HN Reader

> patterns suggest that overqualified individuals are less motivated, but still outperform others in their same job. Underqualification results in a polar opposite set of findings, suggesting these individuals are motivated to put forth more effort, but still struggle to compete when judged relative to others.

So... the system works?

At least within the very constrained universe of what the Air Force is doing/testing for?

You should always - always - get jobs that you are underqualified for. Because someone even more underqualified than you will get that job.

I was a mismatched match for my first job and it led to a career in IT. My qualifications were that I was young, cheap and didn't know any better.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34215/w342... this is the direct link to the paper.

I wonder how that compares to the peter principle?

basically "people rise to the level of their own incompetence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#The_Peter_Prin...

Well I worked as a civilian in that branch a decade ago. Purely technical work, and I got the assigned tasks done in about 7 months.

You also have to look at the culture of the place- and although that varies from base to base, whether or not someone is more or less qualified may be completely irrelevant. Cultural fit is very important, for example. Favoritism may be rampant, just like any other workplace. High performers who concentrate solely on the relevant tasks have less time to make the rounds around the office, playing petty politics, just like anywhere.

>We find that being overqualified for a job causes worse performance evaluations...and these individuals are more likely to be promoted.

Can someone explain this apparent contradiction, specifically in the context of the Air Force/military?

I had job mis-matches for years, and it helped me. I could do most of my work for almost all of my roles in half or less time. I Used the extra time to start successful businesses and now a successful consulting career.

I'm confused by the wording "we create simulated job assignments"

Was this entire study based on real data or a simulation?

"Combined, these patterns suggest that overqualified individuals are less motivated, but still outperform others in their same job. Underqualification results in a polar opposite set of findings, suggesting these individuals are motivated to put forth more effort, but still struggle to compete when judged relative to others."

Did Captain Obvious wrote this working paper or all NBER research is like this?

Job mismatch can really set someone back early in their career. It's crucial to find the right fit from the start.

But sometimes, those mismatches lead us to discover what we truly love.

Every detour can be a learning opportunity.

While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think it applies to high executive positions in the private and/or public sectors.

Too under qualified is still a continuous train wreck…

It would be really interesting to know to what extent their definitions of being over or under qualified is an approximation of IQ test scores. IQ tests have lovers and loathers but a correlation or otherwise would say they are measuring something or not…