They typically won’t take the job or won’t like the job. You don’t want to hire someone for a position if they don’t actually want that specific position, because there’s a reason that’s the vacancy. Both candidate and HR have to judge if it fits
People applying for jobs below their experience level have likely already tried applying for jobs at their own experience level (if they’re hiring at all) and run into stupid recruiters demanding way too much for the position. Unless it’s an extreme disparity, just let them. I’ve spent a lot longer unemployed than I would’ve if recruiters like that just offered me something, and avoiding growing debt is more motivating at that point than you might think.
That’s the excuse they give yes. But given the current job market and the fact that the person is applying for the job, they may not like the job but they’re probably not going to be able to find anything better so there is little risk to the company.
The real reason they don’t want to hire over qualified people is because they’re likely to raise up in the ranks and become a problem for the recruiters themselves. Has anyone ever met a genuinely competent HR person?
The real reason from what I’ve heard is that people will apply for any job, yes, but they’ll also leave right away once they find a better job. So for HR to hire somebody overqualified, they have to really be desperate.
I mean HR has to be desperate, not the job seeker.
HR people would hire them, were it not for the experience of these people leaving the moment there’s a better job.
Overqualified is a proxy for how likely are they to stay in the position long enough to make it worth hiring them.
For high turnover roles, like entry level retail or restaurants, there is no problem hiring someone overqualified; when they leave in 3-6 months, that’s par for the course, the business is always having to hire replacements.
But for knowledge jobs where it takes a few months just to get someone up to speed, you can see why hiring managers want to avoid hiring someone who is likely to leave soon.
Could be that, but that would also be legitimate, wouldn’t it? And it could also mean it’s not the right fit, or the candidate will pursue a different offer, or leave soon, or want a different position soon, or all kinds of other problems.
Hiring is about more than just “can they do it”. That’s the issue. HR isn’t trying to fuck you over. They want the best fit and that isn’t necessarily the most qualified candidate.
Now you are changing the criteria to add in more things to “fit”.
Imagine we have the perfect candidate for a job under all measures, except they have a masters (or PHD) instead of a bachelors. A rejection in that case is stupid.
That’s not how it goes. You’d hire the perfect candidate under all measures. So that’s a silly hypothetical. But maybe they have another candidate where the risk is much lower of them leaving after investing training effort, or of them getting bored or finding a job elsewhere more suited to their capabilities, then it makes sense not to hire the overqualified candidate. It’s not usually this one thing, unless early on in the process and they have loads of candidates. And again, “too expensive” is also a legitimate reason not to hire someone.
They typically won’t take the job or won’t like the job. You don’t want to hire someone for a position if they don’t actually want that specific position, because there’s a reason that’s the vacancy. Both candidate and HR have to judge if it fits
People applying for jobs below their experience level have likely already tried applying for jobs at their own experience level (if they’re hiring at all) and run into stupid recruiters demanding way too much for the position. Unless it’s an extreme disparity, just let them. I’ve spent a lot longer unemployed than I would’ve if recruiters like that just offered me something, and avoiding growing debt is more motivating at that point than you might think.
That’s the excuse they give yes. But given the current job market and the fact that the person is applying for the job, they may not like the job but they’re probably not going to be able to find anything better so there is little risk to the company.
The real reason they don’t want to hire over qualified people is because they’re likely to raise up in the ranks and become a problem for the recruiters themselves. Has anyone ever met a genuinely competent HR person?
The real reason from what I’ve heard is that people will apply for any job, yes, but they’ll also leave right away once they find a better job. So for HR to hire somebody overqualified, they have to really be desperate.
Overqualified people apply for lower jobs BECAUSE there’s nothing better to leave for at the moment (with exceptions)
I mean HR has to be desperate, not the job seeker.
HR people would hire them, were it not for the experience of these people leaving the moment there’s a better job.
Overqualified is a proxy for how likely are they to stay in the position long enough to make it worth hiring them.
For high turnover roles, like entry level retail or restaurants, there is no problem hiring someone overqualified; when they leave in 3-6 months, that’s par for the course, the business is always having to hire replacements.
But for knowledge jobs where it takes a few months just to get someone up to speed, you can see why hiring managers want to avoid hiring someone who is likely to leave soon.
No. Overqualified is bullshit.
What HR mean is salary expectations are too high.
Could be that, but that would also be legitimate, wouldn’t it? And it could also mean it’s not the right fit, or the candidate will pursue a different offer, or leave soon, or want a different position soon, or all kinds of other problems.
If the salary is wrong they will move, but having additional skills doesn’t interfere with one skill being employed.
Hiring is about more than just “can they do it”. That’s the issue. HR isn’t trying to fuck you over. They want the best fit and that isn’t necessarily the most qualified candidate.
Now you are changing the criteria to add in more things to “fit”.
Imagine we have the perfect candidate for a job under all measures, except they have a masters (or PHD) instead of a bachelors. A rejection in that case is stupid.
Overqualified is just code for “too expensive”.
That’s not how it goes. You’d hire the perfect candidate under all measures. So that’s a silly hypothetical. But maybe they have another candidate where the risk is much lower of them leaving after investing training effort, or of them getting bored or finding a job elsewhere more suited to their capabilities, then it makes sense not to hire the overqualified candidate. It’s not usually this one thing, unless early on in the process and they have loads of candidates. And again, “too expensive” is also a legitimate reason not to hire someone.