Content uploaded by Patricia G Martinez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia G Martinez on Feb 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Overqualified? A Conceptual Model of Managers’ Perceptions of
Overqualification in Selection Decisions
Abstract
Purpose: We present a conceptual model for conducting research on how Human Resource and
hiring managers form impressions of overqualified individuals and how these impressions affect
their treatment of overqualified individuals during selection decisions.
Design/methodology/approach: Given the central role of psychological processes within the
proposed model, this conceptual paper builds on a social cognition approach.
Findings: The proposed model consists of seven primary factors that can help propel research
that is dynamic and contextually driven: (1) attributes of the overqualified individual, (2) job
attributes, (3) observers’ cognitive overqualification schemas, (4) observers’ attitudes, (5)
observers’ categorization processes, (6) the organizational context, and (7) individual factors, all
of which influence the observers’ treatment of overqualified individuals.
Originality/value: Most research has focused on individual-level outcomes of overqualification
such as job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and physical and psychological health, while
overlooking how organizational decision makers perceive overqualification and how this
subsequently affects the likelihood of individuals being selected for an interview. Given the
global growth in the number of overqualified workers, understanding antecedents and correlates
of overqualification and how these affect organizational selection decisions is a pressing need.
The proposed model outlines several factors that can help us better understand the phenomenon
of overqualification.
Keywords: overqualification, selection decisions, underemployment
Article Classification: Conceptual paper
Overqualified? A Conceptual Model of Managers’ Perceptions of
Overqualification in Selection Decisions
“I won’t hire someone who is overqualified. Once they find a better job, they will be out
the door. Things don’t work out.” – Human Resource Manager in the Foodservice Industry
Today’s challenging labor market with high unemployment rates and lower labor
demands has undoubtedly produced a great number of employees who find themselves in
positions for which they are overqualified. Overqualification is an enduring labor market
condition affecting significant proportions of the workforce in the United States (e.g., Brynin,
2002; Galt, 2006; Wald, 2005). Erdogan, Bauer, Peiro, and Truxillo (2011a) define
overqualification as “possessing qualifications exceeding job requirements.” Those overqualified
are thus seen as people possessing education, work experience, or knowledge beyond what is
required by their job (Maynard, Joseph, and Maynard, 2006). As a result, overqualification is
generally perceived as an incompatibility between employee education, experience, and
organizational requirements (Worthington, 2002).
Nearly half of American workers with college degrees are overqualified for jobs they
hold, and this trend is likely to continue in the near future (Marklein, 2013) and many of those
overqualified wonder if their qualifications are worth anything (Trumbull, 2013). With as many
as four job seekers vying for each job opening (Homan, 2011), many individuals will remain
unemployed or within positions for which they are overqualified until their job is enlarged, they
are promoted, or they leave the organization. As a result, studying overqualification is a timely
and important topic; it affects a significant portion of the workforce at some point throughout
their professional lives. In this paper, we present a conceptual model for conducting research on
how Human Resource and hiring managers may form impressions of overqualified individuals
2
and how these impressions may affect their selection decisions. Additionally, we outline
implications for human resource management (HRM) practice.
It is important to understand overqualification and the treatment of overqualified
individuals in the workplace in a systemic manner for the following reasons. First, there are clear
implications, many of which are negative, during the selection process for the person who is
perceived as overqualified. For example, HRM practitioners may discriminate against applicants
whom they perceive as overqualified because of concerns over their motivation (Feldman and
Maynard, 2011) and concerns that they will be a “flight risk” and not remain with the
organization for a significant period of time (Bills, 1992; Fine and Nevo, 2008).
Second, overqualification can pose several challenges for HRM practitioners. When
practitioners overlook these candidates, organizations may “lose out” on a pool of individuals
who might be strong performers (Erdogan, Bauer, Peiro, and Truxillo, 2011b; O’Connell, 2010).
Additionally, when overqualified applicants are aware of the conventional wisdom of avoiding
applicants such as themselves (Gallo, 2011; O’Connell, 2010) they may not apply for those
positions, believing it to be a futile exercise.
Finally, when individuals find themselves in positions for which they are overqualified,
their job attitudes, behaviors, performance, and intent to remain may be negatively impacted.
Dooley, Prause, and Ham-Rowbottom (2000) note that employment status includes a range of
conditions including inadequate forms of employment (e.g., involuntary part-time or low-wage
employment). These forms of underemployment or ‘insufficient employment’ can be negatively
associated with mental health and general well-being (Dooley et al., 2000; Dooley and Catalano,
2003). Individuals who are underemployed are essentially overqualified for their position.
Researchers have found that that overqualification is likely to trigger feelings of status
3
deprivation (Erdogan and Bauer, 2009) and low job satisfaction (Erdogan and Bauer, 2009; Fine,
2007; Fine and Nevo, 2008 Johnson and Johnson, 2000; Johnson, Morrow, and Johnson, 2002)
and higher turnover intentions (Erdogan and Bauer, 2009; Maynard et al., 2006; McKee-Ryan,
Virick, Prussia, Harvey and Lilly, 2009). Additionally, Maynard and Feldman (2011) argue that
there are financial, emotional, and social implications for those who are underemployed.
