"Overqualified" is a word that needs some translation. Someone cant be overqualified for a job, employers invented this word because someone with lots of qualification can be a liability to them. Managers don’t want people smarter than them working under them, its a threat to their job security, and big brass in any organization doesn’t want to fill its rank with such qualified persons because these people could rightfully expect to be given higher pay, or other such extra breaks. It is much cheaper to go with less qualified persons.
Hahaha! Youy obviously have no idea of what management is all about. Oh gee, this is good... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The more qualified an employee is the more valuable he is, and that is a financial liability. It is cheaper to opperate with underqualified employees.
it's partially because you may be qualified for their job and thus pose a risk. the most common reason given is that they don't want to pay you what you're worth.
Thats it exactly. And in an economy like ours, with unemployment rates like ours, they find it excedingly easy to replace you with somone more eager who they can bully into accepting less pay.
From my experience I can tell you that any worthwhile manager surrounds themselves with highly educated, experienced smart people. The role of a manager, in any respectable organization, is to LEAD! Just like a coach - you want to amass the best possible team to achieve your objectives. And that is the role of any good manager. As far as feeling threatened, HA!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
yes, I seem to have forgot that those peppy little management courses turn everyone into idealists, and they stop worrying when they have to interview somone who is more qualified for thier job than they are.
Spymoose: You're right, that is what they teach you in high level management courses - but a natural leader knows that well before hand, afterall, that's why they are the managers in the first place. I think you're romanticizing the position of manager; this powerful corrupt person who's only loyalty is his own - managers like that don't last. Why, because the team senses it and refuses to perform for them. Let me tell you, leading people is different than being "qualified" to do a particular job. I work with people who are incredibly smart, motivated and professional in their approach to everything they do because they LOVE what they do - they have the right attitude. I wouldn't want anyone on my team who has no passion or love for what they were hired to do. And that's why managers get a bad wrap, because they do what they were hired to do - amass a team who have passion for the job they are HIRED to do.
It sounds like you have run into some profesional management education cources, which all use the same brand of sunshine pump, but if this were all true then we wouldn't have to work in environments where we live in fear of management. The mere fact that labor unions exist, and the current problem of US jobs being exported to other countrys seems to support my position on this issue. In your modle I just heard you dismiss the fact that workers and managers might have ambition to advance in the corporate structure with nothing but a wave of your hand. Ive read the stuff you seem you seem to be basing your arguemets on before, ive had classes with teachers who taught it, and just couldn't shut up about how eminently qualified to manage they are, but its all just bizzare idealism. Why in gods name should somone have a passion for the job they were HIRED to do when they have the stuff it takes to climb higher? And if they are in the position they like, and are well suited for it, why shouldnt a manager be worried about this worker throwing his weight around and asking to be payed in proportion to how well he does his job?
You're all overlooking the real reason why companies don't like to hire 'overqualified' employees: the employee probably won't be sticking around long. No one wants to hire an employee who is likely to quickly become bored and start looking for a new, more challenging job. Sure, a guy with a Master's degree in software engineering might say that he really, really wants to work as a bank teller, but would you believe him if you were the bank manager? Or would you worry that he's just looking for a short-term job until something better comes along? Even if he really does want to have a career as a bank teller at the moment, how long will it be until he gets bored and starts considering switching to a software job that pays $60,000/year? In the case of this guy from the article, the school administrators (who are presumably very familiar with highschool teaching and know what sort of personalities are likely to do well in it) probably decided that it wouldn't be long before he got bored and went off to have another adventure in Burma, or wherever.
Those are good questions, and i admit my knee-jerk response was void of answers to that. When anyone apply's for a job, first, their main goal is to get an interview, right? If you succeed in your quest for an interview the next step is to prepare for that interview, right? Hopefully, through preperation and past experience/expertise/education, you'll be successful in the competition, right? If you are successful chances are you got the job because of the passion/experience/knowledge/motivation you displayed for the job in question during the interview, right? So, as it naturally flows, you show that same passion/motivation and display the experience/knowledge required for the job by meeting measurable targets then you receive praise and recognition for a job well done, right? Once you become recognized for meeting, better yet exceeding, your performance measures you may be in-line for a promotion, right? Now, depending on your ability to LEAD you may be asked to apply for a management position and the process is repeated, right? So, with that said, I wonder how a manager - during that very first interview - is going to recognize your ability to achieve allll that before you do it and subsequently refuse you the initial position? I mean, what you're saying sounds good but in REALITY doesn't/can't happen. A person gets noticed by their merits, and merits are collected along the way to the top.. BTW, anyone who demonstrates passion/ability/professionalism for what they do "will" be paid accordingly.
Nasor You recognize the dilemma most reputable organizations are faced with. "Do we hire person A who has every single quallification imaginable and moreso - or do we hire this young up and commer who is likely to stick around longer?" Most go with the latter - depending on their needs. If they require the services of someone who may be "overqualified and thus lose interest fast" they usually sweeten the pot. Most org. are faced with financial constraints but that doesn't mean they have no leeway. There are perks GALORE that far outweigh anything a wage may provide. If the org. wants someone bad enough, they will do what it takes to get them and, more importantly, keep them. BUT, as I said before, passion/motivation/attitude is what every single employer is looking for - FIRST! I'll admit, I haven't read the story above but, I'll bet anything that person showed NO passion/motivation/positive attitude toward the job in question but, rather, relied on past merits alone - merits gained somewhere else.
I agree with Nasor. A coworker and I were faced with this choice. We had to hire a network administrator. One guy was a bartender who had only taken classes on networking and demonstrably wanted the job. The other guy was a software developer with lots of network experience; the job would’ve been a step down for him. The choice was a no-brainer. The bartender became one of our best employees.
No, we figured the more experienced guy would be looking for better job while employed with us. We figured the bartender would be grateful thus loyal & diligent, which he was.
