You've been unemployed for a few months, and you are starting to think you won't find a job that fits your abilities and experience. You adjust your sights lower to positions you held five or 10 years ago. You decide to "dumb down" your resume.
First, you remove words from your resume that indicate that you were the leader or manager. Your resume now indicates that you were part of the team. The next step is to remove the MS or the MBA from your resume. You may not remove the degree, but you might remove the letters and simply list the title of the degree, i.e. "human resources manager, University of Nevada, Reno." Finally, you remove awards that indicate that you are too experienced in your field.
Tailoring your resume to meet the needs of the job market gets results. You score a prescreening interview conducted over the telephone by a recruiter from the human resources department. You carefully conceal the depth of your background but try not to lie outright. This works well and your resume is selected for further screening.
Next the hiring manager calls. Now you really have to be on your toes. You want to present your knowledge in a way that makes you an attractive candidate, but not too attractive. You prepare questions for the hiring manager which indicate a skill level totally competent to do the advertised position, but not overwhelming for that position.
Your ploy works and you get a face-to-face interview. Now you cannot hide the years of experience that come with age, because they are clearly written on your visage. Unless you have recently redirected or changed your profession, you are in trouble. The job calls for three to five years of experience. You have 15 years, so you are overqualified.
A friend who works in purchasing ran into this situation recently. After being interviewed, he filled out an application. While doing so he overheard one of the interviewers say, "Wow, he sure has the experience we need." The other interviewer replied, "Yes, but did you see how old he is?"
Why should this bother prospective employers? Shouldn't they be thankful that they are getting all that extra experience for a lower price? There are several answers for that.
Fear is the first reason that comes to mind. Hiring managers can be threatened by the prospect of an employee whose skills may outshine theirs. So you are place in the "overqualified" category.
Economics might be another reason. The position on offer pays 70 percent of your normal worth. The hiring manager would love to have your skills for a reduced rate, but realizes you will continue to search for a position that matches your skill level. Would you spend your recruiting budget for a short-term solution to a long term problem?
We all realize that turnover costs are high. Estimates vary, but in my experience $20,000 is a good ballpark figure for what you can expect to spend, from recruiting to training, on acquiring a new employee. And this is an average, including everyone from the janitor to Donald Trump. Turnover costs at the professional level are at or above this median. It just makes good sense to hire someone who should be satisfied to work at the advertised skill level for the long term.
Another overqualified-employee issue stems from our own perceptions of how to do a job. We all have habits that may not fit the culture of the employer, and the longer we have been in a profession, the stronger those habits may be. I have often found it easier to train a less-experienced employee to fit a company's culture than to retrain an overqualified individual.
And we can't ignore the issue of discrimination. I have heard supervisors and even senior managers comment about a person's age. Age discrimination is hard to prove, but the perception that the "overqualified" employee is a lot closer to retirement is a fact of life. Gender can also be a factor. I know employers who want attractive young women in their front office. They will never admit that, but one look at me tells them I'm "overqualified." And I know of one director who would hire only men. The workplace is not his place for women.
So how do we "overqualified" professionals deal with this problem? We prepare for the interview or networking event. Our actions, demeanor, and energy will say more about our ability than your looks. I'm 64, and people expect me to be more reserved or slower paced. Consequently, when I walk into an interview I know that I need to exude energy and confidence.
This is easier to do if we exercise regularly, and exercise does more than tone the body. It also sharpens the mind. Even those of us with physical issues can benefit from whatever form of exercise we can accomplish. I marvel at people young and old who have overcome disabilities to lead active lives.
Be prepared to answer questions. "I can do that" is not as good an answer as explaining how you can do that job well. Address the concerns that you might perceive from the interviewer. The hiring manager should feel that you are there to help them get promoted. It is harder to get promoted if there is no one ready to step into your shoes, so the "overqualified" employee can actually be an asset here.
Finally, you may encounter employers who have an age bias. Forget it and move on. You would not be happy working there and they would find every reason to justify their concern.
Charles Morris is a human relations and training professional in Reno and a volunteer with ProNet, a networking association of management and professional people seeking reentry into the job market.
