> 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?

It's not about the system working or not, it's more about whether it's well calibrated. You'd expect performance to scale linearly with skill (f(skill) = job_quality * x), but the data look more like a sigmoid: overqualified people disengage and never hit their full potential. Underqualified folks aren't that far behind their peers, yet in a better-matched role, they'd perform better with less effort.

I find it kinda sad, honestly. But these are aggregated statistics, I still think people can overcome their perceived limitations, I'm certain some of the underqualified folks are the ones that drag that curve up a lot.

"patterns suggest that overqualified individuals are less motivated, but still outperform others in their same job."

At least they aren't using engagement as a core part of the rating like many companies do - you can outperform on metrics and still be rated low because of your intangible and subjective "engagement".

[flagged]