In contrast, some studies have suggested that overqualification is actually related to
increased performance (Erdogan and Bauer, 2009; Fine and Nevo, 2008; Maltarich, Nyberg, and
Reilly, 2010). However, it is less clear how various contextual factors may interact to affect the
initial hiring decision and whether the outcomes for individuals and organizations are positive or
negative. Recent interest in overqualification has begun to acknowledge the need for a more
holistic, dynamic, and contextual perspective (Erdogan, et al., 2011b; Shultz, Olson, and Wang,
2011; Sierra, 2011), and not simply focusing on individual-level outcomes. This suggests the
need to examine how managers form perceptions of overqualified individuals and how these
perceptions affect selection decisions. In the following sections, we propose a model, Figure 1,
for studying how managers may develop perceptions of overqualified individuals in selection
decisions.
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
A model of factors affecting managers’ perceptions of overqualification in selection
decisions
Since selection decisions occur within a social context, we develop our model based upon
a social cognition approach. Social cognition examines how individuals make sense of
themselves and others. It considers the potential influence of situational and individual factors
including attitudes, perceptions, and stereotyping (Taylor and Fiske, 2013; Pishwa, 2009) in this
4
sense-making process. According to Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009), researchers in the
social cognition tradition generally have assumed that the cognitive representation of actors and
their corresponding contexts mediate their behavioral responses to the social world. Thus, the
underlying social information processing model for this view assumes that behaviors are the
results of (a) perception, which leads to (b) cognitive representations of actors and their contexts
(i.e., conception), which finally results in (c) action.
Similarly, Klimoski and Donahue (2001) note that actors make judgments in
organizational contexts and that decisions such as who is to be hired are motivated social
judgments involving “person perception.” This process consists of an input-processes-output
framework where inputs include the target, perceiver, and the context; processes include
information processing, motivational/affective processes, and interpersonal/social processes; and
outcomes include consequences for both the target and the perceiver.
Thus, the model described below draws from these frameworks and from Dipboye and
Macan’s (1988) process view of the selection-recruitment interview. Under a social cognition
view, person-perception or motivated social judgments are involved in interview selection and
final hiring decisions. Individuals responsible for hiring decisions base their judgments on
objective, pre-interview data such as educational and work experience credentials, and they
compare these data against relevant prototypes, or profiles, of the qualifications and attributes of
the “ideal candidate.” When evaluators determine that an applicant’s qualifications are a match,
they categorize the applicant as “qualified.” If the applicant’s qualifications fall short of the
requirements, then the applicant may be categorized as “underqualified,” while in cases where
the applicant possesses education and/or experience beyond what is required, the perceiver may
categorize the applicant as “overqualified.” It is important to note that while underqualification
5
is the condition on the opposite end of the spectrum from overqualification, our focus is
overqualification and not underqualification.
Given that the objective of the selection process is first to separate those who are
qualified from those that are unqualified, once applicants are categorized as unqualified, they are
generally removed from the selection process. However, what is less well-known is exactly how
applicants categorized as “overqualified” are treated. While it is commonly assumed that
overqualification equates to “unqualified” (e.g. Bills, 1992), this viewpoint has not been
supported empirically. As a result, our focus is on overqualification.
Our proposed model incorporates situational (e.g., the job and organizational context) and
individual factors (e.g., the attributes of overqualified individuals), and outlines how these
factors affect observers’ schemas or cognitive structures representing knowledge about a
stimulus or concept (Taylor and Fiske, 2013), and how this eventually influences observers’
perceptions of overqualification. These perceptions influence observers’ categorization
processes and the subsequent job suitability rating which they assign to the applicant.
Additionally, the proposed model parallels the three stages of social cognition: perception,
conception, and action. Each of these factors and their related social cognition processes will be
discussed in the following sections. While we outline the processes through which the overall
categorization occurs, and our focus is on “how" observers arrive at their categorization, we note
that as social judgments, the process is subjective and different observers may arrive at alternate
categorizations. We begin with a discussion of the first stage, perception.
Stage 1: Perception
6
In the proposed model, perception occurs when a manager reviews an individual’s
resume/job application and evaluates whether the applicant is qualified for a particular job
opening.
Attributes of the overqualified individual
During the perception stage, observers are presented with stimuli related to the target,
including the nature of the overqualification and the target’s age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
These attributes influence the cognitive schema that is recalled (activated), inferences made
about the individual’s job-related attributes, performance expectancies, their categorization and
the subsequent suitability rating for interview selection and hiring.
Nature of the overqualification. The nature of the overqualification, i.e., over-educated or
over-experienced, may be a key determinant of how observers categorize overqualified
individuals. According to Erdogan and colleagues (2011a), over-education may signal that
individuals have high trainability. Becker (1993) distinguishes between general and specific
skills and argues that worker characteristics such as education might signal that workers possess
more general skills, while Thurow (1975) notes that trainability may represent the ability to
adapt to a position that requires new skills.
In contrast, over-experience may signal that individuals may try to do things their own
way and thus be less trainable (Erdogan et al., 2011a). Gangl (2004) argues that while general
skills are likely an advantage in most labor market sectors, employers have strong incentives to
recruit individuals with job-specific skills who will minimize low productivity shortly after
hiring. Thus, the nature or type of overqualification will be related to observers’ inferences. This
leads to our first proposition.
7
Proposition 1: The nature of overqualification (i.e., overeducation or overexperience) is
a primary factor in determining whether someone is categorized as overqualified.
It is important to note that during the third stage, behavioral response, individual-level
and organizational context factors may influence the job suitability rating of an individual
categorized as “overqualified.” Thus, while initially an applicant’s overeducation might be
viewed unfavorably, some contextual factors, such as internal career ladders might lead to an
applicant with excess education to be perceived as “suitable,” because there are opportunities for
advancement and for the organization to capitalize upon excess education and experience. In
contrast, the applicant may later be perceived “unsuitable” for interview selection when the
organization does not offer internal career ladders.
