Hiring people who are overqualified for their role is usually framed in negative terms, with the consensus being that they will quickly grow bored in their role and jump ship. Of course, that may not always be the case, and indeed research suggests that if such people are surrounded by other overqualified individuals, then they can thrive. The researchers argue that the key is to surround people with peers of similar abilities.
As a heuristic, however, the wariness of overqualified candidates is an enduring one. Recent research from the University of California San Diego’s Rady School of Management suggests that gender can play a part in our perceptions of overqualified candidates, with men viewed as more likely to jump ship if they’re overqualified than women.
Flight risks
The researchers suggest that when men are overqualified, they’re viewed as more likely to move for better opportunities, which in turn makes it more likely that overqualified female candidates will be hired. This might be due to an implied assumption that the overqualified woman has suffered from gender discrimination in the past.
“Our research suggests that overqualified women and sufficiently qualified men will tend to be hired for the same jobs and ranks,” the researchers say. “This means female employees will be systematically more qualified than men who work in the same roles. Generally speaking, this means women aren’t getting the same return-on-investment for their qualifications compared to men and that women are likely to end up with jobs below their qualification level, relative to men. It also suggests firms might not be hiring women for positions that fully utilize their expertise and experience, which isn’t good for the firm’s performance in the long run.”
The researchers designed an experiment to allow comparisons to be made between equivalent candidates. The merits of the candidates were adjusted in terms of both their current rank and career experience, thus creating both a sufficiently qualified candidate and one that is overqualified for the job at hand.
The profiles of each candidate were then assessed by hiring managers to determine their fit for the job, with the profiles identical except for their names, which were either stereotypically masculine or feminine.
“Research shows that job candidates are evaluated on two main dimensions: their skills and qualifications and their commitment to applying those skills to benefit the firm,” the researchers explain. “Firms want to hire job candidates who are highly capable and likely to be successful in the position. But firms also want candidates who will be committed to helping the firm succeed over the long term.”
Incomplete information
Suffice to say, hiring managers have incomplete information when they’re assessing candidates, and so inferences tend to be made about both the commitment and capability of each candidate based on this incomplete information.
So, for instance, while an overqualified candidate may tick the box in terms of their capability, it creates a degree of uncertainty regarding their commitment. This might prompt the hiring manager to question the motivations of the candidate, which is where gender-based assumptions come into play.
When we make these implicit assumptions, it can be very easy to fall back on stereotypes and unconscious biases, and the study reminds us that hiring managers are certainly no different. What is interesting, however, is how the hiring managers attempted to rationalize their decision to hire an overqualified woman but not a similarly overqualified man.
“Hiring managers thought overqualified men would feel that they’re ‘too good for this job’ and leave as soon as something better came along,” the researchers say. “But they didn’t have this concern with overqualified women for two reasons. First, they fell back on gender stereotypes about women valuing relationships more, which quelled concerns about flight risk. Second, they rationalized overqualified women’s motivation and guessed they would be willing to take a relatively lower-ranking position in a new firm because they’re trying to leave a company that has unfair barriers to their advancement.”
Increasing awareness
So what can be done to improve matters? The authors believe that the key is to raise awareness of potential gender discrimination in how one’s qualifications are assessed during recruitment scenarios.
The results of the experiment clearly show that the opinion of candidates was clearly undermined by biased perceptions of male and female candidates, which can perpetuate inequalities even if biases are at the forefront of our minds. As such, employers should also look at systemic changes they can make to help reduce the effects of gender bias in recruitment.
“We find women need to have more qualifications than what is necessary for a job which is consistent with evidence documenting women’s relatively slower ascent up the organizational hierarchy compared to men,” they conclude.
