Agency says - way too senior

HashSlinging

Whats going on, couple of years ago companies were only hiring people who could "hit the ground running". Now Recruitment agency's are telling people they're too senior for particular roles. I've a 180 Km round trip to work and there a job going closer to home for 8k less, and the "agent" has told me im over experienced.

andrewh5

HashSlinging wrote: »

Whats going on, couple of years ago companies were only hiring people who could "hit the ground running". Now Recruitment agency's are telling people they're too senior for particular roles. I've a 180 Km round trip to work and there a job going closer to home for 8k less, and the "agent" has told me im over experienced.

Tell the agent it isn't his call to make. Insist on your CV being forwarded so the company can make the call. Also advise the agent you will report him to the Dept of Trade and Industry if he persists in his 'ageism'.

bullpost

Doesn't sound like an ageist issue?

Mena

I've been getting this for months now. "Sorry, you're over qualified"... Not just from the agents either, from the companies.

Meh

HashSlinging

I've asked him to explain what "way too senior" means. Hasn't replied back yet..

Oakbark

At the end of the day, companies use recruiters so that they can get exactly who they want. If they want a young person with __ experience the recruiter will not select you.

We had a recruitment consultant into our college before, and he basically said that if an employer wants a newly graduated worker, or a man instead of a woman, then they'll give the company what they want. Regardless of laws, etc, the recruiter is there to give the company's what they want, not the other way around.

If you can apply direct, try that approach. Otherwise, in the majority of cases, if they don't want someone of your profile (be it older, or too experienced), you won't be selected.

herya

First of all, companies don't want to appoint people who will leave as soon as they get another better offer (which is what they should be looking for in the first place). Another common reason is that you'd be supervised by a person who is more junior in years and experience which in most cases is a conflict waiting to happen and most companies would avoid that. If the recruiter was given such instructions they will not be able to put your application forward. Actually it's a good sign that the recruiter is working towards specifications and is honest with you about it.

It may happen that the company will consider an overqualified candidate but only if they give very good genuine reasons for downgrading not just "I'll take anything in this market" which could change tomorrow.

cerise

Herya,

I agree that your explanation of why companies don't want “over qualified " people to apply for many advertised positions has been very common place in our society. I congratulate you on being so frank.

I do not agree that managers are correct to adopt this approach in general as they are based on out-dated assumptions*, age discrimination and ultimately they are not getting the "best candidates" for the job which would ultimately benefit companies in the short to medium term.

1. In these recessionary times, there are huge numbers of efficient, accomplished people who have been made redundant through no fault of their own. These ex workers should be given a chance of further employment not just those under 30 years old. " better paid jobs" are so thin on the ground.. believe me they will be happy to stay and won't be running off to Oz or South America as soon as they have built up a bit of cash.

2. Another common reason is that you'd be supervised by a person who is more junior in years and experience which in most cases is a conflict waiting to happen and most companies would avoid that.

Agree this can be a problem when someone younger is appointed over someone older who both work in the same company. It would most likely not be the case when an older employee is appointed from outside. Most experienced people are happy to work for a good talented manager no matter what age they are, particularly if they have been unemployed for a period of time.

3. If an overqualified or mature candidate wants to downgrade, they have thought through it and have good reasons for seeking the position. Big salary & the major responsibilities that come with it may not be what they are seeking but merely to have a job that they can do well & easily affording them a better work-life balance. Would these reasons be good enough for a company to consider an career change may be another reason for down grading

In my opinion, Hiring companies should find out for themselves what the reasons are from these candidates and interview them.

Lastly, I'm genuinely curious to know can "Overqualified" also mean "more senior/experienced/mature"?

Ironbars

HashSlinging wrote: »

Whats going on, couple of years ago companies were only hiring people who could "hit the ground running". Now Recruitment agency's are telling people they're too senior for particular roles. I've a 180 Km round trip to work and there a job going closer to home for 8k less, and the "agent" has told me im over experienced.

If your over qualified then your not the right guy for the job. Its harder to re-train someone who has vast experience in a field than to train a new employee with less experience. Companies know what they want and will recruit accordingly.

leeroybrown

It's a company's decision to hire whomever they want. It often doesn't make sense for a company to hire someone with much more experience when they can get someone who can do that job equally well, will probably cost less and is a lot less likely to leave due to boredom or be head hunted to another job in a short period of time. Recruitment is generally an expensive and time consuming business and quite often what best serves a company's needs is not a more experienced candidate.

I've been involved in shortlisting and interviewing a number of times where more experienced candidates have applied. The majority of the time they haven't proven to be a suitable candidate and always for good reasons.

EDIT: Before some pedant points it out, obviously I mean whomever they want so long as the don't discriminate on any of the legally specified grounds.

herya

cerise wrote: »

1. In these recessionary times, there are huge numbers of efficient, accomplished people who have been made redundant through no fault of their own. These ex workers should be given a chance of further employment not just those under 30 years old. " better paid jobs" are so thin on the ground.. believe me they will be happy to stay and won't be running off to Oz or South America as soon as they have built up a bit of cash.

You're right, many rules go out of the window in this current situation and many employers have learnt how to shop around. But still they are looking for the best match and not the most senior one.

cerise wrote: »

Agree this can be a problem when someone younger is appointed over someone older who both work in the same company. It would most likely not be the case when an older employee is appointed from outside. Most experienced people are happy to work for a good talented manager no matter what age they are, particularly if they have been unemployed for a period of time.

I didn't mean senior=older here, I only look at the level of professional seniority. If the company is looking for an assistant Project Manager to hel the existing one and they accept a downgraded senior Programme Manager for this role do you seriously believe they will get along well with the Project Manager? While at the same time the company has a choice of properly qualified junior PMs for this assistant role?