My best hires have been those that are overqualified, underqualified, or underpaid.
I say they are the best because they all outperformed the industries average.
Within 12 months they all got paid well above their industries average.
They didn’t rely on their looks or multiple degrees.
They were persistently helpful, stubbornly improving and consistently grinding away.
They didn’t care about the state of the economy, grass on the other side of the fence, or negative ninja’s.
It takes skill, some say intuition to spot these people.
They dont have CV that matches your job.
They are the ones that other employers miss out on, and then try to poach years later, when it’s too late.
Too late because loyalty has been created, someone believed in them and gave them a chance when others did not.
The “war on talent” is not a war.
It’s simply helping employers to see the diamonds they have in front of them when all ‘standard’ indicators suggest otherwise.
Could it be that those that say it’s ‘a war’ are robotically looking for pink unicorns.
For every 100 applicants, I see 4 diamonds covered in coal, around 20 applicants that could do the job to a reasonable standard, and 4 applicants that look great on paper but are booby traps for unsuspecting employers.