Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

Recently KMOV’s Vickie Newton’s blog mentioned the problem of job applicants being told that they are overqualified for the job for which they have applied.  We’ve heard this for years, but never have so few jobs been offered to so many, for so little–to paraphrase Churchill.  One must conclude that 1)the applicant actually would like to be seriously considered for the position, and 2)the company would be obtaining a more highly skilled employee for less.  So where’s the beef?

I talked to a large employer about this, and he spouted the typical conventional wisdom, which is, “if we hire an overqualified person, then they will be either bored or resentful, and they might leave in a year or two.”  I asked him what his current retention rate was, and he stated, “about 2.5 years.”

“So,” I smugly stated, “the idea of the long-term employee is just a myth.  People leave anyway. “  He shrugged and indicated that he guessed that there was some truth in that.  Not to mention points 1 and 2 above.

Just yesterday one of my clients expressed an interesting dilemma.  Her previous job title was Executive Producer (of large-scale corporate events).  She lives in southern California, where everybody knows somebody in the movie business, but nobody seems to know anybody who can actually help you to get in to the movie business.  A couple of recruiters saw her resume and one asked her what movies she had produced?

“No, I’m sorry, you have misunderstood.  I’m not a movie producer.  I’m an event producer.”

“Oh, now I see.  Did you produce  Michael Jackson’s memorial?  That was beautiful–you must be very talented,” exclaimed the enthusiastic recruiter.

“No, I’m afraid I’m still not being clear.  I produced new model automotive shows.”

“Car shows?”  questioned the recruiter.  “I’ve been to a car show.  But the cars just sit there.  They don’t have any lines, or sing, or even honk.  What is there to produce?”

My client is seeking help from another recruiter.

My advice was to alter the job title to something less idiosyncratic.   She asked if this was OK to do.  I explained that it would be doing both you and the target companies a favor by creating a title that was more representative of what you actually did, and more understandable to the hiring managers and HR people, who are the ones who invent titles.

Did you know that in very large companies there is usually a quiet division doing very secretive work in an isolated area of the building, whose sole job is to create position titles which are logically unrelated to the position they are supposed to describe?  This conscious obfuscation is yet another way for bureaucrats to deflect accountability that should be inherent in the position.  Which is why this division has so much inordinate power.  If a RIF occurs and any of the positions occupied by denizens of this secretive organization within an organization are slated for the chopping block, they simply decree themselves new job titles, thereby escaping the Grim Reaper of Employment.  Now there’s a group of  employees who have really good retention.

I suppose the moral of this story is that if you are not lucky enough to work in the Department of Titles, just act dumber than you are, and your chances of getting hired will improve.