a system admin.

Yes. A person with two degrees and 3 years experience in IT forensics applied for an entry level system admin position. Originally, I was rejected off the bat. The hiring manager said I was way overqualified. A friend who was a manager in another department talked the HM into hiring me.

Now I am “bored, frustrated and discouraged”. LOL. Like the article mentioned, management ignores my suggestions to improve things. Since I have more knowledge than my co-workers; I have been put in a position of “implied manager“.
Yet, I do not get compensated as a manager nor will the department give me the power of a manager. So, I do manager duties with no title, recognition, pay, or power to fix things.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the company but I do feel under used and a little abused. I am happy to have a job but I would like to be challenged and recognized. Originally, I thought that I could quickly work my way back up the corporate ladder once I started to exceed at my job. However, seniority entitlement oppose to skill runs rampant.

I do believe giving an overqualified worker more leadway is the best way to manage them. My managers guard their job and the delegation of extra responsibilities like a hawk. What makes matters worse is that I am only 29. Most of my co-workers are 40+ I think they resent the fact that a 29yr old has more insight.

I am glad that I came across this article. I now know these feelings aren’t “all in my head”. However, I may need to transfer to another department ASAP.

In an effort to add to the discussion, let’s keep in mind that a recessionary economy is an extremely difficult time for certain talent pools in shrinking industries. For example, suppose a Director of IT is laid off due to downsizing, lagging consumer sales, or a recessionary acquisition of their current firm. They are then tossed into an employment market in which companies are looking to acquire talent “on the cheap” . . . in a world where there are ~6 candidates per every job opening. Each and every day (as an Exec Recruiter), I feel the pain of these types of candidates who see no “Director of IT” roles open anymore . . . but they are willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and take a role a level or two down “just to get back into the game.” And you know what? I really don’t blame them – isn’t the American way to improvise, adapt, and overcome? Sometimes the hand we’re dealt isn’t the best, but we have to roll with the punches. If that means a title reduction or a cut in pay, so be it.

After all, what’s the alternative? Sure, Uncle Sam is extending unemployment benefits in some states . . . but most talent would rather be engaged and working than job hunting, even if a government check is rolling in each week. I’m sure all of us have been in difficult circumstances like this once or twice in our lives – let’s not forget how it feels.

A suggestion you make is that “The best candidate for a position is one who can do 50 to 75% of the work with the need to learn and grow to master the task.” Are you saying an ideal candidate is someone who can only do 1/2 to 3/4 of what is expected for the job? In sales and engineering disciplines, someone who only meets 1/2 to 3/4 of their KPIs’ is likely on the chopping block. As an Executive Recruiter, I cannot imagine telling a Client that my candidate “has only met 50% of their quota the last few years, but I believe they’ll be a top producer in your organization.” Seriously, I am baffled by the notion of recruiting mediocrity, meaning a world where we’re reduced to finding candidates who can only do 50% to 75% of the job.

This mentality may lend organizations to acquire a 3-5 year professional (who can only be counted on to do half the work) instead of a 10 – 15 year professional that can predictably meet 95% to 100% of the job’s demands.

Anyway, this is a deep conversation with multiple variables, so please don’t see my comments as contrary in any way. I’m just trying to add some much needed balance to the discussion.

EXACTLY. Thank you Michelle. Most candidates who have climbed higher in the past probably fall into the camp this article originally describes and won’t be happy long-term. BUT hopefully there are still some hiring managers and recruiters who will be willing to consider this angle as a possibility when screening/interviewing…

…particularly for specialized fields like IT or creative where day-to-day project opportunities can offer even “seasoned” candidate tremendous gratification and challenge.

Give the person a chance to articulate WHY they’re downscaling – and you just may find a promising fit for both company and the motivated candidate who has a lot to contribute and is eager to do so.

The bottom line: Because of all the reasons listed in this article, the people they brought on board were malcontents after they were over being “happy to have a job”. Then the senior people who were responsible for the hires then couldn’t understand why the organization production dropped and moral was lower than whale stuff.

I am a 3rd party recruiter specialising in HR roles, and what I find is that a lot of positions I get are developmental roles, ie a Director or Senior Manager is looking to hire someone who they can develop and who can eventually grow into a more senior role. They aren’t necessarily looking for someone who can do the job comfortably at Day One because the opening is often part of a talent development agenda.

The requirement is often for someone who will find the role a challenge and who can step up to the plate and prove themselves.

I’m not sure it is a question of age, but of attitude…I have often spoken with more experienced candidates who ‘don’t mind’ doing the role, or will do the role because ‘once they’ve seen what I can do, I’m sure they’ll find me more to do’…none ever says ‘that would be a great role for me, I can bring a lot to it and help develop the Manager develop their offering’

Frankly, it’s not realistic for most people to plan a long career with a single upward trajectory anyway, as there are fewer high-level roles left and more folks competing for them. Firms continue to flatten their org structure even as senior employees in these positions delay retirement. Many slashed manager/director roles aren’t coming back – recession or no recession.

While I’ve led teams successfully as a staff director for Fortune 100 firms with outstanding results, I could definitely see myself seeking a manager or even senior-level strategic writer role in 2010 or 2011 if the fit is right. NOT out of economic panic or desperation, but because my first love is strategic copy/marketing writing…and like most professional disciplines, the further up you go, the less of it you get to do!

I guess the trick is figuring out which candidates genuinely love what they do and are open to assuming different roles/levels in doing it…vs those grasping at any straw to tide them over while they keep looking.

If a recruiter or HR professional submits a resume to a hiring manager after reviewing their skills and abilities, and the hiring manager responds indicating that they are “overqualified”, in my many years of experience this is just a way to say that they are too “old”.

One of the biggest challenges for the HR and Recruiting profession is the ability to recognize that the workforce is getting older overall, and there are less and less people who are in fact “qualified” for many roles in the workforce, and when a candidate who is “qualified” for the position but has more years of experience than the “expected”, we must be willing to take a stand, push back, and challenge hiring managers. I have never seen any research on “overqualified” workers being bored, frustrated, or discouraged. One of the biggest reasons why managers often disqualify “overqualified”/older workers, especially in a tough economy is that when the economy turns up, the overqualified workers will leave for a higher level position or more pay. I have never seen any research to support such a statement, and in my own experience…I have seen much turnover when the economics change for the better… but its across the board– when people are not satisfied with their work, their pay, their boss, they leave. Period. It doesnt matter how qualified or old they are.

Brenda

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/Le_Brenda
Invite me to Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/myprofile?trk=hb_side_pro

Pegging someone based on age to a certain rung on the ladder is so 90s and not where we are heading. The ladder has become the lattice and its perfectly fine to move up and down and sideways and accross. Most employees have accepted this, but many companies are still clinging to a up or out mentality. Also, I don’t buy that most managers want someone who is 50-70% of the capibility needed for the job. Those are not the specs I am seeing.