العنوان
NA
Abstract
The term ``overqualified'' remains common in recruitment, yet its validity as a pre-entry rejection category is increasingly difficult to defend. Using a critical integrative review of secondary evidence, this article examines whether ``overqualified'' remains a defensible recruitment judgement in contemporary labour markets. The review integrates research on overqualification and underemployment with personnel-selection validity, person–job fit, employer perceptions, skills-based hiring and global evidence on labour-market mismatch. The synthesis shows that overqualification remains useful for diagnosing post-entry mismatch, but the recruitment label is often conceptually loose, weakly predictive, context-sensitive and vulnerable to bias when applied without validated job-related evidence. The article develops an evidence-based recruitment framework for apparent overqualification that replaces the label with five evidence-based questions concerning role requirements, candidate motivation, compensation alignment, capability utilisation and retention risk. Its contribution is not to deny that qualification mismatch occurs, but to show that ``overqualified'' is no longer defensible as an informal recruitment rejection label when used without job-related evidence. The article advances theory by separating mismatch diagnosis from rejection rhetoric and offers practical standards for more transparent, fair and defensible hiring decisions.
Article Language
English
Recommended Citation
Ghunaimi, Hisham Al
(2026)
"Overqualified or Misjudged? Rethinking Selection Validity in Recruitment,"
AUIQ Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 2:
Iss.
2, Article 5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70176/3106-7557.1020
Available at:
https://ahss.alayen.edu.iq/journal/vol2/iss2/5
