Australia is home to thousands of highly capable job seekers, many of whom bring decades of experience, leadership, and adaptability. Yet they’re routinely filtered out of the hiring process - not for lacking qualifications, but for having too many.

WorkPro’s latest survey of more than 2,000 job seekers reveals a compelling trend: experienced candidates were told they were overqualified for the roles they applied for. Many were overlooked, offered lower-level positions, or forced to pivot away from their areas of expertise.

This is more than a recruitment misstep. It’s a misreading of value. In a market facing ongoing labour shortages, overlooking capability in favour of comfort is a risk employers can no longer afford.

What defines an overqualified candidate?

An overqualified candidate is someone whose skills, experience, or education exceed the stated requirements of a job. These candidates often bring leadership, problem-solving ability, and institutional knowledge that could benefit a team immediately. However, they’re frequently viewed as a risk due to concerns about salary expectations, longevity, or perceived ambition.

To attract and retain job-ready talent, employers need to reframe their understanding of overqualification and explore how these candidates can contribute meaningfully, if given the chance.

Overqualification Isn’t the Issue - It’s How We Interpret It

The term “overqualified” has become a catch-all for assumptions. Employers worry such candidates may:

• Leave quickly for a more senior role
• Be hard to manage
• Feel unfulfilled or bored
• Expect higher compensation

But these concerns often go unchallenged. Our research shows that many overqualified applicants are seeking flexibility, purposeful work, or a fresh start. They are clear-eyed about their goals and motivated to contribute - just not always in the ways traditional hiring paths expect.

Some examples of overqualification:

• A senior finance executive applying for operational roles to support a career shift and better work-life balance.
• A project manager with global experience offered entry-level administrative roles, despite matching the original criteria.
• Skilled migrants applying to more junior roles due to lack of local experience, only to be told they’re “too senior” for those too.

These are not outliers. They represent systemic hiring habits that prioritise sameness over strength, and often to the detriment of team capability.

The Business Cost of Filtering Out Experience

Hiring managers are under pressure to fill roles quickly. In that environment, rejecting a candidate who seems “too senior” can feel safer than explaining a hire that doesn’t match the norm.

But here’s what gets missed:

• Reduced time to productivity: Experienced hires ramp up faster and ask better questions from day one.
• Natural leadership and mentoring: Overqualified professionals often support younger staff and elevate team performance.
• Longer-term stability: Contrary to assumptions, many are not looking to leap at the next offer, they want consistency and purpose.

Underemployment is already a systemic issue. More than one in four survey respondents said they were routinely offered lower-level roles that didn’t match their capability. For employers, this translates to underused talent, increased churn, and lost momentum across projects.