Age, gender, and race/ethnicity. During this stage, observers collect information about
the applicants, including their demographic attributes. However, it is during Stage 2, Cognitive
Representation that observers may or may not consider demographic factors when categorizing
an applicant as qualified or overqualified. In the following section, we discuss the final set of
stimuli during this initial perception stage: job attributes, or the nature of the job.
The nature of the job
The job dimensions most relevant to the treatment of overqualified individuals include
the job’s knowledge, skill, and ability requirements. These dimensions are involved in
determining person-job fit (e.g., Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and
Johnson, 2005), which consists of job-demands and person-ability fit (demands-ability fit), and
needs-supply fit. Demands-ability fit (Edwards, 1996) is the degree to which environmental
demands, such as quantitative skill requirements, match a person’s abilities, i.e. skills,
knowledge and effort. Alternately, Needs-supply, or Supplies-values fit, is when the person’s
8
needs or values match the job’s supplies to fulfill those values or needs (Edwards, 1996; Kristof-
Brown et al., 2005). Person-job fit is especially crucial during pre-entry because employers
assess whether applicants have the requisite job-related qualification (Chuang and Sackett, 2005;
Kristof-Brown, 2000).
The screening or signaling hypothesis (Spence, 1974; Thurow, 1975) posits that
employers look for surrogate measures or signals about applicants’ underlying learning ability
and amount of education can serve as a signal of this ability. Thus, for positions where the
applicant will need to acquire additional specialty training, employers may look for the candidate
with the best learning or training ability (Semeijn, van der Velden, Heijke, van der Vleuten and
Boshuizen, 2005). As a result, the greater an individual’s education, the greater the perceived
learning or training ability.
Similarly, for jobs that are knowledge-intensive, overqualification (especially the over-
education type) may be more acceptable (cf. Lowe, 2002), since qualifications exceeding job
requirements may be put to use in the future. Because knowledge intensity varies across
occupational groups, individuals may be perceived as overqualified in some situations but not in
others (Lowe, 2002). For example, an individual with excess education may be perceived as
overqualified for a retail sales position (e.g., Erdogan and Bauer, 2009), whereas for an
information technology position, this individual may be viewed positively.
Thus, the degree to which a job is knowledge-intensive is likely a key factor in this
distinction, such that overqualification, particularly excess education, may be more acceptable
for knowledge work. For jobs that are not knowledge-intensive or where individuals do not need
to acquire additional training, observers may be more likely to categorize individuals with excess
education or excess experience as overqualified. This leads to our next set of propositions.
9
Proposition 2: The degree to which jobs are knowledge-intensive and require incumbents
to acquire additional training will affect whether individuals will be categorized as
overqualified.
Proposition 2a: For jobs that are knowledge-intensive, or where individuals must
acquire additional training, observers will be more likely to categorize individuals with excess
education or excess experience as qualified.
Proposition 2b: For jobs that are not knowledge-intensive, or where individuals do not
require additional training, observers will be more likely to categorize individuals with excess
education or excess experience as overqualified.
In the following sections we discuss how during the cognitive representation stage (Stage
2), observer attitudes, particularly discriminatory attitudes, may be related to categorizing
individuals with excess education or experience as “overqualified.”
Stage 2: Cognitive Representation
Extracting meaning from the attended stimuli is the next step in the social cognition
process. This involves drawing from previous experience and recognizing patterns
(Bodenhausen and Hugenberg, 2009). While two individuals in the same setting perceive the
same stimulus, each may possess a different schema for interpreting this stimulus and as a result
may develop different cognitive representations and categorizations. Thus, it is important to
consider observers’ existing schemas: cognitive structures that abstractly represent knowledge
about a concept or stimulus and which serve to simplify reality (Taylor and Fiske, 2013).
Observers’ overqualification schemas
During the cognitive representation stage, observers make social judgments about
applicants, their attributes and qualifications and how well these match the job’s requirements
10
and attributes. Observers process this information through their existing cognitive schemas
including “qualified” and “overqualified.” These schemas consist of job-related expectations
and they result from previous contact with overqualified individuals including hiring and/or
supervising overqualified individuals in that same job. When an observer perceives that a
particular schema is relevant to a person, (schema consistent) then the observer assigns the
person other attributes and expectations related to that schema. This process is known as
stereotyping.
Stereotyping. Stereotypes are mental representations of a group and its members;
stereotyping is the cognitive process of applying these higher-level category properties to
individual members of the group (Hamilton and Sherman, 1994). Stereotypes satisfy the
fundamental need within cognitive processes to simplify the environment. When observers carry
negative associations with “overqualified,” categorizing an individual in this manner may trigger
a set of suboptimal motivational associations (e.g., Feldman and Maynard, 2011) such as poor
quality outcomes and higher likelihood of quitting (Belfield, 2009) that are typically detrimental
to the target (i.e., the overqualified person).
According to Heilman (1983), observers make inferences about an individual’s attributes
based on stereotypes and then evaluate the person based on how well these attributes fit the
perceived job requirements. Observers are likely to expect that overqualified individuals will
generally perform at higher levels when the job has higher ability requirements or when the
person is being hired for future potential in other jobs. Alternately observers are likely to expect
lower performance levels when the job has lower ability requirements (e.g., Feldman and
Maynard, 2011; Gallo, 2011; Maynard, Taylor, and Hakel, 2009; O’Connell, 2010).
Observers’ attitudes
11
Multiple social cognition models (e.g., Bodenhausen and Hugenberg, 2009; Taylor and
Fiske, 2013; London, 2001) suggest that attitudes mediate how schemas lead to categorization.
