One of the fun things about Twitter is I can see a tweet linking to an article, read the article and think, “Huh, that’s interesting. Maybe I should blog about it,” see another tweet a few hours later linking to an article, read that article and see that it is a response to the first article, and think, “Huh, that’s really interesting. Now I really need to blog about it.” And I have my blog topic for the day.

The first article came to my attention in a tweet from Clue Wagon. It’s a New York Times story about an administrative assistant opening in Indiana. The job attracted hundreds and hundreds of applicants the same day it was posted — so many so quickly that the corporate recruiter and the hiring manager had to figure out how to weed through those applications. The first tactic was to discard every single person who was overqualified. The article says the recruiter “reason[ed] that they would leave when the economy improved.” And the hiring manager said, “We like to get the fair and middling talent that will work for the wages and groom them from within.”

WHAT?!

The first thing I thought at this point was that no mention is made of whether these “overqualified” applicants addressed this in their cover letter. That’s what job-search advice says to do if you know you’re going to look overqualified for a job. The second thing I though is wouldn’t it be smarter, if you’re looking to quickly eliminate a large amount of applicants, to eliminate those who are underqualified? Or, even better, put some sort of requirement in the job posting (reference a code, include a cover letter) that would allow you to see whether the applicant can follow directions?

And then, like a tweet sent from above, I read the second article, the response. I love the Internet. The response is a blog post from author and headhunter Nick Corcodilos. He makes the argument that this company eliminated the wrong section of applicants, which included a former IBM business analyst.

Imagine that: The economy has put some incredibly talented and skilled people on the market at a steep discount. These are smart people willing to take less money to do a lower-level job than they’re accustomed to. Buy low. Does this goofus know what that means? No, she’s worried that an “overqualified” hire will leave when the economy gets better.

Yo, Mamma! Anyone you hire is gonna leave for a better opportunity when the economy improves!

He also takes this company to task for seemingly not having the initiative to create a supportive work environment in order to easily benefit from this talent windfall.

My compliments to whoever hired that IBM business analyst. You got a bargain. If you treat him well and make good use of his skills (which you’d never get a shot at in a good economy), my guess is he might not even quit when the economy gets better...because you found good ways to capitalize on skills you couldn’t afford in a better economy...and maybe you were astute enough to create something better for him at your company so he’s stay. And even if he leaves, if you were smart you made profitable use of the time he was working for you. Nobody stays at your company forever, assuming your company is still in business in a coupla years...

I’d like to take the company to task for assuming every applicant who looks overqualified on paper wants exactly the same working environment he or she used to have with exactly the same duties. Maybe working at IBM was too long of a commute. Maybe working as a director of human resources was super stressful. Maybe working as a bank branch manager left someone completely unfulfilled. These people indeed do look overqualified on a resume, but the cover letter is where they should explain this. If these overqualified people didn’t write cover letters, trash the resume. If they didn’t address their overqualification in the cover letter, trash the resume. But don’t trash the resume under the assumption that these people will bolt as soon as something you assume is better comes along.

Now that I think about it, that assumption doesn’t speak highly of this company. These applicants were lucky they didn’t have to endure the subsequent 128-question interview. I wish the chosen hire the best of luck.