>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?

▲

sillygoose14 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's stating that overqualified individuals are likely to get worse performance evaluations than if that same individual was in a job they were qualified for (e.g. they try harder when challenged and earn better ratings for themselves on a comparative basis), but are still more likely to get promoted than qualified/underqualified peers.

	▲	phkahler 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They did say they outperform persons better aligned to the job even though they are less happy. I'm guessing their review is worse relative to the same person in a job they aren't over qualified for, as opposed to comparing to another person in the same job who is not overqualified.
	▲	DaveZale 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		for sure. sometimes getting stuff done involves stepping on the wrong person's toes, even if it was completely unintended. we've all been there before! a strong boss is required to smooth things out in those situations

▲

jimmygrapes 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My interpretation based on experience is that the underqualified individuals will often be more prone to volunteering, participation in clubs and committees, and politicking. The overqualified individuals also do this, but will likely be required to do "the real job" more often, leaving a less qualified individual more free to do those things.

Community involvement is a significant factor on both enlisted and officer performance reports. Gotta fill that section in no matter what, and if your section is poor it drags your overall score down.

However, promotion testing is purely knowledge and skill based. A good test taker can overcome the weight of lower performance report scores.

Just my opinion, though.

▲

colonCapitalDee 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think they mean worse performance evaluations relative to others with similar test scores, but more likely to be promoted compared to other people working the same job

▲

lazide 3 days ago | parent [-]

So cranky, maybe a pain in the ass, but still deliver the bacon?

▲

PaulHoule 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Could be the credentials themselves get you marked for promotion.

Monsieur Bouvier was a high school French teacher who was one time the only teacher with a PhD in my school district. He knew a lot about pedagogy and evaluation and certainly French but being in his classroom I think he lacked "soft skills" and was not good at dealing with bullshit which is a lot of what the teacher job entails.

He got promoted to assistant principal on the basis of his credentials and put in charge of gifted and talented programs, I think the honors program succeeded precisely because people above him bypassed his authority and overruled him quite often. He was not really a good leader or manager -- as assistant principal he got to do some of what he was good at but he had to do more of dealing with the bullshit that the first and second tier couldn't deal with.

My school had Roy Downton as principal for the longest time and he was really great at the job and hard to replace. There was a lot of jockeying for the position and Bouvier lost out and Mr. Adamankos finally won. I think Boivier's credentials got him a certain advantage in promotion but fortunely he didn't get promoted too far beyond his competence.

▲

boogieknite 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

im considering the possibility that the performance reviewer is harder on the overqualified candidate for any subjective assessment because expectations are greater or the goal of the lukewarm assessment is to motivate or challenge more capable candidates. an underqualified candidate only has to keep up to pass subjective assessment and the motivation is built-in

many people are immune to basic motivation tactics but im surprised how many of my peers i see influenced by reviews which seem mostly motivational, and occasionally political, to me

	▲	Sleaker 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Maybe not in the context of military as I haven't served, but in private sector reviews can often determine your bonuses.
	▲	dilyevsky 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		if performance reviews are based on peer feedback likely this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

▲

giantg2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most of the highly qualified people I know in the military have went reserves or left entirely due to poor leaders or bureaucracy. At ta certain point you can't change the system so you have to change. I'm guessing the ones who stay in that environment get demoralized by not being able to do what they believe is productive/best.

▲

siva7 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not about your specific context, but this contradiction has a name: Dilbert Principle

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

sdenton4 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ever seen Office Space?

▲

dkga 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, people that are better evaluated at a job should have a higher chance of staying in that job, no? (Only half joking)

▲

stefan_ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A Straight Shooter with Upper Management Written All Over Him

	▲	cwmoore 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Cool, clever, noted plagiarist, a true breath of fresh air.

▲

andy99 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Reminds me of the Gervais framework that someone made (as a kind of parallel to The Office) where you had three groups, confused, losers, psychopaths (don't read too much into the names). Confused work really hard at things they don't get recognized for (Dwight), psychopaths underperform and get promoted (Ryan).

▲

ripe 3 days ago | parent [-]

I believe this is the article. Discussed on HN earlier:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=881296

	▲	abadar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for sharing. This was a fascinating read.