The new lie applicants are telling
July 21, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Assessing the right candidate, Hiring
Desperate applicants are lying more often on their resumes. But they’re not the kind of lies you’re used to.
As HR pros know, it’s not out of the question for candidates to inflate their past job titles and duties, or add academic degrees that were never completed.
But these days, many out-of-work managers are looking for stop-gap jobs and stretching the truth in a different way — by “dumbing down” their credentials so they don’t appear overqualified.
A lot of formerly high-up employees are willing to step a few rungs down the ladder just to get a steady paycheck. Often, that requires them to convince hiring managers they won’t jump ship the moment the market improves and something better comes up.
One way they’re doing that: changing job titles to look less impressive, according to the Wall Street Journal. For example, one marketing exec changed her previous jobs as “manager” and “trend researcher” to “staff” and “office support.”
Candidates are also hiding degrees and other academic achievements. One woman looking for temporary clerical work said she received no calls from employers until she stopped listing her master’s degree on her resume.
The best ways to spot this new type of dishonesty? The same ways HR and hiring managers catch other applicant lies — by asking probing questions during the interview and when checking references.
How concerned should employers be?
Many are worried because they want to avoid hiring overqualified employees, who might be disgruntled in lower-level work and may constantly have one foot out the door.
Others are less concerned about overqualification — but a lie is still a lie. If people are dishonest before they’re hired, how reliable will they be as employees?
What do you think? Have you caught any candidate with a “dumbed down” resume? Give us your opinion and experience in the comments section below.
Tags: overqualified, resume lies
June 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[...] down their resumes so they don’t look OVERQUALIFIED! In Narisi’s piece, “The New Lie Applicants Are Telling.” he [...]
June 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Sounds like hypocrisy to me. So many employment agencies keep telling us to “adjust” our resume to fit the job position so that we will have more of a chance of being hired.
This isn’t lying, it’s properly stating your qualifications to get the job you want. If you have to leave things out to not get that bogus “we can’t hire you because you’re overqualified” just to get a job, so be it.
The job market isn’t easy right now. People are looking to stick with steady work. By denying them work for positions they are qualified for because they have more qualifications than are needed is a lose-lose situation for the company and potential employee. The company loses out on an experienced employee that can do the job and the economy loses out by not having a productive person working.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Employers need to be sensitive to the current applicant pool and stop worrying about the employees leaving once the economy “turns around” – if it ever does! Good, loyal employees will stick around, even if the wages are lower. The dynamics are so different now. Applicants are looking for stability and a good work environment, where they can make a positive contribution. We are loosing out on great potential employees if we overlook them because they are “over-qualified.”
On a personal note, my husband also lost his job after 30 years. He is very proud of his accomplishments, his MBA Degree and his (Vietnam-Era) Veteran Status. He has a very impressive resume – which explains the reason he has been searching for 10 months! Sad sign of the times!
June 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
To me, this is a different kind of “lie” altogether and I would not give it the same weight that I would give in the case of an inflated resume, representing achievements and experiences falsely. Having personally experienced difficulty getting work because I was perceived as overqualified, I completely understand the reasoning behind it. Employers sometimes (almost always?) assume that because a person has qualifications beyond what the job requires, that they have one foot out the door. That is not necessarily true and is a bias that should be generally avoided. A good, in-depth interview, reference checks and pre-employment assessments (in some cases) will tell you what you need to know.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Omitting information on a resume is not a lie. However, if you are asked about education and credentials and you tell a non truth that is a lie.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I’m not sure I would classify them in the same category as those who inflate their achievements and titles, and lie about degrees or certifications. After all, isn’t a “manager” considered to be on the staff of a company, and couldn’t a “trend researcher” be supporting the office, also? In some cases, these people may be eager to get away from the stresses of their higher positions and work in a job where they wouldn’t have the stresses of managerial decisions. Not everyone wants to be upwardly mobile – sometimes they just want a paycheck, and to go home at a decent hour, without taking their briefcase and their troubles with them.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Well stated Beth. I think that most employee’s have one foot out the door, meaning that most people will move if they can reach up in thier professional development. The point should be to find the most qualified candidate. Not listing advanced degree’s is not something I am going to get caught up on. I will take a hard working, accomplished employee for as long as I can, I understand fully when someone moves for a better position.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:42 am
