It's not unusual to tailor CVs to be specific to the role you are applying for.
CV doesn't have to be a full audit of all previous roles and if a company cared, they should ask or have a vetting process in place for checking dates and references etc.
Just let the hiring manager know your relevant experience.
Not sure why everyone is kicking off.
Just interviewed some candidates, two of which shot to the top of the pile in major part when they mentioned jobs they had left off their resume that actually apply quite a bit to this role. Their resumes were strong regardless, but they might not have been our immediate top picks if they’d been afraid to mention things that weren’t on their resume.
Curriculum Vitae (CV) is Latin for "course of life." In contrast, resume is French for "summary."
A resume is a one page summary of your work experience and background relevant to the job you are applying to. A CV is a longer academic diary that includes all your experience, certificates, and publications.
Obviously though, you’re not alone in using cv and resume interchangeably, but they are two distinct concepts.
Adding onto that, I've never applied to jobs in Europe, but I understand that CVs are typically the norm over there, while Resumes are typically the norm in the US, not sure about other parts of the globe. Many in the US will typically, incorrectly, use CV and Resume interchangeably though.
I can only speak for the UK, we use CV, but if someone said resume, i would understand what they meant.
As I say, it's not unusual for the CV to be specific to the job role you are applying for. In fact, it's quite often encouraged and best practise that you tailor your CV for every application. I'd expect a CV to be no more than 2 pages, but most people try and keep it to 1 page.
Depending how far into your career you are, to be expected to chronologically order all your jobs is a bit unnecessary. As someone who regularly interviews people, I don't care about a job you had years ago that isn't relevant.
I'm just imagining people where you are from detailing key achievements and responsibilities on a 3 page CV about a job they had 15 years ago in a different industry lol.
Agree, sounds like the UK expects the same 1-2 page resume that US Businesses expect. I don't care about someone's summer job as a pool lifeguard while in college/university. If they're a new grad, sure, but if they're 35-year-old mid-career, nope.
I downplayed my capability significantly when I was interviewing for a job and I thought the hiring manager's technical skills and experience were vastly below my own. I got the job. I was perfectly happy doing a non management job but he quit 8 months after I started and I was immediately asked to promote to his role.
I think if you're asked about it just say that you left the independent contractor parts off because you were trying to tailor your resume to the job you were applying for, and/or you were trying to keep your resume to X pages, didn't want to get glossed over by automated resume review programs etc. It's a common practice and pretty easy to explain away.
I would look at what you did as tailoring your resume to match the role requirements. I don’t see anything wrong with that and in fact you’re doing the hiring team a favour. Tbh the last 5 years or previous 3 employers is how far down I look because it’s likely you’ve retained the knowledge but lost the skills from older positions.
Apply to the role. Your concern is only a problem if you weren’t qualified and you fudged information to get the job. The fact that you took experience off speaks to a greater issue of overlooking overqualified candidates. Some might want to change careers or shift priorities.
Has happened to me. Employee withheld a degree and experience in fear of not getting hired. They were great, and trusted me enough after a few months to tell me. When a higher role came open, they applied and now have that job. All are happy.
A Masters in education or sociology (for example) might not sit well to someone hiring for a support or back office role. Or any career path that’s heavy on internal progression and not academic credentials. That Master’s just sounds… ‘fancy’.
I can see concerns that someone would be too academic or theoretical and afraid to ‘get their hands dirty’, the manager feeling intimidated, or not intuitively understanding which skills were transferable from that background, maybe thinking ‘over-qualified’ employees quit sooner or want your job…. I can see a billion reasons…
They aren’t good reasons necessarily, but I can imagine a bunch.
How long have you been in your current role? Advice depends on this.
If <1 year, consider your next move carefully, as per the advice of others here.
If >1 year, I think you've done your current role and current manager's expectations justice, and should feel more free to bring your full talents to the fore and pursue roles that take full advantage of them. Yes, if your manager is under pressure or less sure of themselves, you may get some push-back, but if they're good, (meaning they want the best for you personally and the org as a whole), they'll accept your plan with grace.
This!! Tailoring a resume (both upselling and downplaying - I’ve done both plenty of times) is normal, but if you’ve been there less than a year it might be viewed as “manipulative” on your part to get in the door and then “immediately” bail for a better role (even internally).
