The Supreme Court this week gave an interesting decision on a petition that had been doing the rounds of courts over the last seven years. The petition had been filed by a group of engineers, who had applied for the job of a line superintendent’s Grade-I (BPS-15) at the Lahore Electric Supply Company (Lesco) that required a diploma of Associate Engineer (DAE).

LESCO had rejected their applications, stating they were overqualified so the engineers formed a group and filed a petition in the Lahore High Court that they should be hired as they could do the job.

Interestingly, the single judge of the LHC agreed with the petitioners and instructed Lesco to hire them. As a result the electricity company challenged the verdict before a division bench of the LHC that disagreed with the original judgement and felt the petitioners were overqualified and did not meet the requirements of the job. This time the petitioners challenged the judgement in the Supreme Court, which this week agreed with the LHC division bench.

So ends what has been a global question for some time and will remain so for eternity. Should people overqualified for jobs be considered at all, let alone work in a lower grade than what they have been educated for or have experience beyond its requirement.

In its judgement, the Supreme Court brought up some interesting points. The SC judges believed that “Recruitments….are to be made strictly in accordance with the criteria in the advertisement and the recruitment policy of the respondent company. Any deviation therefrom, would allow entry to ineligible persons and deprive many eligible candidates.”

They also felt it would have a social impact and wrote that “it will cause injustice to those applicants who possess a DAE [diploma of associate engineer], the prescribed qualification in the advertisement, because the applicants with a higher qualification would seek automatic preference based on their qualification even when such qualification is not prescribed in the advertisement.”

A question arises if that is being
discriminatory. That if the person can do the job why is s/he being not considered just because of their qualification. In
today’s corporate world, where discrimination has a wide definition, this can cause problems for the human resource (HR) though this judgement by the Supreme Court of Pakistan can now be quoted by the managements of other countries too.

But coming back to the issue at hand. Leaving aside the legal aspects of the SC decision, should someone more qualified be given a position below his qualification, skill level and experience? Let’s look at the positives and pitfalls of doing that.

Do they have staying intentions?

If someone has opted for a job lower than the qualification or experience that s/he has, the question has to be asked whether they will, from day one, continue to look for a job that suits their credentials and commensurate salary. I made the mistake once of hiring someone very qualified as CFO. The salary was attractive but at his level he could get three times more in a bigger organisation. He opted for my offer, saying he wanted to work in a medium sized company, as it was a greater challenge.

However, three weeks into the job, he came to me saying he’d got this great offer from one of the biggest Pakistani conglomerates with an investment portfolio that dwarfed ours. Turns out he had been negotiating with them even before he accepted our offer. Couldn’t begrudge him, as it was a top position but it made me very careful not to hire someone who is bigger than the job.

No meeting of the minds

In other cases, the reality will hit home too when the person feels at a different maturity and intellectual level than his/her colleagues. Yes, there can be one or two in the team who could be the same age but unlikely that some concepts could be understood by them, considering lower level of academia or exposure.

That often leads the less qualified to socialise together and the overqualified one could feel a bit isolated. Not good for the teamwork.

This can get worse, if the age difference is too high. I have seen departments, where someone who had retired from a government organisation took up a contract job at two levels below his competence and experience level. Except that it was a company with an average age in mid-30s and his team members were mostly 20 years or younger.

Every time there was something of a brainstorming session he would bring his experience into it, which unfortunately was dated and did not apply to the current situation. Also, he would at times bring so much experience into it that every option seemed undoable because of what could go wrong. Yes, often you need to go ahead with some unknowns that often sort themselves out by the time you reach them. 

The boss is less experienced than you

In some fields this can be a problem, otherwise there are several instances when a younger and less experienced chief executive officer has been brought in or promoted over senior colleagues. In finance or engineering, where qualification certificates continue to be gained, this can cause friction.

For instance if an FCA, a fully certified Chartered Accountant, takes up a job, where his/her boss has less experience and not yet an FCA or has not passed all the exams, how you treat an entry or a tax issue can likely mean that the subordinate will know more than the boss and can look odd in a departmental meeting.

Of course, it can be done well with the boss acknowledging the experience and qualification and giving the benefit of doubt but these instances will be rare.

There are of course benefits of having overqualified people for a position less than their caliber. With the extra years of experience and skill they bring in, the decision making at their level becomes quicker.

There can also be significant cost savings, especially in big scale projects where even a one per cent saving at various levels can translate into millions.

The training time and cost can be reduced too when you have an executive that already had the requisite skills that others in the same level need to be taught.

And while I mentioned that in brainstorming sessions or a meeting, where an idea has to be evaluated, they bring up points that make the idea risky, they can also contribute with their experience in how to make the idea work, especially when others are struggling to find a solution.

Best time to hire an overqualified person for the job is when you have a time bound project. With their experience they are likely to help complete the project on time, the colleagues know this is not a permanent relationship they have to manage and the overqualified person is likely to last the life of the work.

Yes, having an overqualified executive can have its downside but if handled intelligently can be an asset for the organisation.

(The writer is a corporate consultant, coach and former CEO with over 35 years of experience in leadership, building brands and organisational strategy. He now advises on business strategy, marketing, HR and media management).