An over-qualified job candidate can easily be a value-added employee, bringing extra skills, experience, potential, and growth to your workplace. Disregarding these potential employees, who want to work for you, is seldom good business sense. Rather it may reflect a business that is static, a business that isn’t looking ahead, or perhaps even a business that believes it lacks the potential to keep such employees.
We are in a new business world. The ‘New Economy’ is slim, trim, and mean. The workforce is aging, with a quarter of the U.S. workforce being 55 or over in the next six years. It is a ‘World Economy’ with competitors both around the corner and across the globe, so you want and need more from your employees. Certainly you want to avoid job hoppers; a three month employee is a poor investment. But in the U.S. employees change jobs an average of every 3-5 years so don’t bank on long term investments either.
Would a person finding a great deal on a car say, "No, I budgeted for a car worth X dollars and this deal is much better so I will not take it”? How many parents say, "No, you are just a little too good to marry my child and I want them to aim a little lower"? Yet this seems to be the approach of many businesses today.
Skepticism is healthy, an over abundance of caution is not. If something seems too good to be true perhaps it is, but good breaks do happen especially in the ‘New Economy.’ A smart business will get the best employee possible. And the best employee brings value-added worth to the table.
We have all heard the speculation that "He is over-qualified!" or "She will get bored with the job!" or "They will probably move on quickly." These words suggest an employer has not taken into account how the position, or their business, can be expanded. It implies they don't have much faith in their organization being compelling enough to keep their employees engaged or wanting to grow their department, the business, or themselves. Sadly, it does suggest a philosophy that it is sufficient to plug someone into a system without enough thought as to how the system can be improved.
Yes, they might leave. But they might stay. Keeping a great employee can be a challenge for an employer. It may be part of the price for having and maintaining a great team.
When half of employees turn over every four years is it really too great a risk to say, "What if they stay for three years but I think they are bright and inventive enough to permanently raise the bar for the position by 10 or 20 percent?” You might be afraid they will tire of the particular job in two years, but they will know your business and may be ready to be promoted up a level, as an experienced and proven employee, should the need arise.
There are a dozen reasons why an over-qualified employee might be best for your firm, contributing what is asked of their job description while exercising other skills as extra resources. Perhaps they are passionate about the type of job, or business, or your specific company. My two best jobs underpaid but offered less tangible rewards to me that others did not value. Perhaps your company offers a breath of fresh air or a special stability to them. Perhaps the employee’s partner earns most of what they need, but your benefits package is their big payoff. Perhaps the job you posted is the one that will just make it easy for them to crawl out of bed in the morning.
When your team comes to you and says, "We have identified a great candidate," ask these critical questions:
1) Did we have anyone apply who you considered over-qualified? If not, why is our company not attracting stronger candidates?
2) What value-added skills would these over-qualified candidates bring? Can they do other projects for us? Have you considered what they can do to expand our business? Can we hand them other duties off our ‘Wish List’?
3) Why label someone as over-qualified rather than feel they could add value to our enterprise? Is this simply an over abundance of caution?
And the most important question:
4) Would you bring me any over-qualified resumes so I can make a quick review of them before we make a decision?
Yes, having a short term employee can be disruptive and expensive; that is a loss. An employee who does the job, and just the job, is neither a gain nor a loss; that is business as usual. Having employees who bring extra value to your company is a business growth opportunity.
The truth is you can't be sure why someone is applying for a particular job any more than you can be sure someone will flourish in the position. Every new hire is a question mark. But if you hire the employee bringing value-added skills to the table you are probably taking a good business risk. Imagine all your employees able to give what you currently consider 115%. Now imagine where that puts your business five years from now (the answer is a whopping 201%).
Over-qualified equals value-added equals a darn good business practice

http://chibuezeseth..com/2015/02/over-qualified-vs-value-added-short-and.html

Thumbs up for the writer, thanks to the OP for sharing.