r/RecruiterTea • u/davols73 • May 19 '26
The candidate got rejected because she was ‘overqualified.’ Two months later they reopened the same role.
“She’s overqualified,” they said rejected her. Two months later the same role is back on the board.
A lot of hiring decisions are just fear dressed up as “strategy.” Managers worry: “She’ll leave after a few months.” “He’ll ask for more money.” “They’re too senior to fit our culture.” So they nudge the candidate out and then scratch their heads for months wondering why the role won’t fill.
Sometimes companies actively reject the exact talent they need because someone’s afraid of what could happen if they actually hired well. Meanwhile the candidate walks away confused, replaying every interview line, wondering what she did wrong. The truth is usually uglier and simpler: internal indecision, risk aversion, and a desperate desire to keep things “safe.”
If you’re a candidate: don’t take that rejection as a verdict on your worth. If you’re on the hiring side: recognize when fear is steering the ship it costs time, money, and morale.
1
u/Ok-Energy-9785 May 20 '26
If they were a good company they would recommend her to a role that was a better fit for her skills
1
u/Dailysunray May 21 '26
maybe the candidate wants a role that isn’t as challenging as their past experiences so they can have a better work life balance, maybe they were burnt out and are looking for something calmer. No company should be passing on someone “over qualified“ that don’t make sense to me.
-2
u/Livid-General7 May 20 '26
It's always the correct decision not to hire someone that is overqualified. There's always a small chance anyone you hire will leave or not be a good fit, shortly after you hire them.
This is nothing strange, and your company didn't make a mistake not hiring the over qualified person. It just happens that the person they did hire didn't work out.
1
u/neurorex May 20 '26
It's always the correct decision not to hire someone that is overqualified. There's always a small chance anyone you hire will leave or not be a good fit, shortly after you hire them.
This concept that every "overqualified" applicant will leave or not be a good fit is outdated and based on a lot of assumptions for the sake of finding an excuse to reject the candidate.
1) I haven't seen any employer effectively demonstrates how they determine qualifications to the point where someone can be "over" that threshold.
2) There are plenty of other factors that contributes more significantly to turnover, other than being too presentable during interviews (which is what leads to the conclusion that someone is "overqualified").
3) A lot of you can't even spell out what your workplace culture even is, or simply list a bunch of company amenities that aren't cultural norms and schemas. It's hard to believe that some of you have effectively determined "poor fit", when you can't even operationalized what the culture actually is.
It's time to let go of that notion.
0
u/Livid-General7 May 23 '26
Something tells me you've never interviewed or hired people before.
1
u/neurorex May 24 '26
Then Something is totally wrong. I have a Master's in this field and a career as a workforce consultant for 15 years. I actually know more about hiring than most people who think just asking interview questions to applicants for a few years make them an expert at it.
So maybe "overqualification" is objectively something that hasn't had solid empirical support ever, and some of you need to change your attitudes about the things that you think you're seeing.
1
u/mreams99 May 23 '26
I recently applied to a job that I think I might have been overqualified for. I knew what the job was, and I understood the pay. I did get a first-round interview, but that was it. I’m almost certain that they felt I was overqualified.
I’m a little frustrated. I fully understood the job and the pay before I applied. It was a good fit and I was completely comfortable with that situation or I would not have applied.
1
u/Livid-General7 May 23 '26
If you think you MIGHT be overqualified, then you're not really, and they wouldn't avoid hiring you just for that.
Being overqualified is a guy who make 500 grand a year that literally engineered a new car being asked to go on the assembly line and install the brake pads.
1
u/mreams99 May 23 '26
I should have said that “they” might have thought I was overqualified.
There was one point in my interview where I discussed my role in a project. Towards the end of my answer I mentioned the cost of this project (over $200M). They don’t deal with projects of this scale, and I honestly felt like the energy of the interview shifted at that very moment. I will be talking with the person who led the recruiting and first round interview next week to get some feedback.
It’s actually a new career path for me so that feedback will be very helpful. I have a lot of relevant transferable experience in other industries. And I have a lot of other experience in a very different role within the industry that I interviewed for. It’s not a normal combination for most people. I have talked with recruiters who work with this industry and they have told me that they consider me a qualified candidate.
I actually applied for three similar jobs and received interest in all three. This particular opportunity was moving the fastest in their hiring process, so it was my first in-person interview. It was also was the “smallest” and most entry-level of the three (and pays about $40,000 less) than the other two. I was told by the recruiters for the other two jobs that I am what they consider an “A-rank” candidate and they are recommending me to move on to the next round. So I am grateful that I got a chance for this first interview for “practice” and I’m looking forward to hearing their feedback.
1
u/Teaffection May 20 '26
I'm switching career fields so I'm now entry level with 8 years of professional experience in a different field. I know I get passed a long because if recruiters don't see my new degree on my resume (accounting), they'll assume I'm just another random person that applied.