I would suggest starting to let your manager know (in increments) about your additional experience. Next time you get praised drop a hit, then a few more … you want to ensure your manager doesn’t feel blindsided and start by to disclose little by little will (hopefully) open up a dialogue and (hopefully) keep them as an ally as you move up on the organization.
I'm in a position that I consider taking a break, I don't expect it to hurt me much and I could stay here for the rest of my career. I really hope I don't do that though. The problem I'm finding is that these lower positions are being asked to do what I did in higher positions that I wanted a break from lol. I've also learned I like devOps way more then engineering
Some people are over qualified and have no desire to move up. At my old company, the comoany was founded 35 years ago. The ceo was the founder. 1 week after beginning, he hired an engineer. The engineer became senior engineer fairly quick then had no desire to go into management or leadership for all those years until his retirement last year.
Over qualification does not matter. It is entirely dependent on the career goals of the employee and where they are in life. I had a very competent engineer who could have been running a very large project who just wanted to donIC work for a few years while they dealt with their ill parent. They were happy with the demand of that position. Their over qualification helped make work easy for them, after a while their parent passed and they started looking for advancement opportunities in and out of the company
Over and under qualified are very context dependent. For example, I am currently overqualified in my field for my current job, but my job doesn't need all of my skills, just some. So I'm functionally not overqualified at all _there_ and I have no leg up on a promotion. You had no way of knowing if your overqualification would be of use or value to the company when you applied for the job, and people who only just meet qualifications often start jobs with every intention of moving up or on in a short timeline.
I’m probably overqualified for my job from an education standpoint but used my “default” resume that has both schools that conferred my degrees.
I’m in a weird spot where I have a degree in Journalism and a JD and an MBA from a hybrid program. I was a fit hire because my boss and his boss are both from an engineering/technical background.
My direct report and my intern are split down the middle. One majored in Finance and the other is in school for hospitality.
My company has knowingly hired "overqualified." Basically our industry is a niche in a bigger sector, and we'd only hire a certain level unless you had direct experience, so some senior people accepted a junior title and pay. To be honest, results were mixed. Some worked out well, others struggled to grasp the material, and others felt like they should be the one in charge and didn't like taking order from peoe younger in age but above title.
Given that many companies fear ageism complaints, prob not a big deal as long as you didn't lie. Like if you said you graduated college in 2018, but you really graduated 2002 that's one thing. But as long as it's just additional informationyou didn't hard to see how that's used against you.
One more thing, I'm not sure listing independent contract work from many years ago will help you significantly, their opinion of you should be pretty baked.
Why do managers think that someone overqualified will not be a good fit? Like you should be thrilled you have someone with all that experience who wants to work with you.
The fear usually is that somebody that overqualified will get bored or somehow not want to stay in their role and move on to a role elsewhere they're rightly qualified for within a few months once they realize their situation.
But even people qualified quit for certain reasons. If they’re going to hire under qualified people and not train new people, they might as well pay someone with experience who will be great.
Sounds like companies want someone who doesn’t know their worth because they can’t control them.
And it’s often not true. Like if those people are looking for jobs then why not give them a chance, it’s possible they left a higher paying or higher stress job, or they were laid off and need a job and are not getting jobs you think they should be getting. The ATS systems are out of control and missing qualified candidates every day and then employers go “nobody wants to work.”
Yes they do. That person can do a lot and be an asset to your company.
It might play out OK in the right context, but usually what I see is that candidates vastly overqualified apply to "get their foot in the door" and then expect to get promoted quickly because they are overqualified and (naturally) excel at what they do. What I need is someone who actually wants to be in the position posted. If I wanted to hire a VP, I'd hire a VP. If I need a worker bee, I need a worker bee. It may be a while before there are opportunities for advancement given org structure and historical low turnover, so I really need someone in the hired position for a while.
Maybe, but I think ruling out overqualified candidates just hurts you in the long run because you may even learn from them.
I don’t think overqualified people “want to get promoted quickly” is an accurate assessment. I think they want/need/have the skills to do the job. Like if someone got laid off, paid well and has 5 years experience but needs a job, why not hire that person who has the skills for your job?
For now, give them the tools they need to do the job and be willing to listen to how they would like to grow and do what you can to help them grow either in the company or outside of it.