This is a hole that employers dig for themselves due to their short-sightedness. Accomplished people sometimes apply for lower level jobs for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s to escape the stress of an upper level job that is affecting their health; perhaps it is to allow more time to raise a family or care for an ailing parent; or maybe it’s just for the some personal satisfaction derived from the experience. Instead of wondering how long a highly talented person will stay, why don’t HR Professionals champion a culture change which allows managers realize that they are getting a lot of talent at low costs, and look for ways to capitalize on this phenomenon while they have it? Wouldn’t we all like to drive a Mercedes for Chevy prices, even for a short time? A highly talented person may decide to stay to show their appreciation for helping them pay the bills if the employer has opportunities available for them. Plenty of good companies bring their people in at lower levels by design in order to help them understand the business and culture before taking on leadership positions. Who knows, the person that you hire today to run the cash register may be the CEO that dramatically increases your revenue tomorrow.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I was caught in the Great Layoffs in the early 70s: as an aerospace engineer I was way over qualified for any of the available jobs. When I stopped including my spacecraft hardware design on my resume, I got job offers. It was a bare matter of survival: I didn’t lie, I just kept my mouth shut. Was that bad? The employer who finally hired me got a hard worker who contributed a lot to the company. I got to eat and pay my rent (and my student loan). When I left three years later we parted friends, though the guy who hired me admitted he never would have if he had known I had all that engineering experience. Instead, we both benefited.
In my experience, a good-fit-for-the-company candidate is a good candidate and will work out no matter their training or experience. And if not, they’ll walk anyway. I myself do not care if an applicant doesn’t admit to some experience or training. I look for aptitude and attitude first, then worry about the rest.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Yes, a lie is a lie but if you have to feed your family and you are qualified for the job, is it a lie or just an omission?
June 26th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
A resume is a marketing tool for a candidate. I would argue that a candidate would not be “lying” if they did not list overqualification of previous job experience and skills that do not relate to the job opportunity. As HR professionals aren’t we looking to initially screen cadidates by matching skills on the resume with that of the job?
However, if a candidate did not reveal their employment or academic history on the job application, then it would be considered “lying.”
June 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
It is ridiculous for employers to avoid overqualified candidates in today’s job market. The pool of applicants is large and anyone who is out of work will be grateful to have a steady job. Everyone wants to have a steady paycheck and if the candidate is interested in the position you have available, you’ll be harming your company to hire a less qualified applicant out of fear. I have personally known many people who have run into this bias against overqualified applicants and it is extremely frustrating to know that you could do a job well and lose it to an underqualified individual just because the employer doesn’t want to lose you if something better comes along. I think in some cases the managers feel threatened because the overqualified individual is actually more qualified than the supervisor and they think they’ll take their job.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Omission’s are not lies, I believe everyone has the right to only include in a resume the information necessary to do the job that they are applying for.
I am an older employee, if I listed the jobs I had when I first started working, age descrimination could be used against me.
I am honest, healthy, qualified, excellent attendance, etc. My recent positions are more indicative of my capabilities. A prospective employee has to watch out that they are not descriminated against in anyway too.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If I have a choice between a highly (maybe overqualified) person for a short time but a less qualified person who may stick around forever, I’ll take the more qualified every time. In general, they are the ones who help us discover new and better procedures and processes. If I only keep them a few years – so be it. We’ve both benefitted.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Send these “over-qualified” candidates my way. I certainly would hire them. Companys need employees that are qualified and able to take the company to the next level. In my view they are getting a bargain.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
If an employer needs help it shouldn’t matter whether if they are over qualified it just gives them someone that may be able to do the job better at the price they are going to pay anyone else if they want the job they are going to take the same pay you would pay someone else it is the work forces that make people lie whether they want to or not.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
My department had an open position for an entry-level clerk. The person applying had an undergraduate degree in math from an Ivy League school and a masters degree in math from another, neither of which were necessary to do the job. Instead of eliminating her ‘over qualified’ status for the position, I invited her to an initial interview because she appeared genuinely interested in ‘that job.’ She was extremely thankful that she was invited in for the interview because other companies wouldn’t consider her application because of her educational background. I turned the table in the interview and asked her to ’sell me on why I should hire you’ because her current actuarial salary was almost $50,000 and this job starts at $12/hour. Her response was, “That is wonderful! I thought that it would start at minimum wage! I want this job because I want this environment, and I love routine and the predictability of the position. I am organized and being happy in the position matters most to me. I don’t want to climb the ladder. I want THIS.” She has excelled at this position for over four years now. And she does it so well that it takes only her — and it used to take four people. I have no regrets for having made this decision — and she doesn’t either. I am still pinching myself for such an amazing hire. She is the kindest, most dedicated employee we have — and smart to boot! The moral of the story is that sometimes the best decisions come from a gut feeling, not conventional wisdom.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
To be blunt, the article itself is not only poppycock in suggesting employees tailoring resumes by omitting irrelevant information (who cares if your Office Assistant has a Master’s Degree?), it actually risks encouraging bad – and possibly unlawful – employer behavior.
