Overqualified Supplemental

Smart Hiring (Somebody Gets It)

This was the title of one of my posts in April 2009, without the parenthetical addition shown today. That blog emphasized the job role (blending) and leadership to build an effective structure and team. I followed up with "Hire the Best", identifying over-qualified candidates as a hiring benefit.

After four years, the world of hiring is finally showing improvements. I have just signed onto a company providing production, process and business expertise. Their selection process involved a panel interview; five candidates and seven company members. I entered the foray at the last minute, due to overcoming the initial over-qualified perception.

Sidebar: 

There are several articles touting the benefits of hiring older people, including Entrepreneur, Huffington Post, Inc. A Forbes article last fall compares young verse old(er) entrepreneur's advantages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/ageism_n_1881619.html

http://www.inc.com/eric-v-holtzclaw/5-ways-older-workers-benefit-a-business.html

http://bostinno.com/2013/02/18/age-discrimination-startups-why-older-employees-deserve-a-chance/#ss__298652_227579_0__ss

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2012/09/03/do-older-or-younger-entrepreneurs-have-the-greater-advantage/

This selection format was new to me, but I liked it. You get a brief brain break to formulate the question's answer, as the other candidates respond, except when you're first on the rotation. This beats the rapid fire questions one-on-one (of course, this style is appropriate, if the position requires quick thinking and response skill sets). You also know the interview ends, when the last person on the panel asks their question.

After the panel interview, the company team immediately meets to select those worthy of returning for individual interviews and a screening test.

Two days later, I received a call to have lunch with the company president. During lunch, we discussed my motives, intentions and deliverables. He offered me the position on the spot, without further steps in the process.

Why this works:

• The playing field was level between candidates
• The playing field was level on the company side
• Time was efficient -  no long hours with individuals or return trips (see "Are You Smart Enough Not to be Stupid, my last blog post)
• The company gave me the opportunity one-on-one with the president to clarify my goals and motives, rather than be dismissed

Most importantly, they recognized the value, abilities and contributions beyond their current needs.

The question today - Where do you stand in your best hiring practices? You might be missing out on the best candidate, using preconceived, or worse, antiquated beliefs.

Hire the Best

The economic situation is quite understated. Reports indicate a national average unemployment rate of 9.1%. Michigan leads the country with 14.1%. What the numbers don't include are those no longer on unemployment or other indicators. The real rate is closer to 25-30% or close to one-out-of-three or four people are not working. I'm sure you know someone unemployed, if not yourself.

What does this mean to the marketing/advertising industry? There are great people available to hire. Not good, but great people. I can't believe hiring managers still use the term, "over-qualified". Unless you're skirting the law and using this term to invoke age discrimination (shame on you), the word "qualified" is inside this term.

My definition of over-qualified, is getting more than you deserve. A candidate that can deliver above expectations and provide skills beyond the job description – bonus for you.

If you are age discriminating (shame on you), think again. These are seasoned professionals, who can help grow your company and you. It's a win-win situation. You can mentor your specific expertise back to them, too.

Look through those résumés again, now.