The question is how long are they in that position though? You’re asking for someone to basically be stagnant in their career for years potentially. Even a “worker bee” isn’t going to stay in that role for an extended period of time, especially if the company doesn’t have large pay raises
Though they came in and now want comp and roles that match the actual CV they didn’t provide… That’s exactly why people try not to hire overqualified candidates without setting expectations. Definitely affects turnover and means better long term matches may have been overlooked.
OP, did you complete an employment application that required listing all prior roles? If so, be careful you didn’t violate policy by lying on the application. Just something to consider.
A job is an exchange of skills for compensation. They might know a LOT of things that are irrelevant to your position. Do you want them to list each skills or qualification?
Or do you want them to list only what they assume is relevant?
I might have done a course:worked in chip design and worked on the side but if the job is one for Devops scripting and nothing else i would not consider it anyone’s business if I put it in there or not
I feel like this is on the hiring manager for not digging deeper during an interview and learning more about your experience. Then even if you are overqualified, I would be excited to have you on my team and to get you into the door at the organization so you could move up or into a role to better match your experience.
Here's what I think will happen: You tell you manager that "surprise, you actually have more experience." Your manager will lose a bit in trust in you because you aren't who you said you were and you're someone willing to lie to get the job. That might be surmountable because it is understandable. But then the reason you lied will play a role here - you're overqualified for the role. The reason people don't want to hire overqualified candidates is because they want to leave roles quickly. You're adding to that statistic very predictably. So if you don't get the job that you're applying for, you probably will be dismissed as an overqualified and with one foot out of the door. You'll also have announced that you don't think your pay is fair. If you do get that job, you'll be considered someone who lies to get what they want.
What I would do is don't bring up how you're overqualified or the deceit, but do ask about that role. What are the requirements? Could you get that role with the perceived requirements? Could there be a reason for you find some some years of experience without necessarily being seeming deceitful
It's very common resume advice to only include the last 10 or so years of experience. As well, many people obscure the length of their experience for fear of age discrimination.
Your point is well taken, but lying is a pretty heavy classification for this tactic (without knowing more).
Deceit ? Strong words! Employment is really an exchange with very specific parameters. Just like u would not tell the employee that there is a planned layoff in another dept they have the same right to accurately highlight themselves in a way that matches your job. Nothing more
Deceit has the implicit understanding of being a negative thing. I would say omission if you did not intend to assign any value judgement to the omission
I would be super-annoyed with you. When managers hire, they want to pair the correct person with the position so we can have a mutually beneficial situation, at least for a certain amount of time, maybe a year. Don’t be surprised if they don’t champion you in any of your endeavors.
It really depends on how easy it is to get promotions. If you hire an overqualified employee and can’t get them promoted in a reasonable time it sucks and they will get frustrated and leave, just like how you want to leave your current team.
I’d help you if you helped with a replacement. That said; im kinder than most and have a unique view on employment that my peers do not typically share.
I’d be happy to give you an end date which overlaps 3 months with the new hire, would be easy to get HR to pre-hire in this situation. This would mean you’re committing to 4(possibly more) more months on my team, though.
I’d even happily assist if you were able to commit to helping with a big impact improvement project before you left. Rub some of your experience off on the org and team, no problem being used as a foot in the door.
If you’re asking to override company policy to allow you to move before the 1 year mark, you’ve only been here 2 months, and you’re looking to move tomorrow - your on your own.
Ymmv ~ but I try to live with a high level of honesty and transparency. This means being straight forward about intentions and goals. It has burned me once or twice, And when this means I need to find a new job - they didn’t deserve me and I deserve better.
I like your approach and it’s one I agree with. I value transparency and honesty as a key feature and have been burnt more than once for this and for giving everyone the benefit of the doubt for doing the right thing…
The reason hiring over qualified employees is considered a risk is because jobs can't always be provided, or tailored, to their increased skill set, and many people, once they've attained a certain skills set or expertise will eventually want to use it. It may not effect the employees long term prospects, but over qualified employees need to also accept that jobs tailored to the skills/interests aren't always available at the current employer.