An employer who dutifully advertises the requirements and minimum qualifications for a job, and receives a resume from an applicant who meets (or exceeds) those qualifications, potentially will face a case inferential disparate treatment (or, worse, a pattern-and-practice allegation) for Age discrimination if the reason it refused to hire was because the person was “over-qualified”. If that applicant was over the age of 40, was fully informed of the requirements of the job, and the employer hired someone younger (or just didn’t hire anyone and kept looking for other applicants), employers should not use this reason for refusing to hire.
The excuse of “overqualified” has long been used as a thinly-veiled mask for age discrimination. Employers who are too lazy (or stupid or evil) to use valid recruitment processes that don’t use such an outdated excuse deserve to get hit with an administrative charge or, if necessary, a lawsuit.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Ok, so let me get this straight. It is ok to lie about your qualifications if you are over qualified to get the job but, not OK to lie if you dont have a college degree but years of experience. What is wrong with this picture. Leaving out information that is pertinent to the hireing process is not acceptable. And by the way leaving it out is lying. It is called lying by Omission (ie intentionally not checking the felony conviction box on the app )
June 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’m in agreement with John. When you are laid off unexpectantly, you’re over qualified, no one looks at you thinking you’ll take whatever. And who’s to say you won’t be happy taking a lower paying job, knowing you had nothing.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I agree with T.C. lying by omission is just as bad as telling an outright lie. In all the years I have spent looking at applications and doing background checks I often find things have been omitted. If you tell the truth, and are qualified for the position, you will be asked in for an interview. If I find out you have lied or “left something off” you thought wasn’t important for me to know, you will never even get in the door.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:54 am
There are many reasons to this issue, it is not necessary that a person who lies for getting into the job could be professional lier and would always use this tool to safe guard his interest. It is the time which force anyone in dire situation to settle in job.
I think the applicant could be a big plus point if the hiring manager sense his hidden abilities and experience and academics by probing with different techniques so that he could be better exploited for the mutual prosperity on both the sides. Everyday we all search/share the Internet, Social Network in getting a best deal for the product we want to get the same way Imagine a situation like “Pay Less and Get More”. These types of applicant fits into this scenario. In the future the management can get more information from the applicant about his real qualifications and experience that can be put to better utilization and a right position within the organization. I think these types of folks will deliver far more better results than the person who has limited know how. Management and the HR can rethink their options to hire and sustain the over qualified with a fair mutual long term contract.
On the HR and Financial part they can be Assets and not Liability. It is like if one has a best tool / talent, the outcome depends how it is used to generate big results. In my view HR should not neglect this great chance in welcoming the over qualified individuals.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Is the resume supposed to be a declaration of every fact in our life or rather a HONEST document that is intended to represent why I am qualified to be considered for an open position? Isn’t it our job through the application and in the interview processto determine if the candidate is a good fit? I personally don’t have a problem qwith someone not listing all of their education on a resume. If they did not include it on an application or answer dishonestly in an interview then I have a problem with it.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:02 am
This is a typical silly article. It is obvious the person writing the article has little understanding of how business works. And those that think this is insightful are even more ill equipped to do their job. You help create your own problems, and then whine about why it’s so hard to do your job. Any reason not to hire. Good luck with that approach.
