The O-Word

Over-qualified. If you're not fresh out of college, then you've probably run into a response from an employer that you're overqualified. What does that actually mean? It means that the employer is...
A. ...Afraid that the candidate will accept an offer but leave, after the economy turns around, for a better paying position. This is a semi-legitimate concern as there are costs associated with bringing any new employee onboard and businesses don't want to incur any more cost than is absolutely necessary. However, most companies seem to exhibit an immediate knee-jerk reaction by issuing a generic "over-qualified" response (if they respond at all) when they receive resumes from outstanding candidates rather than initiating a dialog. There are actually tons of good reasons why candidates might be interested in positions that seem to be a step down (candidate believes that the company will grow and wants to grow with it, family care, non-compete, health-related, housing, taxes, etc. etc. etc.). However, it does take time, energy, & money for a company to validate the true candidate interest. So, unless the candidate has successfully networked (see The N-Word) there is not much chance of having that dialog. (It is probably still a good idea for candidates to address the issue in a cover letter right up front, but understand that it may not matter).

I have also wondered what sports organizations would look like if they took the same approach as the majority of businesses/hiring managers. What if the I-Cubs had an opportunity to acquire Babe Ruth in his 1921 season (ok technically if the I-Cubs could figure out how to implement an Einstein-Rosen bridge to facilitate relativistic time dilation they would no longer be in the baseball business, but just go with me here) for the standard I-Cubs player salary? Even if they knew that they could only keep him for only one year (he will surely get a better offer from a big league club), do you think that they would let him know that he was "overqualified"?
I don't think so.
What about if the Iowa Energy had an opportunity to acquire Michael Jordan? Even if they knew that they could only keep him for only one year, do you think that they would let him know that he was "overqualified"?
I don't think so.

It seems that although most of the business world has not figured this out, that the sports world has figured out that acquiring superior talent drives the business forward even if the stars do not stay forever.

B. ...Afraid that the candidate will not even accept an offer in the first place because the company assumes that the compensation will be inadequate and therefore they want to spend zero (0) time, energy, or money on determining the true candidate interest. This seems even more short-sighted of businesses/hiring managers than the reasoning in "A" above. Many companies simply ask candidates what their last salary was and seem to automatically delete the resume if the previous salary was more than the mid-point for the company's open position. While it's probably appropriate to assume that any candidate wants to earn a fair market rate and further needs to earn a certain minimum amount (everybody needs a home and food)--there are a virtually infinite number of factors that dictate what that minimum amount may be (and it may or may not be the same as the previous salary amount). I'm not sure why more businesses don't pursue outstanding candidates at least to the stage where some two-way conversation about compensation takes place. (3rd party recruiters actually seem to do a good job with this).



P.S. The I-Cubs have several one-dollar nights coming up. If you are a baseball fan, you might want to head out to the ballpark.
P.P.S. If you are a hiring manager that is looking for an IT leader and that is a baseball fan, then let me know and I will spare no expense and buy your ticket on an upcoming $1 night and we can chat about how I can help your organization. I will even spring for a pretzel. :)
(I think that the sales guys call this the strong close). :)