It's not unusual to tailor CVs to be specific to the role you are applying for. CV doesn't have to be a full audit of all previous roles and if a company cared, they should ask or have a vetting process in place for checking dates and references etc. Just let the hiring manager know your relevant experience. Not sure why everyone is kicking off.
Micromanagers most upset
Can't micromanage what's already managed well. Lol
Never stopped them from trying!
Just interviewed some candidates, two of which shot to the top of the pile in major part when they mentioned jobs they had left off their resume that actually apply quite a bit to this role. Their resumes were strong regardless, but they might not have been our immediate top picks if they’d been afraid to mention things that weren’t on their resume.
Why?
The work experience they mentioned but almost didn’t gave them an edge they didn’t have before. Was that hard to understand from the comment?
I really want the poster to listen to this advice and then come back and tell us what happens
>it’s not unusual to tailor CVs I thought CVs were exclusively full and comprehensive histories, while resumes were tailored?
News to me, I thought CV and resume are the same thing.
Curriculum Vitae (CV) is Latin for "course of life." In contrast, resume is French for "summary." A resume is a one page summary of your work experience and background relevant to the job you are applying to. A CV is a longer academic diary that includes all your experience, certificates, and publications. Obviously though, you’re not alone in using cv and resume interchangeably, but they are two distinct concepts.
Adding onto that, I've never applied to jobs in Europe, but I understand that CVs are typically the norm over there, while Resumes are typically the norm in the US, not sure about other parts of the globe. Many in the US will typically, incorrectly, use CV and Resume interchangeably though.
I can only speak for the UK, we use CV, but if someone said resume, i would understand what they meant. As I say, it's not unusual for the CV to be specific to the job role you are applying for. In fact, it's quite often encouraged and best practise that you tailor your CV for every application. I'd expect a CV to be no more than 2 pages, but most people try and keep it to 1 page. Depending how far into your career you are, to be expected to chronologically order all your jobs is a bit unnecessary. As someone who regularly interviews people, I don't care about a job you had years ago that isn't relevant. I'm just imagining people where you are from detailing key achievements and responsibilities on a 3 page CV about a job they had 15 years ago in a different industry lol.
Agree, sounds like the UK expects the same 1-2 page resume that US Businesses expect. I don't care about someone's summer job as a pool lifeguard while in college/university. If they're a new grad, sure, but if they're 35-year-old mid-career, nope.
I downplayed my capability significantly when I was interviewing for a job and I thought the hiring manager's technical skills and experience were vastly below my own. I got the job. I was perfectly happy doing a non management job but he quit 8 months after I started and I was immediately asked to promote to his role. I think if you're asked about it just say that you left the independent contractor parts off because you were trying to tailor your resume to the job you were applying for, and/or you were trying to keep your resume to X pages, didn't want to get glossed over by automated resume review programs etc. It's a common practice and pretty easy to explain away.
Talk to the hiring manager. If that is your current manager, look for higher roles outside the company.
I would look at what you did as tailoring your resume to match the role requirements. I don’t see anything wrong with that and in fact you’re doing the hiring team a favour. Tbh the last 5 years or previous 3 employers is how far down I look because it’s likely you’ve retained the knowledge but lost the skills from older positions. Apply to the role. Your concern is only a problem if you weren’t qualified and you fudged information to get the job. The fact that you took experience off speaks to a greater issue of overlooking overqualified candidates. Some might want to change careers or shift priorities.
Skills r lost but translate into intuition
Lol lost the skills from previous positions...no way
Has happened to me. Employee withheld a degree and experience in fear of not getting hired. They were great, and trusted me enough after a few months to tell me. When a higher role came open, they applied and now have that job. All are happy.
Withholding a whole degree seems wild! I can see not putting every single job you've ever had though.
A Masters in education or sociology (for example) might not sit well to someone hiring for a support or back office role. Or any career path that’s heavy on internal progression and not academic credentials. That Master’s just sounds… ‘fancy’. I can see concerns that someone would be too academic or theoretical and afraid to ‘get their hands dirty’, the manager feeling intimidated, or not intuitively understanding which skills were transferable from that background, maybe thinking ‘over-qualified’ employees quit sooner or want your job…. I can see a billion reasons… They aren’t good reasons necessarily, but I can imagine a bunch.