The secret is managing the workforce. There may be very good people out there who will do a very good job and who knows even raise the expectations for the next individual who comes into the position or find ways to make the job more beneficial to the organization because they are experts for the job they are in.
The advice in this article is a two edged sword. What goes around comes around.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Good grief! A lie is not just a lie.
In this job market where people don’t stay with the same jobs the way they used to, you’re going to get people with varied backgrounds applying for work. In that same spirit, what about someone who is over-educated and very well-qualified, but he or she just found it wasn’t what they thought it would be? Why should they have to omit education and experience? I’d think an employer would be happy to have someone at such a bargain rate. You don’t make that sort of decision easily. I know it took me years to decide the profession I’d studied for wasn’t for me.
Also, the reality is the US is not a socialist state. People have to work to support themselves. You can’t live on lots of education and experience if you’re not working. In a situation where the applicant pool is very deep and employers have their pick of candidates, you’ve got to make yourself worth the interview.
A lie is not a lie. This has nothing on someone who inflates their experience or lies about earning a degree. Those people, in many cases are con artists. The opposite scenario is usually someone whose chosen to scale back or is in a tight spot (like a layoff or a business closing). I see it as a problem of simple minded HR professionals that don’t take the time to adequately screen applicant. Therefore, applicants are screening their resumes and watering things down to increase their chances of being hired. In a tight economy like this, I don’t think it’s a surprise but I don’t think it’s unethical either.
I do agree with T.C. who asks why people with experience but not a degree feel they have to lie. I don’t think they should. I think, again, it’s recruiters so bound by pretentious rules that they don’t do their job. That job is to screen for qualified applicants and learning on the job has always been a way to learn and move up in a profession.
It’s silly either way it goes.
And Bailey, you rock. I hope someone like you is in the pipeline for the jobs I’m applying for now. My job search is just torture because, like your employee, I’m ridiculously well-educated, and I just don’t understand why someone wouldn’t choose me when compared to someone who has to learn everything from scratch.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Rich Sherman – your comments are right on! We should just hire the people who are most qualified, and who knows what amazing things we might all accomplish together.
As for the issue of wheter or not it’s a lie… Yes, it’s true that a lie is a lie is a lie. But who among us has never tweaked his/her resume to fit one job or another? If you’ve ever had more than one version of your resume, you’re technically guilty of the same thing.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
With the generation that is coming into the workforce and the economy the way it is, I feel a lot of the applicants are going to be on the lookout for something better anyway. I agree if someone has the qualifications and the attitude you are looking for, go for it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
I have been on both sides of the equation.
I have experienced the discrimination of being over qualified and rejected for a position. I had valid and important reasons why I wanted that position. I only ended up being offered the position because the first candidate rejected the job offer. I was informed directly by the hiring manage that I was not their first choice because I was over qualified and they were afraid that I would only stay a short period and then leave. Based on that experience, I did omit information from my resume in my next job search and was offered three jobs in a weeks time during a depressed job market.
Based on that experience, as the hiring manager for my new organization, I do not have a problem with potential employees omitting information on their resume or tailoring their resume to fit the job description. I do expect honesty, and the employee if questioned, should be forthcoming during the interview process. I want the best candidate for the position, and if that person brings extra skills, education and experience to our organization, I believe it is a win-win situation for all involved.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:54 am
Either way you slice the pie, you can’t do anything about an employee wanting to leave your company for a position that is financially better or if something opens up in their real area of expertise. If we spent time worrying about that as HR Managers, we’d never get another thing done. Truth is, for every person that leaves a position these days, there are 50 qualified people to choose from to replace them. We should be more worried about people who can do the job and are a fit for the coporate environment you have. We should especially be worried about people who put false information on their resumes because we see that more often than not. Most people work hard for Master’s Degrees and this is a great accomplishment, I doubt we will be seeing many people leave this off no matter what the position. SS is correct in saying who of us haven’t tweeked our resumes? Whether we all want to admit it or not, we have because it’s what we are selling ourselves with. The great majority of us tweek within reason, just enough for it not to be very obvious. For instance, I have a history of 7 years in one position when I lived in NY from 1990 – 1997. On my resume, I start with that and do not have the jobs on before that because it’s too far back in time. When interviewing if asked, I’ve always have the information about the jobs before that at the ready on a mini resume I keep. Most HR or Hiring Managers do not like for applicants to give them a resume over 2 pages.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Let’s take this scenario: Job requires a bachelor’s degree and let’s say five years experience. Candidate meets all requirements including the educational requirements and is hired, does a fantastic job. Then the supervisor discovers (after about 2 years of great work and great evaluations) that the candidate has a master’s degree from a prestigious school. All of a sudden the employee has performance problems that have not been documented and cannot be substantiated to the point the supervisor tries to keep the employee from getting a well-deserved raise (but is unsuccessful). Now, the employee is content to stay – but, because the supervisor (an HR “professional” who, by the way does not have a master’s degree) is causing so much trouble since finding out about the advanced degree, the employee ends up leaving the organization for an HR Director’s position at a highly prestigious organization that they worked for before.
