Comments on OverQualified

1 Comment.

Comment 7 Sep 2004^ at 18:54Z

Over Qualified

A wise business leader recently sent the following message to all of the people in his company after he discovered that someone within his company had been using the term "over-qualified" during communications with prospective future employees.

"When the term "over-qualified" is used to label a person, does the label communicate the truth about the person being labeled, or something all together different about the organization and/or the person dispensing the label?

Ask yourself:

  1. Is the person applying for the position qualified to perform all of the responsibilities required of the position, or not?
  2. The terms "well qualified", "extremely qualified", or even "over-qualified" nothing more than further labels regarding the applicants degree of BEING QUALIFIED? - TRUE or FALSE
  3. What then causes a "well qualified", "extremely qualified", or even "over-qualified" applicant to be considered of lesser value to any organization?

During your search for the answer to question #3, pause for a moment and consider:

  1. Is it possible that the term "Over-Qualified" could be a lack of vision, a potential degree of ignorance, or possibly even a fear based on ridiculous notions or assumptions that are being experienced by those dispensing such labels, rather than the true qualifications and abilities of the individual (labeled), to perform the responsibilities of the position?
  2. If this were the case - would it not be prudent to consider - who should be most concerned in such situations - the employer or the potential future employee?
  3. Is the image that this sort of thinking projects congruent with the vision, mission or goals of our company?

(correlates: SimplySymbols, Comments on HAT Run 2004, FinalLesson, ...)