These models suggest that underlying attitudes and biases guide judgments. In some cases, these
attitudes can result from social categorization processes and in-group/out-group attitudes, while
in other cases, attitudes may be biased and discriminatory against a particular group.
In/Out Group. Observers’ (e.g., HRM practitioners, hiring managers) own demographic
attributes can affect their perceptions and their subsequent categorization of overqualified
individuals. This occurs when demographic differences, especially visible ones, are used to
classify dissimilar people as out-group members and similar people as in-group members
(Harrison, Price, and Bell, 1998). Differences in social identity groups lead to increased
relational conflict and decreased communication and cooperation (e.g., O’Reilly, Caldwell, and
Barnett, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Zenger and Lawrence, 1989).
Drawing from these perspectives, we argue that observers’ demographic attributes may
also affect categorizations of applicants as overqualified, particularly the greater the differences
in demographic attributes. If observers have negative attitudes toward these out-groups, they will
be more likely to categorize these individuals as overqualified. When observers possess biased
and discriminatory attitudes towards out-group members who are members of different social
categories, such as age, cohort, gender, and race/ethnicity, these demographics may trigger in-
group/out-group discriminatory attitudes. In some instances, schemas for “qualified” candidates
contain specific demographic categories, such as “younger”, such that those who are “older” are
categorized as “overqualified.”
Taste for Discrimination. Additionally, observers’ taste for discrimination (Becker, 1971)
might ultimately drive their desire to not hire an individual from a demographic group for which
12
they hold negative stereotypes. Becker argued that some individuals simply do not want to work
with women or members of particular racial groups. He identifies this as a “taste” for
discrimination against members of these groups. While in some cases, observers might
encounter applicants who do not conform to their negative stereotype and expectancies, their
taste discrimination will lead them to overlook these individuals because of their preference not
to associate with them. Additionally, taste discrimination guides choices, such that when making
decisions, individuals may seek the opinion of a similar advisor (Yaniv, Choshen-Hillel and
Milyavsky, 2011). Thus hiring managers might very well seek the reinforcing opinion of like-
minded peers. In this case, the categorization of someone as overqualified is perhaps a more
socially acceptable justification for a taste for discrimination.
In summary, these studies suggest that when an individual possesses education or
experience beyond the job requirements, observers may use overqualification as a pretext (or in
legal terms, may present a mixed motive case) for illegal discrimination on the basis of gender,
race, or age. Finkelstein (2011) argues that overqualification may be a euphemism for “too old”,
and may have less to do with qualifications and more to do with ageism and thus,
overqualification is a pretext for age discrimination (Galt, 2006; Levitt, 2006). Women
(Weststar, 2011) and immigrants (Slack and Jensen, 2011) may particularly find themselves in
positions for which they are overqualified. Berdahl and Moore (2006) found that minority
women are subject to double stigmatization at work, experiencing the most harassment because
they are both women and members of a minority group. In examining the stigmatization of
unemployed workers, Karren and Sherman (2012) argue that laid-off individual may face
discrimination due to their unemployed status and that laid-off minorities and older workers may
face a double-stigma. This leads to our next proposition.
13
Proposition 3: When observers possess negative attitudes about the social categories to
which applicants belong, it is more likely that they will categorize the individuals as
overqualified.
Observers’ categorization processes
Social cognition focuses on how mental representations (cognitive schemata) influence
how information about a target person is stored, organized, and processed. Based upon previous
experience, observers may possess schemata related to the suitability of overqualified individuals
for hiring, promotions, and other employment-related outcomes. When perceiving an
overqualified individual, observers will process the stimulus related to the focal person,
including his or her personal attributes, previous and expected contact and expected outcomes,
and the related context. These stimuli are processed through any existing schema and
subsequently, the focal person is categorized as “overqualified” or “qualified.”
Categorization. Categorization processes occur during this stage. Observers may use one
or more personal attributes to assign an individual to a cognitive category. Categories can thus
be a class as well as the mental representation we hold of that class (e.g., object/type of people)
which guide interpretation and future behavior towards members of the category. While we do
not use all features of a person when categorizing her, we do rely on distinctive features and
latch them onto something more familiar to us. This process is known as categorical person
perception (Taylor and Fiske, 2013). For example, someone with a doctoral degree in forensic
science from a renowned school may seem like a misfit in a department store retailer. While the
degree might signal “ability to learn”, the graduate degree is a significant amount of excess,
unrelated education. Since this is not a technology-intensive industry, the applicant may be
deemed overqualified and unsuitable for hire. As a result, we expect that based upon the various
14
individual, organizational, and job context factors discussed previously, education and/or
experience greater than job requirements triggers observers to categorize individuals as qualified
or overqualified.
Proposition 4: Observers will rely upon individual, organizational, and job context
factors as well as education and experience levels to categorize applicants as “qualified” or
“overqualified.”
Next, we discuss the behavioral response stage.
Stage 3: Behavioral Response
In the third stage of the proposed model, observers (e.g., HR professionals and hiring
managers) exhibit a behavioral response. One, they determine that an applicant is either suitable
or unsuitable for the target job. Two, they select applicants who continue in the hiring process.
Determining job suitability and selection to continue in the hiring process are moderated by
organizational context and individual factors. These moderators are discussed next.
Organizational context moderators
During the first two stages of social cognition, observers categorize applicants as
“qualified” or “overqualified.” However, this categorization does not always directly equate
with a particular suitability rating, such that “overqualified” means “not suitable.” Instead, a set
of key organizational context variables can moderate this relationship.
