Tall poppy syndrome in Australia - does it exist or is it just a myth?

• 

  scotty on 06/06/2015 - 14:01

  +11

  I don't think it's tall poppy syndrome here.

  In your case, if I am the hiring manager, I would be worried that the over-qualifying applicant is going to be bored at work and would jump ship as soon as the next opportunity becomes available — something a business might not want to risk after invested on training, HR, etc.

• 

  chompy78 on 06/06/2015 - 14:38

  +5

  When I hire people, their qualifications like degrees are very secondary. Their ability to work with othersome is far more important.

  Discrimination plays big part. Eg hiring a male Indian is very unlikely due to the number of women in the team. Their almost universal disdain they have creates a nightmare despite their qualifications.

  Some qualifications are also close to worthless. I know a lot if people with multiple degrees who still couldn't do even an basic entry level job.

  Tall poppy is more linked to people who are successful or popular.

• 

  Lysander on 06/06/2015 - 15:36

  But how is a person supposed to get any more relevance work experience if they are not given a chance to prove themselves and acquire such experience.

  It seems to me that this is a catch22 situation.

  Also, if what chompy78 says is true would that not mean that the whole education industry in Australia is blown up, deceiving in that they say one has a better chance with a degree when in fact many employers might think like chompy78 and consider certain degrees useless?
  Is the government (and the university sector) then not misleading by encouraging people to get qualifications and degrees if after incurring debts they are virtually useless or hinder you in getting a job for the reasons mentioned by scotty?

  It seems to me to be a fairly vicious endless cycle.

• 

  chompy78 on 06/06/2015 - 15:53

  Apologies for not being more clear. The qualification may be needed but not that relevant to when deciding between applicants.

  Eg out of 200 engineers that applied, the short list included those with and without degrees.
  For another engineer role that needed the qualification, (for sign offs) it was not a deciding factor between the 5 short listed people.
  For hiring of two graduates, where they got their degree was irrelevant. It was their extra circular work and interview that decided it.

• 

  Ughhh on 06/06/2015 - 17:28

  +1

  How do you know those people weren't given the job due to their degrees and not their crappy poorly written cv and cover letter? Some sample cover letters from whirlpool I've seen show how up themselves they are.

• 

  chompy78 on 06/06/2015 - 17:36

  -1

  Because I hired them?

  • 

    Ughhh on 06/06/2015 - 19:25

    Idk who you're replying to since you're not utilising the reply button. But if you are…. My comment wasn't in response to yours chompy, it was to ops, otherwise I would've made the reply like this.

• 

  davidmwilliams on 07/06/2015 - 07:34

  +2

  You do not know the reason they were not employed.

  Indeed, having a Masters in Telecommunications isn't necessarily an advantage in what is fundamentally a sales and team leader role for a retail outlet which just so happens to sell a subset of telecommunications products.

  Maybe your friend can design a network but does he have proven experience in setting and exceeding retail sales targets?

  • 

    Lysander on 07/06/2015 - 15:38

    -1

    We know because on some occasions that was the feedback received (only orally, unfortunately not in writing).
    I agree with you but in the cases I am referring to the applicants had the relevant work experience and degrees and were probably better qualified than the store manager which is what leads me to believe that the store manager would have an interest in not getting somebody in who is more qualified than he is and can easily take his or her job sooner or later.

    In one instance, a solicitor who had gone into legal research for the last five years applied for a research position with the government for a 12 months position. No degrees were required but the applicant had several legal degrees, including two research degree directly relevant to the role. The oral feedback given was that the successful applicant had no degree but some limited experience with dealing with court registries.
    Of course the applicant who worked several years as solicitor also had this experience dealing with court registries on a daily basis.
    After a bit of research (after all that is what he is extremely good at) the applicant found out that (a) the position went to a relative of a member of the selection committee with no previous research experience or degree, and (b) that the immediate superior to the role was a lot less qualified than himself, also not having a legal degree.