Who is the loser in this situation? The employee met the conditions of employment and only provided those qualifications that met the requirements of the job. It wasn’t a matter of ethics, lying or anything else…just a matter of providing true information that matched the requirements of the job. Incidentally, that employee was me.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
LEE: WOW! That sounds more like a personal Axe was ground on you. Also, it seems as if the Supervisor may have been threatened by their new findings about your Master’s Degree and because you were a good worker, and they don’t have a Master’s could have thought you could eventually unseat them. It’s sad to but true that things like this still exist in the workplace when in actuality, the finding should have been a plus. It’s unfortunate, you had such a Supervisor!
CINDY: You are right. Sometimes people have reasons for wanting a job that they would over qualify for. Some reason include, hours higher positions require, wanting a change from the stress a position they do qualify for could bring and for a lot of people, family obligations to name a few. Sadly if you mention these reasons for wanting a position you overqualify for, it WILL be held against you. They could think 1) you can’t handle working under pressure or 2) oh god, she’s got kids and she’s going to be out all the time! You just can’t win!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Very interesting issue and many great comments! Making false claims is a lie, and not disclosing legally required information is a lie. But so is requiring people give you their entire education and work history and then using it against them. In such cases, some would consider it wisdom to withhold unrelated job experience and education from those prone to discriminate on any level.
I too have been told “you’re overqualified” too many times to count. In reality, everyone is in some way both over and under qualified for virtually every position they apply for. Every college graduate is “under qualified.” They have education, but they lack experience. Every career changer is “under qualified.” They may have lots of experience, but most of it is not in their new career choice. The only ones truly “qualified” are those that have been doing a specific job for a few years, which are actually the people currently working for you!
The real problem here is that HR and hiring managers have created this dilemma and they are the only ones with the power to break the cycle. I’ve been told by some HR managers that they only want to see the last 10 to 20 years of employment. Others have said they only want to know whatever education and experience is relevant to the job description. If omitting education and irrelevant work history is lying; well, I guess those managers told me to “lie.” In either case, solely using a person’s education and experience as a measure of qualification is short sighted and, in my opinion, irresponsible. Also, leaving it off the resume but being required to put it on the application; that doesn’t make much sense to me either. Why do you want irrelevant information? What are you going to do with it?
While a manager at a major U.S. corporation a number of years ago, I had the privilege of interviewing a total of about a thousand applicants and actually hiring about a hundred professional and technical employees over the course of several years. They stretched wide spans of age, education, experience, and salary. In every case I looked more for what was in the heart of the applicant than the qualifications stated on their resume. During each interview, I could easily tell who was genuine and who was blowing smoke, and I did not ask any inappropriate or illegal questions. Personally, I highly valued their experiences and did not hold any of their accomplishments or education against them. I instead looked for people who would fit the jobs we were hiring for and were willing to learn. Those that were “over qualified” but had an unselfish and teachable heart brought a wealth of experience to our organization. They became excellent mentors and were instrumental in helping the organization grow rapidly and effectively. Those that were “under qualified” and had an unselfish heart were just an absolute joy to work with because they were excited about learning new skills through new experiences. Interestingly, the greatest compliment I ever received from my peers was that I hired great people.
