Being 'over-qualified' in Close Protection...what does this really mean?

We've all heard the phrase, "He's/She's is Over-Qualified" for the job. I personally had never really given it a lot of thought, until recently when I entered a discussion forum where the topic arose. Then, I really started to contemplate what the phrase really meant or is intended to mean, and how it is applied to many EP professionals.

A number of really experienced EP folks were complaining that they had been passed over for opportunities, and had been told that they were 'overqualified'. This is understandably frustrating feedback for someone who has worked hard to be 'qualified', and then put that knowledge to good use in the field. For most of us, you would imagine that a given client would want THE most qualified person possible for their protective duties.

So, what's going on, when a qualified person is told they are 'over-qualified'? Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it relates to a few possible things, and it may not be what you think.

Before I talk specifically about EP, let me break it down a bit to understand the phrase 'overqualified', as it's utilized across all industries, not just the (EP) Executive Protection/Close Protection fields.

I'm going to argue that it doesn't actually mean what most of you think it means.

The term 'over-qualified' does not necessarily mean that you are above the role, or too experienced to do the role. In fact, from a recruiting and hiring perspective, it may not even relate to your qualifications at all!

It might just mean that you are not a good 'fit'.

Yes, you read that right. It may mean that the hiring manager or recruiter did not think you were a good fit for their position. Again, this is some tough love, but it is the truth. 'Over-qualified' is usually just another way of saying, you just aren't the right 'fit' for the team or the role. Saying that you are 'over-qualified' can be an easy 'out' for someone who just doesn't want to deal with explaining to you why the fit wasn't right.

The good news is, that the perception that you are not a 'good fit' is something you actually have quite a bit of control over.

You are likely not doing a good job conveying how, and why you are a good fit, in large part BECAUSE of your extensive experience. This has a lot to do with attitude, with the way you've crafted your resume and bio, and the way you interact with the folks interviewing and recruiting you.

In my experience, very few people in the Executive Protection field are truly 'over-qualified'. Most experienced operators have military or law enforcement experience, have some basic or beyond EP training, and then years of work in the field, maybe some certifications and other training thrown in, but not typically a whole lot more than that. The idea that an operator who has been in the industry for 10 years and has managed several teams, or programs is 'overqualified' for field work is ridiculous.

I want to hire the most experienced person I can get, and I know most companies do to.

And, I feel like it needs to be said, that we all want THE most qualified person for the job, for the most affordable price. No one wants a minimally qualified, or barely qualified person doing work for them. Of course, we want the most knowledge, the most experience, the top-tier service. That comes with someone who is experienced, knowledgeable and knows how to provide service.

'Over-qualified'? Probably not, but maybe the person with all of those great skills and experience is just a know-it-all, who wouldn't fit into your team....that doesn't mean they are overqualified. That means they aren't a good fit.

Just to make my point, let's compare what 'over-qualified' might mean in other fields and see if you get my jist.

1. Plumber- If you can hire a master plumber to come fix your drain, would you turn him away because he is 'over-qualified' to do such grunt work? Would you prefer a green plumber who might forget something and leave you with a leak? I think not. Master plumber it is, and no, they are not over-qualified.

2. Electrician- Would you prefer an apprentice to come wire your fuse box? Or would you like to see a fully licensed electrician be the one to install the box for your home? I'm guessing you'd rather see the fully licensed guy who's been on the job for 15 years do it, rather than to save a few bucks on the novice. No, they aren't over-qualified either.    

3. Doctor/Surgeon- If you had a choice in the person doing your open heart surgery, would you rather have the new guy fresh out of med school? Or the guy who has done 10, 000 surgeries in his career and now teaches classes on open heart surgery? Personally, I want the guy with the most experience opening my chest. Is he over-qualified? You could argue that, but I would counter that he is the 'best fit' for what I want and need!

Are you catching my drift? We all want the BEST person we can get for our jobs. But, we also want those great people to fit into our culture, our positions, and our existing teams.

Executive Protection/Close Protection Agent or Security Director-   Now let's apply the same concept we did to other professions. 

The EP Agent has worked on way to many protective details and his/her experience is vast, from working as an experienced single operative, multi-team operative, advance agent, Lead, Manger or even Security Director. Would this type of guy/girl be Overqualified? Well let's see...

