We’ve spent two episodes on this from the candidate’s seat. Episode 36 asked if taking a job you’re not ready for is a disaster. Episode 37 asked if being overqualified quietly sinks you. This throwback flips the chair. Now you’re the hiring manager, and there’s no perfect-fit candidate in the pile. Do you take the one who has too little or too much?
That was the motion Mary Elizabeth and I closed the series with, and listening back, it’s less about resume than it is about which risk you’re actually willing to manage.
On one side, the overqualified hire looks like the safer bet, until it isn’t.
They come with habits from other jobs, some useful, some not
Resentment about “settling” can turn into cynicism, and cynicism spreads across a team fast
You may be investing in someone who leaves the moment the market improves
On the other side, ruling out the overqualified candidate can cost you just as much.
You lose someone who could mentor and elevate everyone around them
Experienced hires often ramp up faster, which is real money saved
You assume desperation or a flight risk when the real reason might be a deliberate career change
Mary Elizabeth put it best: hiring managers can feel a bit like Goldilocks. This one’s overqualified, that one’s under-qualified, and you can never quite find the one that’s just right.
Most managers default to “safe” under-qualified, trainable, cheap. But safe isn’t the same as smart.
This isn’t really about who checks more boxes. The real question is: Are you hiring for the task list in front of you, or the bench strength you’ll need two years from now?
Those are two different hiring decisions wearing the same job posting.
Before You Decide
If you’re staring down this exact choice, ask yourself:
Am I retraining a skillset, or retraining an attitude?
Will this hire bring energy into the room, or resentment?
Can I actually offer growth here, or am I just filling a seat?
Am I solving for today, or building my succession pipeline?
If you’ve ever been passed over for being “too much” or “not enough” for a role, know it usually has nothing to do with your resume. It’s a manager weighing a risk they can’t fully see from the other side of the table.
There’s no universally right answer here, and that’s the point. Hire under-qualified and you’re betting on growth. Hire overqualified and you’re betting on impact. The mistake isn’t picking one versus the other but it’s not knowing which bet you’re actually making.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.