From my experience, effectively developing a skilled workforce and managing people is not about protecting your turf or keeping people from moving on, it’s about recognizing the gifts in people designed to help make the company successful and fulfilling my role as a manager to help them succeed as well. It’s about recognizing their strengths and weaknesses, raising them up in what they are gifted to do, and then releasing them to accomplish all they can accomplish–whether they work for me or not. I believe it is selfish to be scared of someone’s abilities or over qualifications, and discriminatory to keep them unemployed if they have the heart and skills needed by the company. The bottom line is that it takes risk to be and grow as a manager, and the most successful managers are those willing to risk hiring both the under qualified and over qualified!
Hiring managers – I encourage you to avoid trying to second guess the heart of the applicant by only what you see on their resume. They are trying to put their best foot forward on one, maybe two sheets of paper. They don’t know everything you are looking for and all they really want is a genuine and fair chance to be considered. Give them that chance–interview them and look past what’s written on their resume. I found some incredible “gold” in the most unlikely candidates, and I watched as some of my peers fought to keep those people in their organizations and give them substantial raises.
For those of you that are interested, I recently published a book on leadership entitled, “Promoted From Leader To Servant.” You can check it out or even purchase a copy at http://stores.lulu.com/michaeladams. You can also e-mail me direct at mike@msastrategicsolutions.com if you have any questions.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Also consider this: Promotions typically fill/create positions, which have to be processed by HR itself anyway. Turning away anyone who has a good chance of being promoted saves HR work, even though it translates into a major opportunity loss for the business as a whole. In short, “overqualified” is a bogus excuse for HR to protect itself from both competition and responsibilities.
In this Economy, hiring managers should be hiring the best talent for the cheapest price, but there’s just one problem: The “gatekeepers” are typically not business owners themselves. HR, like anyone else these days, is looking out for #1.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Not speaking the truth in any form is a lie.. whether you don’t say it at all or you actually say the wrong thing. I’m not saying don’t omit your qualifications if you can’t find a job… but call it what it is and be prepared to face potential consequences in the future.
Everyone is going to look out for themselves.. job seekers and employers. Whether it’s omitting qualifications from resumes or attempting to pay new employees less for more skilled work, you can’t blame either for wanting the best financial situation for themselves.
I know first hand that having higher education won’t get you a job right now in my industry!
July 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I was one of those overqualified candidates when I was hired to be a part-time accounting assistant. When I left the organization 13 years later due to a relocation (I would most likely still be there if we had not decided to move to another state), I was the Associate Director of Human Resources. In between that time, I was a moved into a full time Loan Accountant position, became the payroll supervisor, payroll manager, benefits manager and Assistant Director of HR. This was an educational institution with 1200 full-time employees and 2000 part-time employees so I had a fair amount of responsibility. I will be forever grateful to the first time manager who hired me due to my strong desire to be a part of this institution.
August 7th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I don’t believe in the term “over qualified” and I certainly would not bypass any applicant that had credentials that were beyond the realm of what we were looking for. I do ask the applicant in an interview though to examine if this is a job they really want and that it’s not just a job. I believe their success is driven by their passion for the job. These applicants can be a valuable asset in helping other departments or bringing fresh new ideas. No One is ever over qualified in my book.
The ones I wont hire are the ones who come in with the attitude that they are too good or above and beyond the scope of the job. I have found those to be the ones who complain and talk about how they are “Oh so over this job and should be managing the place” It is our philosophy here to make all employees feel that we are all equal regardless of pay grade. Think about it though We are a team and we cant make it happen without every single employee. Whether you make $9.00/hour or $29.00/hour. Perhaps that’s why we have low turnover.
August 7th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Most applications today ask for related work history or experience. Related is the key word. I know if I included everything I did on a resume from the age of 13, it would blow people’s minds. If I was applying for Rangeboy at a golf course( my first job) I would not include my Executive Protection and Counter Terrorism training unless it was to work for the Presidential Golf Range. You are applying for the job offered, it is important for HR and employees to keep that in mind. IF there is a fear of people leaving then go to contract employment options.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
coriHR, you hiring right now??
August 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
coriHR – thanks for such a great comment.
Actually, thanks to all of the HR pros and managers who’ve said that they don’t eliminate people because they’re “over-qualified”.
