This LinkedIn post has kicked off a huge debate

A recruiter on LinkedIn has sparked a fierce debate online after she suggested that candidates who are overqualified are not the right hire for a vacancy.

An open letter to job seekers from a talent manager reads that “it doesn’t make sense for someone with five years of experience to apply for a role meant for one to two years of experience”.

The post has proved controversial. Many employees and people team experts have responded that it is not up to HR managers to say why a person wants to apply for a job.

The debate has raised a number of interesting questions about today’s labour market.

What does overqualified mean?

The poster aired their thoughts last week on LinkedIn as a plea for candidates to stop wasting time for recruitment teams.

“Please carefully review the job requirements before applying,” the post reads. “If a position requires two years of experience, the budget is set accordingly.”

Image Credit: linkedin.com

Hundreds have liked and reposted the commentary to their own channels. Some think that overqualified candidates are more likely to grow bored in a role and quit. Others agree that job seekers with less experience should be prioritised for entry-level and junior roles.

“Many times senior level people are taking entry level or graduate job positions”, one wrote. “Thank you for finally saying it!” said another.

Some clapped back with a complaint of their own: pay secrecy. Sharing job descriptions without a clear salary range is a common mistake that businesses make when hiring. “If no salary is listed or provided, then you cannot fully blame the candidate”, said one user.

Another reply opined that organisations cannot define when a person becomes ‘overqualified’ for a job if they meet all of the listed skills criteria.

“While the minimum experience is often mentioned, the maximum experience is not, making it unclear if someone with more experience should apply,” they said.

Job security

One reason why the post didn’t chime with LinkedIn users might be today’s tough jobs landscape. As mass layoffs dominate the media headlines, with some even firing staff without warning, many are taking issue with the idea that they might not be able to find work for having too many years under their belt.

“If you have a family to support you’re going to apply for anything,” one software analyst posited. “It’s not really any of HR’s business WHY an overqualified candidate is applying for the position if they are aware of the salary ahead of time”.

Last year, 37% of Brits said they had a ‘Plan B’ job lined up in case they were made redundant in their current role. For those staff members who aren’t prepared, switching to a more junior position could be the only option if you have bills to pay and mouths to feed.

An age-old question

There is an argument that the label of ‘overqualified’ could actually be discriminatory. Older workers who might have spent decades in a fast-paced sector may decide to move into a slower role, sparking accusations of ageism if their experience counts against them.

Mums and dads returning from parental leave might also choose to change jobs if they need to find a work placement that fits with their family commitments.

In both of the above cases, a candidate who can go above and beyond the job description should be viewed as an asset, rather than a flight risk.

“I’ve got so many declines for being overqualified,” one sales representative said in reply to the post. “It sucks to know I can do the position and HR wouldn’t even give me a chance”.

As long as they are clearly posting the salary band and experience level of a role, firms will be able to trust applicants to decide for themselves if they can perform it. After all, in a shrinking jobs market plagued by skills shortages, could an overqualified worker be so bad?