Labor market conditions. Unemployment levels and the labor market structure (which
includes available labor skill diversity) are particularly relevant to perceptions of
overqualification (Altonji, 2010; Gallo, 2011). High unemployment levels reflect greater supply
of than demand for labor, whereas low unemployment levels reflect greater demand for than
supply of labor. Employers facing a loose labor market (i.e., high unemployment levels) are
15
more likely to screen out overqualified individuals during the hiring process, amounting to a
strategy for dealing with the increasing number of applications from overqualified individuals
(Gallo, 2011). With an abundant supply of labor, organizations can more easily identify and
select individuals who are just the right fit for positions. With a shortage of labor, HRM
practitioners may place less emphasis on precisely fitting individuals to jobs and more emphasis
on simply ensuring that positions are filled. This leads to our next propositions.
Proposition 5: The labor market will affect the suitability ratings which employers
assign to applicants and whether applicants are selected to continue in the hiring process.
Proposition 5a: As employers face a tight labor market (i.e., low unemployment levels)
they are less likely to rate overqualified individuals as “unsuitable” for the job and more likely
to select them to continue in the hiring process.
Proposition 5b: As employers face a loose labor market (i.e., high unemployment levels)
they are more likely to rate overqualified individuals as “unsuitable” for the job and less likely
to select them to continue in the hiring process.
Organizational policies and practices. Overarching HRM philosophies specify the
values that inform an organization’s policies and practices (Arthur and Boyles, 2007). Formal
organizational policies direct and partially constrain the development of specific practices.
Organizational policies and practices may affect overqualified individuals because they influence
the design of jobs, staffing methods, evaluation procedures, and reward systems in organizations.
Additionally, an internal labor market orientation may also be a key factor related to observers
viewing overqualification positively. When organizations implement internal career ladders,
they provide employees with internal hiring, promotion, and other career development
opportunities (Delery and Doty, 1996; Lepak and Snell, 1999). Bills (1992) argues that some
16
employers will hire overqualified workers because of the possibility of promoting candidates
internally to positions where their skill sets will be more fully utilized. This concept of
“upskilling” represents situations where employers modify job responsibilities, or “upskill” them
in order to take advantage of higher-level skills (Battu, Belfied, and Sloan, 2000). Thus,
organizational policies and practices affect observers’ (e.g., HR professionals and hiring
managers) treatment of overqualified applicants. As a result, we offer the following proposition:
Proposition 6: In organizations with internal career ladders, observers are more likely to
rate individuals with excess education or excess experience as “suitable” for the job and more
likely to select them to continue in the selection process.
Individual Factor Moderators
In this final section, we discuss a set of individual-level factors which may moderate the
relationship between observers’ categorization of overqualified candidates and their suitability
ratings or selection to continue in the hiring process. As Feldman and Maynard (2011) propose,
under a particular set of circumstances, excess education or experience may be tolerated.
Previous performance data. The extent to which others perceive that an individual can
perform a task is an important standard for evaluating overqualification. From a social cognition
perspective, the dilution effect implies that when observers have more information, they are less
likely to rely upon stereotypes in categorizing individuals or making judgments (Taylor and
Fiske, 2013). Sherman and colleagues (1998) argue that when stimuli contradict the expected
schema, attention is shifted away from that schema or stereotype. Thus, stereotype-based
assumptions are more likely to influence expectancies about overqualified individuals when
there is less information about them and their expected job performance. Human resource
17
judgments are subject to dilution effects such that additional information implies the decision
maker makes less extreme judgments (Reb, Greguras, Luan, and Daniels, 2013). As a result, the
availability of positive job performance data (i.e., past performance records, work samples)
which confirms that individuals previously performed well in positions for which they possessed
excess education or experience, will positively affect suitability ratings. This leads to our next
proposition.
Proposition 7: Job performance data (records, work samples, and so forth) affects
observers’ treatment of overqualified applicants. Applicants with excess education or work
experience are more likely to be rated as “suitable” for the job and they are more likely to be
selected to continue in the selection process when observers have positive job performance data
from previous positions in which applicants were overqualified.
Intentional mismatch motivation. Maltarich and colleagues (2010, 2011) define
“intentional mismatch” as broad job satisfaction despite overqualification when working
conditions fit with a worker’s personal (i.e., non-work) values and interests. Thus, for some
workers in earlier and later career stages, less demanding work may be desirable. For example,
individuals who are in earlier career stages may proactively seek, or choose to remain in
positions, for which they are overqualified because they are concurrently enrolled in graduate
coursework. Similarly, a retired engineer may choose to work as a Wal-Mart greeter for the
social interaction associated with that job, despite being overqualified for it.
Similarly, Luksyte and Spitzmueller (2011) propose that women may choose certain job
alternatives due to greater family and child care responsibilities. Wives that are ‘tied movers’ or
‘tied stayers’ based upon their husband’s career situation (Buchel and Battu, 2003) also represent
an example of overqualification that is intentional. The “tied” spouse intends to remain in or take
18
a new position despite possessing excess education and/or experience. It is important to note that
in today’s context, husbands might be tied spouses as well.
As a result, the attribution is that “tied spouses” will apply for jobs for which they are
overqualified because these positions are compatible with their spouses’ job opportunities, and
not because they are ideal positions. In these cases, individuals have intentionally pursued a
position for which they possess excess education or excess experience; thus they are in a position
of intentional overqualification, representing an acceptable fit between the applicant and the job
demands and requirements. However, it is crucial that applicants overtly and clearly
communicate their reason for pursuing a position for which they are an intentional mismatch.
This dilutes the effects of negative overqualification stereotypes that they will be flight risks.