I just found someone who is giving me a break. I just got a check today and that’s a great feeling. It’s a bit of a change as it’s freelance (and I’m used to being an employee). However, should I learn fast and perform well, it can be just the break I need. Someone gave me a break. She also just asked me why I was seeking this versus something else. That showed more sense than I’ve seen in this job market in the 6 months I’ve been treading water in it.
August 10th, 2009 at 5:28 am
CORI: That was a great comment! You do have those that don’t have a choice but to take the job offer sometimes and they rattle on and on about how great they are and how they can do better. Then, they complain and poison the environment around them.
Regina: I am so glad someone gave you a break. Good luck!
August 12th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
CoriHR, you must be in an industry where overqualified doesn’t exist and that sounds ideal but unfortunately it does in mine and when people receive certain credentials they do expect a certain pay level and corresponding job duties. When there is a job market flooded with “qualified” applicants we have the ability to pay people their worth on our budget.
I appreciate your comment about equality. However, when it comes to finding the perfect candidate we are not talking about human equality and this isn’t a Disney movie; individuals in my industry get paid more because they are worth more to the business.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Headline 2009 — “Teens Can’t Get Summer Jobs Due to Labor Surplus”
Then there’s this article advancing the idea that it’s a great bargain to hire the overqualified — I guess we’re to forget about training the entry level workforce.
And yes, of course we all want the most qualifications for the buck.
But I’m glad I’m retiring from HR, because I can just see the headlines a few years from now — “Where Are The Qualified Workers??????”
There’s got to be a compromise in here somewhere, or the recruiter’s job in the future is going to be VERRRRRY interesting!
August 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Amen TERRYB, SPHR…I don’t think anyone can make up their minds about what the rules are anymore, it’s just smuding the black and white creating more Gray. I say, you have to just use your best instincts because thats all we really have in the end. We don’t know what will happen once we hire people, it’s as if they want to predict the future of each candidate now!
August 14th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
TerryB, so what we should do is this… all of those employers who are afraid of hiring overqualified workers should hire and train the entry level workforce and all of those employers who want the most bang for their buck can hire the overqualified workers, then everyone is happy.
Oh wait, who is going to hire those employees whose qualifications match our needs exactly???
August 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Hey SS — Don’t you be thinking about stealing my trained workforce!!!
August 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Watch out TerryB, I’m coming after them. LOL.
This is totally off topic, but I’ll throw it out there just in case… does anyone have materials or know of a resource (no cost or low cost) for educating parents regarding what to look out for and how to protect their kids in the cyberworld (internet, texting, cell phones, etc). I’d like to do sort of a PSA for our employees with kids. Thanks.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
SS — I just googled “educating children about cyberspace dangers” and it looks like a good selection of articles.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Hey, anyone looking for an “overqualified” manufacturing manager in the Phx area? I have an excellent applicant for you!!!
August 27th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Rather than lie on a resume (NEVER a good idea under ANY circumstances), these applicants might be better served explaining how their lofty former positions gives them the insight needed, to perform lower-level jobs with aplomb.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I have been one of those denied employment (specifically stated from the employer) because I was overqualified and they felt “I would jump ship” when a higher position became available. I was also told I was a perfect candidate otherwise. No matter how I promised and offered assurances that I actually was ready for a “step down” I was refused the job.
I happen to be reaching the point in my career where stepping down from an upper level management position to a mid level position with less demand is desirable, but if I tell an employer that they think I am “too old” and won’t stay.
How do you deal with that!!??
August 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
As an HR professional, I am amazed everytime I hear a hiring manager say, “we can’t hire that person because they are overqualified.” For heaven sakes, the person is making an HONEST effort to secure a job so that s/he can make an HONEST living to support themselves and/or their families….so often, I really want to remind the hiring manager that this “overqualified” person could be buglarizing homes and robbing persons. Wanting to work in a job that one is otherwise “overqualified” for is not the worst thing that person could be doing.
Having an MBA, a JD and 15+ years of progressively challenging multi-state experience in HR, I am really glad my current employer took a chance and hired me even in a lesser functioning position. . I am truely thankful and once I am a licensed attorney I plan to stay with this company, perhaps in a different role; nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity provided to me by this company.