Would you agree that, if Bob was more politically skilled, he would be a better fit for this position? (E.g. he would be better able to convince Carol to do this ambitious project.)
If so, then maybe you want to say that he is âoverqualified in technical knowledge and underqualified in political abilityâ or something, but chalking the problem up to being âoverqualifiedâ across-the-board seems misleading.
If you are a junior employee then sure, itâs your managers responsibility to listen to your ideas. But as you become more senior, it becomes more of your responsibility to get buy-in. E.g.:
One of Steveâs direct reports told a story about a debate he had with Steve. Eventually, he backed down not because Steve had convinced him, but because he was afraid to keep arguing the point. When events proved that Steve had been wrong in his position, he stormed into his employeeâs office and demanded, âWhy did we do this??â When his employee pointed out that it had been Steveâs call, Steve exclaimed, âWell, it was your job to convince me I was wrong, and you failed!ââWhat Steve Jobs Taught Me About Debate in the Workplace
Would you agree that, if Bob was more politically skilled, he would be a better fit for this position?
Yes⌠and no?
Yes: it would be better re. âoverhead requiredâ. If Bob foresees Carolâs objections and takes her out to lunch and convinces her, this could save a bunch of management/âboard time.
⌠and no: maybe Carolâs concerns were legitimate and Bob was just very convincing, but not actually right. Fade to: Bob becomes CEO and the org is thriving but itâs not really following the original mission anymore.
Iâm guessing Steve Jobs wanted people to convince him if (and only if) they were right. âRightâ meaning not just factually correct but probably also whatever Steve thought was good (whatever that was).
So maybe if Bob was more politically skilled and also aligned with the mission of the organization? But aw geez now weâre back to how itâs hard to hire people aligned with the org. Hmm, that would probably cruxy too. Not sure how to measure it.
Ahâmaybe your post is making the point âif they would make a good senior hire, it seems fine to hire them in a junior positionâ. Maybe I was getting confused by the term, Iâve seen people labelled âoverqualifiedâ when they are above average on a few dimensions but not all of them.
Iâd have a harder time steel-manning a counterpoint to that. Maybe something about it not being stimulating enough so risking turnover⌠but that doesnât hold much water in my mind.
Congrats on the comment prize!
Would you agree that, if Bob was more politically skilled, he would be a better fit for this position? (E.g. he would be better able to convince Carol to do this ambitious project.)
If so, then maybe you want to say that he is âoverqualified in technical knowledge and underqualified in political abilityâ or something, but chalking the problem up to being âoverqualifiedâ across-the-board seems misleading.
If you are a junior employee then sure, itâs your managers responsibility to listen to your ideas. But as you become more senior, it becomes more of your responsibility to get buy-in. E.g.:
Yes⌠and no?
Yes: it would be better re. âoverhead requiredâ. If Bob foresees Carolâs objections and takes her out to lunch and convinces her, this could save a bunch of management/âboard time.
⌠and no: maybe Carolâs concerns were legitimate and Bob was just very convincing, but not actually right. Fade to: Bob becomes CEO and the org is thriving but itâs not really following the original mission anymore.
Iâm guessing Steve Jobs wanted people to convince him if (and only if) they were right. âRightâ meaning not just factually correct but probably also whatever Steve thought was good (whatever that was).
So maybe if Bob was more politically skilled and also aligned with the mission of the organization? But aw geez now weâre back to how itâs hard to hire people aligned with the org. Hmm, that would probably cruxy too. Not sure how to measure it.
Sure, those other things are also ways in which I would say that Bob is underqualified, not overqualified.
Ahâmaybe your post is making the point âif they would make a good senior hire, it seems fine to hire them in a junior positionâ. Maybe I was getting confused by the term, Iâve seen people labelled âoverqualifiedâ when they are above average on a few dimensions but not all of them.
Iâd have a harder time steel-manning a counterpoint to that. Maybe something about it not being stimulating enough so risking turnover⌠but that doesnât hold much water in my mind.