    So I guess you guys do not believe that people are intimidated by better qualified people and are not reluctant to hire them.
    I am not really sure what I can tell or do to help the people as they have both the experience and work experience and the cvs and cover letters are checked and tuned by specialists before being sent out.
    Well, thanks for your opinions. Maybe the only option is to dumb down their resumes and see how that goes - cannot be worse and will be a good social experiment.
    That does make me feel a little bit as if the superior feels intimidated by people better qualified than him.

    P.S.: With government jobs, they need to give you feedback which is why the applicant knows about the "registry experience" excuse.

• 

  piggyfund on 07/06/2015 - 19:09

  I have done a lot of study and when I got my last job everyone commented on how I must have lied on my CV, my resume is legit but it appears people just always assume.. Sometimes places have to advertise for a job but they already have someone in mind or if people are over qualified they may get bored and leave.

• 

  sd4f on 08/06/2015 - 17:20

  It's basically as Scotty said, they don't want someone over qualified, because the job will probably be transient to them while they look for better work. But with that said, it's also indicative of the job; there's no career path with it, there is no intention to promote nor improve that position over time as they're knowingly looking for some automaton who is happy and won't play market dynamics with their skills.

  Many positions in Australia involve menial work and while we keep on hearing about productivity increases, the reality is someone still has to do the crap jobs, and we don't have a Mexico next door to us which supplies us with a steady stream of migrants who are willing to do shit work for shit pay. So all that's happening is that you get burger flippers with science degrees, engineers working at banks and the realisation that you probably would have been better off in your career if you'd taken the head start in the work force rather than sit at uni doing little, learning a degree which is filled mostly with crap anyway.

• 

  baker bob on 08/06/2015 - 18:01

  The job you describe is a sales and management role, where are all the sales and leadership related qualifications? MBA, Masters and degree isn't going to help you manage staff and sell products / services.

  Maybe you were trying to address the over educated and under qualified issue but chose a bad example. With regards to that issue, over educated people (and there are many) are going to leave the second they have some experience, why would anyone waste resources training them.

  Secondly, people like that usually have a chip on their shoulder which disrupts the work environment and makes them very difficult to train as they are always questioning everything you tell them.

  They also show poor decision making skills by failing to balance their career between experience and education. They are usually not the type of people that perform well in the work environment.

  There are exceptions to all rules of course.

• 

  Baghern on 10/06/2015 - 09:34

  I've been part of interviewing processes.

  With over qualified or qualified in different areas, there's a strong perception of that person looking at the role as a 'transient' role. A stepping stone into the company.

  Being a stepping stone isn't a problem in itself, but the perception that you don't intend to take the role seriously or quickly jump up/out is. ie We want someone who will be here for at least 2 years, no 1.

  If you apply for roles that you are over qualified for, you need to make the focus on the role and how you apply to it, and take focus off the parts that aren't applicable to the role ie your qualifications, they should be a note on your resumé not a focal point.

  And as other as stated, this has nothing to do with Tall Poppy Syndrome

  • 

    Lysander on 10/06/2015 - 11:46

    Just out of interest. Why is it then that so many qualified people from overseas have problems finding a sponsored job when one of the conditions to get permanent residency is to stay in a job for at least two years?
    If companies want people who stay a certain minimum amount, this would be a win-win situation for everybody. I would have happily stayed 2+ years in a job below my qualifications if I had had an easier run for the visa as a return.
    I know that for some positions and areas there is a market testing requirement but not for all. Those are the jobs I refer to with my question.

    • 

      sd4f on 11/06/2015 - 09:37

      It's probably because the problem is a lot more nuanced than what is mostly discussed in the media, for instance. You would have to look at what liabilities the sponsor holds themselves to, when they undertake a sponsorship. I don't know at all.

      Next, there's the whole problem with the jobs market and what really is in shortage, versus what analysts have observed and found that we employ a lot less STEM people when compared with other economies, and call that a shortage, just as an example. It's not a shortage when our market is saturated with scientists and engineers, yet we employ significantly less of them than Germany or the USA. What may be the case is that companies don't want to pay those workers what they're worth and are trying to get workers from outside the system, who will be happy with less.