When hiring a protective agent for a high value/net-worth person, with possible threat analysis of high, medium or low, we do not necessarily employ an EP agent with high, medium or low experience. We would hire the MOST experienced person we can get, right? As threat classifications frequently change with clients depending on variables like, travel locations, (POI) Person of Interest issues just to name a couple.  Would you say, "let's not hire a overqualified agent"? No, you don't even think that way! You want THE BEST agent you can find!

You would never say, "he is way over-qualified as a security driver, we just want a normal driver" .  Well, some clients do actually say that. But that's based on what they want to pay for (protection services vs. driving only).

You would not say, "he/she has to much experience and has traveled to many countries, we just want an EP agent that has only limited travel experience".

You would not say, " they have way to much situational awareness and attention to detail, let's find someone with less". 

You would not say, " we are traveling to a high threat area, but with his extensive tactical/threat training he is way overqualified". 

At this point I believe you see where I'm going with this..

Therefore, the word 'over-qualified' must mean something different when it comes to you not getting a job you want.  

I was fortunate enough to manage and work within a top-tier, high profile team in recent years. I had my own HR recruiting team, and became well versed in hiring and transitioning EP/CP personnel onto my team (see previous article/blogs about Recruiting EP) and working within the parameters of a corporate hiring process.

When recruiters utilized the term "Overqualified" concerning recruiting candidates, it generally came up after the initial phone screenings. In my experience conducting many, many phone screening myself, the term should almost always be replaced with "he or she is not the right fit" for the current team structure or the client themselves.  

NOT Overqualified!  That would be considered a misnomer in my opinion..

If we are being honest, "Fit" is really the correct term. 

Essentially what we were looking for, (whether a person had medium to vast senior/experience) is the RIGHT fit for the exact position being recruited for. Now, the 'fit' problems can sometimes arise when the manager and recruiter begin talking with an experienced person with past management experience. The Candidate themselves frequently have a difficult time conveying their own "FIT" when approaching a role that would now take place in a team setting (where they are no longer the lead or manager). 

An example would be when the initial position is listed as 'Executive Protection Agent"; the former manager or very experienced EP candidate will often feel really comfortable speaking with the current manager and recruiter. They might even have more actual experience than the current manager and recruiter, and immediately put themselves at the same level or above. They may make the mistake of touting their vast "Management Experience", to include all the stories of their mishaps and adventures of managing a team. The manager and recruiter, may actually really like the candidate but at the completion of the interview (due to time constraint) the candidate just failed to actually convey their fit to the desired position of EP Agent.  

The candidate had amazing experience, but didn't convey that they were really ready to fit the actual position advertised for. Are you still with me? They have the exact experience the company needs (and then some), but instead of making it a strength, they almost use it as a way to separate themselves from the role they are applying for. Some recruiters and managers may then utilized the term (by mistake) as " He's a great experienced guy, but "Overqualified" for the position listed, or just not the right fit. 

If I were to translate that back again, they are saying: "This guy has great experience, we're not sure he's going to be able to participate as a member of a team, and not try to be in charge, or undermine what we are doing at the management/leadership level". You see, hiring managers want quality employees...not another person telling them how things need to be done!

So, if you are job hunting, and have great experience, don't fall into the trap of interviewing for the role you used to have. If you go out for a job, make sure that your comments, your interview focus, and your applications materials match the position you are applying for today! I'm not saying dumb things down. I'm not saying play dumb. I'm saying that you need to think about how to showcase your experience in a way that clearly shows how it will add value to a position and a program, without insinuating that you could 'do it better', or would change it to suit the way you think it should be done.

These may sound like small nuances, but I'm telling you, the differences boil down to leaving a a hiring manager or recruiter with the impression that you would either be a 'good fit' or not. And if not, it may come down to them just saying, 'yeah, he/she was great, but just over-qualified'....

I suspect this is hitting most mid-career protection folks the hardest, and we need to do a better job with professional development to support people through career transitions.

There are ways to showcase your skills and experience that will win people over, instead of pushing people away.

Please push back if you think differently about this! I'd love to hear from you, and hear what your experience has been with this. What have you run into as you are interviewing for jobs lately? What sort of feedback have you been getting?