This leads to our next proposition.
Proposition 8: Intentionality of mismatch affects categorizations of applicants as
overqualified; applicants who communicate their genuine motivation for intentional mismatches
are perceived to be less risky to hire, and thus more likely be rated as suitable for the job.
In summary, overqualified individuals will be rated as more or less suitable for a
particular job depending upon a number of contextual variables. For example, an applicant for a
telecommunication key accounts salesperson opening may possess excess education, a Master’s
in Information Technology, which exceeds the Bachelor’s degree requirement, and may possess
experience beyond the required three years of sales experience. However, if HR professionals
and hiring managers have gathered positive recommendations from the applicant’s past
employers, the job market is tight, the organization has internal career ladders, and their industry
is a knowledge-intensive industry, this applicant may be evaluated as suitable or even ideal for
the position. The applicant will not be categorized as “overqualified and a bad fit,” nor will
19
some of the typical negative associations, such as “flight risk” or “easily bored” be assigned to
this applicant. Further, this applicant will be selected to continue in the hiring process.
Conclusion
Overqualification is a categorization of applicants and employees that can have positive,
neutral, or negative connotations. The food service human resources manager quoted in this
paper’s introduction clearly believes that overqualified individuals are bad hiring decisions. This
scenario illustrates how from a social cognition perspective, when individuals make social
inferences and judgments, they may not follow a normative or ideal decision-making process.
Rather, individuals’ underlying attitudes and biases inform their judgments (Taylor and Fiske,
2013). Evaluating an overqualified individual’s suitability for hiring, promotion and other
employment-related outcomes is a process where multiple contextual and social factors, both
related to the overqualified individual and the observer, can affect attitudes and behaviors
towards that person.
Research implications
The conceptual and process-oriented model presented here considers the potential
interplay among aforementioned factors. In some situations, individuals are categorized as
overqualified and unsuitable for employment. However, in other situations, individuals are
categorized as overqualified but suitable for employment. Maynard and colleagues (2009)
concluded that hiring managers primarily defined overqualification as surplus education and
work experience and noted that there is a need for detailed interview data in order to examine
how various individual-level, job attributes and organizational context factors might relate to
categorization as qualified or overqualified and suitable for the job. Additionally, a virtually
unexplored research area is how unrelated excess education and experience are evaluated and
20
whether they are categorized as overqualification or underqualification. For example, an
interesting empirical question is what levels of excess education or experience may be
considered “gross overqualification,” such that contextual factors will not render it to be
categorized as “qualified” nor rated as “suitable.”
Developing experiments to test various portions of the proposed relationships in this
theoretical model is a key for advancing our understanding of the implications of
overqualification in selection decisions. For example, while we propose that under high
unemployment conditions, hiring managers may be more likely to screen out those overqualified
because this is a strategy for dealing with a large number of applications, a competing
perspective that considers the potential of contrast effects might predict that because there are
many overqualified individuals in the applicant pool, excess education or experience may not be
evaluated as negatively.
Additionally, a key empirical question might be whether factors related to job attributes
indeed moderate excess levels of education or experience, such that these are categorized as
“qualified” rather than “overqualified.” Similarly, another key empirical question may involve
testing whether organizational context and individual-level factors will moderate the job
suitability rating of those categorized as overqualified such that their excess education or
experience will be tolerated and deemed acceptable. A final area for future research is to
consider how a person categorized as “overqualified” but hired because of a positive job
suitability rating might experience treatment-related problems in post-hiring outcomes such as
promotions, training opportunities, pay increases, and workgroup social integration.
Implications for human resources management practice
21
Studying overqualification and overqualified individuals will aid HRM practitioners in
several ways. First, as suggested, the organizational context plays an important role in how
overqualified individuals are perceived and treated. Thus, HRM practitioners can examine if
their applicant pool is arbitrarily defined by perceived exigencies of the labor market. This can
be achieved by examining whether the organization’s applicant tracking software - which seeks
precise matches between job requirements and specific applicant qualifications – is screening out
overqualified individuals who can and want to do the job. Formulaic hiring processes can be
combined with other screening algorithms that consider, for example, when excess education,
but not excess experience might truly represent a poor person-job fit and thereby a low suitability
rating. Doing so may help practitioners gather a truly able and motivated applicant pool.
Second, the proposed model suggests that because it is human nature to categorize people
based upon limited information, overqualified individuals may experience stereotyping and bias
in decision making resulting in their exclusion from hiring considerations. This suggests the
importance of a selection process which is formalized (and yet not formulaic) and which includes
selection tools and practices, such as structured interviews and work sample tests, which provide
objective measures of job suitability. For example, behavioral-based interview questions can
help uncover applicant’s likelihood and disposition to be team contributors and exhibit extra-role
behaviors. Individuals with a prosocial motivation and a desire to make a difference in others’
lives, may be willing to accept positions for which they overqualified if they perceive that the
position offers opportunities for these types of contributions (McKee-Ryan and Harvey, 2011).
Thus, interview questions can be structured by HRM practitioners such that they help hiring
managers better assess the true person-job fit of those who may be qualified or overqualified.
22
Third, the model suggests that tight fits between job requirements and applicant
qualifications exclude the possibility that applicants are hired for their future potential. When
internal career ladders exist, organizations can later capitalize upon employee skills sets which
are untapped in their current positions (Delery and Doty, 1996; Lepak and Snell, 1999; Pfeffer
and Baron, 1988). Thus, HRM practitioners can examine how they write job descriptions, create
recruiting materials, and screen candidates to ensure that fit for present positions is not achieved
at the price of misfit for future positions.