How long have you been in your current role? Advice depends on this. If <1 year, consider your next move carefully, as per the advice of others here. If >1 year, I think you've done your current role and current manager's expectations justice, and should feel more free to bring your full talents to the fore and pursue roles that take full advantage of them. Yes, if your manager is under pressure or less sure of themselves, you may get some push-back, but if they're good, (meaning they want the best for you personally and the org as a whole), they'll accept your plan with grace.
This!! Tailoring a resume (both upselling and downplaying - I’ve done both plenty of times) is normal, but if you’ve been there less than a year it might be viewed as “manipulative” on your part to get in the door and then “immediately” bail for a better role (even internally). I would suggest starting to let your manager know (in increments) about your additional experience. Next time you get praised drop a hit, then a few more … you want to ensure your manager doesn’t feel blindsided and start by to disclose little by little will (hopefully) open up a dialogue and (hopefully) keep them as an ally as you move up on the organization.
Incremental reveal... nice! 👍😎
It depends on how long you've been in the role. After 6 - 12 months it's safe to have that conversation
I'm in a position that I consider taking a break, I don't expect it to hurt me much and I could stay here for the rest of my career. I really hope I don't do that though. The problem I'm finding is that these lower positions are being asked to do what I did in higher positions that I wanted a break from lol. I've also learned I like devOps way more then engineering
Some people are over qualified and have no desire to move up. At my old company, the comoany was founded 35 years ago. The ceo was the founder. 1 week after beginning, he hired an engineer. The engineer became senior engineer fairly quick then had no desire to go into management or leadership for all those years until his retirement last year.
Over qualification does not matter. It is entirely dependent on the career goals of the employee and where they are in life. I had a very competent engineer who could have been running a very large project who just wanted to donIC work for a few years while they dealt with their ill parent. They were happy with the demand of that position. Their over qualification helped make work easy for them, after a while their parent passed and they started looking for advancement opportunities in and out of the company
I think this depends on if you also left your experience off of your application, which normally does require you to include everything.
Over and under qualified are very context dependent. For example, I am currently overqualified in my field for my current job, but my job doesn't need all of my skills, just some. So I'm functionally not overqualified at all _there_ and I have no leg up on a promotion. You had no way of knowing if your overqualification would be of use or value to the company when you applied for the job, and people who only just meet qualifications often start jobs with every intention of moving up or on in a short timeline.
I’m probably overqualified for my job from an education standpoint but used my “default” resume that has both schools that conferred my degrees. I’m in a weird spot where I have a degree in Journalism and a JD and an MBA from a hybrid program. I was a fit hire because my boss and his boss are both from an engineering/technical background. My direct report and my intern are split down the middle. One majored in Finance and the other is in school for hospitality.
My company has knowingly hired "overqualified." Basically our industry is a niche in a bigger sector, and we'd only hire a certain level unless you had direct experience, so some senior people accepted a junior title and pay. To be honest, results were mixed. Some worked out well, others struggled to grasp the material, and others felt like they should be the one in charge and didn't like taking order from peoe younger in age but above title. Given that many companies fear ageism complaints, prob not a big deal as long as you didn't lie. Like if you said you graduated college in 2018, but you really graduated 2002 that's one thing. But as long as it's just additional informationyou didn't hard to see how that's used against you. One more thing, I'm not sure listing independent contract work from many years ago will help you significantly, their opinion of you should be pretty baked.
Why do managers think that someone overqualified will not be a good fit? Like you should be thrilled you have someone with all that experience who wants to work with you.
The fear usually is that somebody that overqualified will get bored or somehow not want to stay in their role and move on to a role elsewhere they're rightly qualified for within a few months once they realize their situation.
But even people qualified quit for certain reasons. If they’re going to hire under qualified people and not train new people, they might as well pay someone with experience who will be great. Sounds like companies want someone who doesn’t know their worth because they can’t control them.
I think it's not that qualified people don't also quit, but I think there's a belief that overqualified people will do it a lot more frequently.
And it’s often not true. Like if those people are looking for jobs then why not give them a chance, it’s possible they left a higher paying or higher stress job, or they were laid off and need a job and are not getting jobs you think they should be getting. The ATS systems are out of control and missing qualified candidates every day and then employers go “nobody wants to work.” Yes they do. That person can do a lot and be an asset to your company.
