

The Myth of the Overqualified Worker - rf1331
http://hbr.org/2010/12/the-myth-of-the-overqualified-worker/ar/

======
danso
A: Great article

B: what does his have to do with Google? That they hire people like Peter
Norvig once in awhile?

edit: Maybe Google is mentioned on the second page? The OP is from 2010 and so
the rest of the content (if any, hard to tell with how it ends) is behind a
paywall. But what's shown is still a good read.

However, this was written in 2010. What research has been done since then? I
imagine that the situation has not changed much since 2010, and may have
become worse in terms of the bias. Would love to see more up-to-date or more
comprehensive research and findings on this topic.

\---

This fear of over-qualification speaks a sad truth about the nature of
institutions. When asked to think about it, I think most reasonable people
would agree with the statement "You should hire the best qualified person and
the company should adapt to that person's initiative and ideas"

But that's not how things work. At a very selfish level, people don't want to
be shown up. It would take a very altruistic middle manager to hire someone
who could push the ship in the right direction, if that pushing threatened the
manager's job (as many reorganizations tend to do). Really, the only person
who can hire the best without feeling threatened is the CEO, but in bigger
companies, they usually aren't involved. And it's the CEO who would have
unilateral power to let the overachievers grow, rather than be stifled by the
constraints of their department.

~~~
rst
Google has a reputation for hiring people with stellar qualifications, and
putting them in fairly mundane jobs for which they appear overqualified. See
here, for example: [http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employees-confess-
the-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employees-confess-the-worst-
things-about-working-at-google-2013-11)

(Norvig is most certainly not one of these, BTW; he's doing research similar
to what he'd be doing in academia, with more resources.)

~~~
danso
Ah, thanks...As soon as I wrote "Norvig" I immediately regretted it, but he
was the first transcends-even-Google person I could think of. Obviously he
doesn't count if he's given a high ceiling to reach for (which it seems he
has)

------
redwood
While it may indeed be possible to ensure positive morale for "over-qualified"
individuals through "empowerment" as they say, that very empowerment isn't
always realistic, available, or possible. Sometimes it is for a small minority
which leads to an ultra-competitive culture among many "over-qualified" folks.

In any event the negative morale that can ensue when many over-qualified
people do mundane work is quite detrimental, draining, and contagious. I've
experienced it and am happy to now work in a place with a different kind of
culture.

It makes sense that HBR which espouses a business school point of view would
argue this, because the system _works_ for orgs that use it, at the expense of
the drained individuals that burn out. Since there is such an over-supply of
talent, it's an employers' market and an outlook like this one can be
espoused. We do need to remember that it's not pretty for the folks involved.

The problem of how to employ these folks in empowering jobs, when there are so
many of them: not something easily solved.

~~~
wildgift
Another word for empowerment is "autonomy" or "slack". If the regular job is
easy, let the employee do other things during the slack time, whether it's
helping the company or not. If it helps - that's great, and the person should
be paid.

Overqualified people are cool if you don't have to manage them - the lack of
oversight saves everyone time and money.

Likewise, being overqualified is cool. The work is easy and steady. Probably
even more importantly, people who are overqualified for some jobs take the
jobs because they're "fun" jobs. My job is basically "fun" except for some of
the coworkers (most are very awesome, but you never get 100%). I undertake odd
side projects. The pay isn't great, but the benefits are decent, and the hours
are pretty good.

I'm looking to make a lateral move that's probably to a differently "fun" job,
but one with less autonomy and slack time, and more pay.

------
diminoten
This isn't really related to the "Google myth" though, is it? I always thought
the Google problem was the employees are worried about being replaced, and
even the proverbial janitor holds a CS degree and runs an open source project
in your subject area on the side.

------
jwise0
FWIW, the original article has nothing to say at all about Google. The data
are interesting, but it is not at all framed the way the HN title suggests.

(Should the title get edited, it was originally: 'Quit putting down Google:
"The myth of the overqualified worker"'.)

~~~
isxek
I'm guessing it had something to do with some of the recent episodes in
Dilbert:

[http://dilbert.com/fast/2013-12-27/](http://dilbert.com/fast/2013-12-27/)

[http://dilbert.com/fast/2013-12-28/](http://dilbert.com/fast/2013-12-28/)