While today’s loose labor market would suggest that organizations have an abundance of
applicants, there is much evidence that executives currently perceive that one of their greatest
challenges is the shortage of adequately qualified individuals (Cappelli, 2012). Under these
circumstances, reconsidering the specific contexts and organizational factors where individuals
with excess experience or education may actually be good hires may provide one untapped
source of labor to meet this perceived shortage. Finally, the model suggests that overqualified
applicants can reduce hiring managers’ concerns about them by taking a proactive approach by
noting why they are voluntarily seeking a position for which they appear overqualified and why
they will not be a flight risk.
In summary, in this article, we relied upon a social cognition framework to develop a
theoretical model for the study of overqualification in the workplace. This model responds to
calls for more contextual and process-oriented analyses and it provides guidance for researchers
who wish to pursue a more programmatic plan for studying this issue. Overqualification may be
viewed as either a liability or an asset. With the potential to affect so many employees and
organizations, systematic study of this topic is of utmost importance.
23
References
Altonji, J.G. (2010), “Multiple skills, multiple types of education, and the labor market: A
research agenda”, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1888514.
Arthur, J.B. and Boyles, T. (2007), “Validating the human resource system structure: A levels-
based strategic HRM approach”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 77–92.
Battu, H., Belfield, C. and Sloane, P. (2000), “How well can we measure graduate over-
education and its effects?”, National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 171, pp. 82-93.
Becker, G.S. (1971), The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Becker, G.S. (1993), Human Capital. A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special
reference to education, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Belfield, C. (2009), “Over-education: What influence does the workplace have?”, Economics of
Education Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 236-245.
Berdahl, J.L. and Moore, C. (2006), “Workplace harassment: double jeopardy for minority
women”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 426-36.
Bills, D.B. (1992), “The mutability of educational credentials as hiring criteria: How employers
evaluate atypically highly credentialed candidates”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 19, pp. 79-
95.
Bodenhausen, G.V. and Hugenberg, K. (2009), “Attention, perception, and social
cognition”, in Strack, F. and Förster, J. (Eds.), Social cognition: the basis of human
interaction, Psychology Press, New York, NY.
Brynin, M. (2002), “Overqualification in employment”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 16,
pp. 637-654.
Büchel, F., & Battu, H. (2003). “The theory of differential overqualification: does it work?.”
Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Cappelli, P. (2012), Why Good People Can't Get Jobs: The Skills Gap and What Companies Can
Do About It, Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Chuang, A. and Sackett, P.R. (2005), “The perceived importance of person-job fit and person-
organization fit between and within interview stages”, Social Behavior and Personality,
Vol. 33, pp. 209-226.
24
Delery, J.D. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 802-835.
Dipboye, R. L., & Macan, T. M. (1988). A process view of the selection recruitment interview.
In R. Schuler, V. Huber, & S. Youngblood (Eds.), Readings in personnel and human
resource management (pp.217-232). New York: West.
Dooley, D., & Catalano, R. (2003). “Introduction to underemployment and its social costs”,
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 32, pp.1-7.
Dooley, D., Prause, J., & Ham-Rowbottom, K. (2000). “Underemployment and depression:
Longitudinal relationships”, Journal of Health & Social Behavior,Vol. 41, pp.421-436.
Edwards, J.R. (1991), “Person-Job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and
methodological critique”, International Review of Industrial/Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 6, pp. 283-357.
Edwards, J. R. (1996). “An examination of competing version of the person-environment fit
approach to stress”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 292– 339.
Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T.N. (2009), “Understanding the benefits and costs of overqualification:
The moderating role of employee empowerment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94,
pp. 557-565.
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N., Peiro, J.M. and Truxillo, D.M. (2011a), “Overqualified employees:
Making the best of a bad situation for individuals and organizations”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 215–232.
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Peiro, J. M. and Truxillo, D.M. (2011b), “Overqualification theory,
research, and practice: Things that matter”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.
4 No. 2, pp. 260–267.
Feldman, D.C., and Maynard, D.C. (2011), “A labor economic perspective on overqualification”,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 233–235.
Fine, S. (2007), “Overqualification and selection in leadership training”, Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 61-68.
Fine, S., and Nevo, B. (2008), “Too smart for their own good? A study of perceived cognitive
overqualification in the workforce”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 346-355.
Finkelstein, L.M. (2011), “Overqualified as a euphemism for too old?”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 250–251.
25
Gallo, A. (2011), “Should you hire an overqualified candidate?”, available at
http://blogs.hbr.org/hmu/2011/03/should-you-hire-an-overqualifi.html?
cm_sp=most_widget-_-blog_posts-_-Should%20You%20Hire%20an%20Overqualified
%20Candidate%3F (accessed 4 January 2012).
Galt, V. (2006), “Entry-level frustration often greets grads; Statscan study finds 20%
overqualified for initial jobs”, The Globe and Mail (Canada), 7 April, B5.
Gangl, M. (2004), “Labor market structure and re-employment rates: Unemployment dynamics
in West Germany and the United States”, Research in social stratification and mobility, Vol.
20, pp. 185-224.
Hamilton, D.L. and Sherman, J.W. (1994), “Stereotypes”, in Wyer, Jr., R.S. and Srull, T.K.
(Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1-68.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: Time and
the effect of surface- versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 96-107.
Heilman, M. (1983), “Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model”, in Cummings, L.L. and
Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp.
269-298
Homan, T.R. (2011), “Skills ‘Mismatch’ Hurts U.S. Jobless as Openings Grow: Economy”,
available at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-21/skills-mismatch-hurts-u-s-
jobless-as-openings-grow-economy.html (accessed 15 June 2012).
Johnson, G.J. and Johnson, W.R. (2000), “Perceived overqualification and dimensions of job
satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134, pp. 537-555.
Johnson, W.R., Morrow, P.C. and Johnson, G.J. (2002), “An evaluation of a perceived
overqualification scale across work settings”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 136, pp. 425-
441.
Karren, R., & Sherman, K. (2012). “Layoffs and unemployment discrimination: A new stigma.”
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 8. 848-863.
Klimoski, R. J., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). “Person perception in organizations: An overview of
the field.” In London, M. (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. pp. 5-43.
Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-49.
26
Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000), “Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’
perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53, pp.
643-671.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group,
and person-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281–342.
Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1999), “The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp.
31-48.
Levitt, H. (2006), “Overqualified shut out”, National Post, 31 May, WK3.
London, M. (2001), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
Lowe, G.S. (2002), “Leveraging the skills of knowledge workers”, Isuma: Canadian Journal of
Policy, Vol. 3, pp. 79-86.
Luksyte, A. and Spitzmueller, C. (2011), “Overqualified women: What can be done about this
potentially bad situation?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 256–259.
Maltarich, M.A., Nyberg, A.J. and Reilly, G.P. (2010), “A conceptual and empirical analysis of
the cognitive ability-voluntary turnover relationship”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
95, pp. 1058-1070.
Maltarich, M.A., Reilly, G. and Nyberg, A.J. (2011), “Objective and subjective overqualification:
Distinctions, relationships, and a place for each in the literature”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 236–239.
Marklein, M.B. (2013), “Study: Nearly half are overqualified for their jobs”, available at:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/27/study-nearly-half-are-
overqualified-for-jobs/1868817/
Maynard, D.C. and Feldman, D.C. (2011), Underemployment: Psychological, economic and
social challenges, Springer, New York, NY.
Maynard, D.C., Joseph, T.A. and Maynard, A.M. (2006), “Underemployment, job attitudes and
turnover intentions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 509-536.
Maynard, D. C., Taylor, E. B., & Hakel, M. D. (2009). Applicant overqualification: Perceptions,
predictions, and policies of hiring managers. In O. T. Chen (Ed.), Organizational Behavior
and Dynamics (pp. 11-36). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
McKee-Ryan, F.M. and Harvey, J. (2011), “I have a job, but…: A review of underemployment”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37, pp. 962-996.
27
McKee-Ryan, F.M., Virick, M., Prussia, G.E., Harvey, J. and Lilly, J.D. (2009), “Life after the
layoff: Getting a job worth keeping”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 561–
580.
O'Connell, A. (2010), “The myth of the overqualified worker”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
88, p. 12.
O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D. and Barnett, W. (1989), “Work group demography, social integration,
and turnover”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 21–37.
Pfeffer, J. and Baron, J. (1988), “Taking the workers back out: Recent trends in the structuring of
employment”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 257-303
Pishwa, H. (2009) “Linguistic structures as cues for social cognitive functions” in Pishwa, H.
(Ed), Language and social cognition: expression of the social mind, New York : Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 1-22
Reb, J., Greguras, G. J., Luan, S., & Daniels, M. A. (2013). “Performance appraisals as heuristic
judgments under uncertainty” in Judgment and decision making at work, SIOP Organizational
Frontiers Series. Highhouse, S, Dalal, R. and Salas, E. (eds) pp. 13-36. Routledge.
Semeijn, J., van der Velden, R., Heijke, H., van der Vleuten, C. and Boshuizen, H. (2005), “The
role of education in selection and allocation in the labor market: An empirical study in the
Netherlands”, Education Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 449-477.
Sherman, J., Lee, A., Bessenoff, G. and Frost, L. (1998). Stereotype efficiency reconsidered:
Encoding flexibility under cognitive load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 75, pp. 589-606.
Shultz, K.S., Olson, D.A. and Wang, M. (2011), “Overqualified employees: Perspectives of older
workers”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 247–249.
Sierra, M.J. (2011), “A multilevel approach to understanding employee overqualification”,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 243–246.
Slack, T., & Jensen, L. (2011). “Underemployment among minorities and immigrants.” in
Maynard, D.C. and Feldman, D.C. (Eds.), Underemployment: Psychological, Economic and
Social Challenges, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 127-144.
Spence, A. (1974), Market signaling: Information transfer in hiring and related screening
processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
28
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of inter-group behavior”, in
Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Taylor, S. and Fiske, S. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Thurow, L.C. (1975), Generating Inequality, MacMillan, New York, NY.
Trumbull, M. (2013), “Have degree, driving cab: Nearly half of college grads are overqualified”,
available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0128/Have-degree-driving-cab-
Nearly-half-of-college-grads-are-overqualified
Wald, S. (2005), “Impact of overqualification on job search”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 26, pp. 140–156.
Weststar, J. (2011). “A review of women’s experiences of three dimensions of
underemployment.” in Maynard, D.C. and Feldman, D.C. (Eds.), Underemployment:
Psychological, Economic and Social Challenges, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 105-126.
Worthington, J. (2002), “Overqualified for a job? Here’s what they really mean”, available at:
http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2002/11/18/smallb3.html
Yaniv, I., Choshen-Hillel, S., & Milyavsky, M. (2011), “Receiving advice on matters of taste:
Similarity, majority influence, and taste discrimination”, Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 115, pp. 111-120.
Zenger, T.R. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989), “Organizational demography: The differential effects
of age and tenure distributions on technical communication”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 353-376.
29