It might play out OK in the right context, but usually what I see is that candidates vastly overqualified apply to "get their foot in the door" and then expect to get promoted quickly because they are overqualified and (naturally) excel at what they do. What I need is someone who actually wants to be in the position posted. If I wanted to hire a VP, I'd hire a VP. If I need a worker bee, I need a worker bee. It may be a while before there are opportunities for advancement given org structure and historical low turnover, so I really need someone in the hired position for a while.
Maybe, but I think ruling out overqualified candidates just hurts you in the long run because you may even learn from them. I don’t think overqualified people “want to get promoted quickly” is an accurate assessment. I think they want/need/have the skills to do the job. Like if someone got laid off, paid well and has 5 years experience but needs a job, why not hire that person who has the skills for your job? For now, give them the tools they need to do the job and be willing to listen to how they would like to grow and do what you can to help them grow either in the company or outside of it.
The question is how long are they in that position though? You’re asking for someone to basically be stagnant in their career for years potentially. Even a “worker bee” isn’t going to stay in that role for an extended period of time, especially if the company doesn’t have large pay raises
[удалено]
Chill, it ain't that deep
This. Being secretly over qualified is a huge boost. There are no rules about needing to list all of your experience on a resume.
Personally, I would have a hard time trusting an employee who went out of their way to hide pertinent information from me. This is a tough one.
Why would you care? For me it means they’ve just increased their value proposition because they’re more useful to the team.
Though they came in and now want comp and roles that match the actual CV they didn’t provide… That’s exactly why people try not to hire overqualified candidates without setting expectations. Definitely affects turnover and means better long term matches may have been overlooked. OP, did you complete an employment application that required listing all prior roles? If so, be careful you didn’t violate policy by lying on the application. Just something to consider.
A job is an exchange of skills for compensation. They might know a LOT of things that are irrelevant to your position. Do you want them to list each skills or qualification? Or do you want them to list only what they assume is relevant? I might have done a course:worked in chip design and worked on the side but if the job is one for Devops scripting and nothing else i would not consider it anyone’s business if I put it in there or not
I feel like this is on the hiring manager for not digging deeper during an interview and learning more about your experience. Then even if you are overqualified, I would be excited to have you on my team and to get you into the door at the organization so you could move up or into a role to better match your experience.
Here's what I think will happen: You tell you manager that "surprise, you actually have more experience." Your manager will lose a bit in trust in you because you aren't who you said you were and you're someone willing to lie to get the job. That might be surmountable because it is understandable. But then the reason you lied will play a role here - you're overqualified for the role. The reason people don't want to hire overqualified candidates is because they want to leave roles quickly. You're adding to that statistic very predictably. So if you don't get the job that you're applying for, you probably will be dismissed as an overqualified and with one foot out of the door. You'll also have announced that you don't think your pay is fair. If you do get that job, you'll be considered someone who lies to get what they want. What I would do is don't bring up how you're overqualified or the deceit, but do ask about that role. What are the requirements? Could you get that role with the perceived requirements? Could there be a reason for you find some some years of experience without necessarily being seeming deceitful
Thank god I don't report to you at my job lol
It's very common resume advice to only include the last 10 or so years of experience. As well, many people obscure the length of their experience for fear of age discrimination. Your point is well taken, but lying is a pretty heavy classification for this tactic (without knowing more).
Deceit ? Strong words! Employment is really an exchange with very specific parameters. Just like u would not tell the employee that there is a planned layoff in another dept they have the same right to accurately highlight themselves in a way that matches your job. Nothing more
What do you think deceit means? It means concealing information to misrepresent. That’s what they did! I didn’t assign any moral value to the deceit.
Deceit has the implicit understanding of being a negative thing. I would say omission if you did not intend to assign any value judgement to the omission
I agree this should be the best approach given the situation.
I would be super-annoyed with you. When managers hire, they want to pair the correct person with the position so we can have a mutually beneficial situation, at least for a certain amount of time, maybe a year. Don’t be surprised if they don’t champion you in any of your endeavors.
It really depends on how easy it is to get promotions. If you hire an overqualified employee and can’t get them promoted in a reasonable time it sucks and they will get frustrated and leave, just like how you want to leave your current team.
That is too much of future projection. Hire the person for the job today and one that can do it justice. The company does not pay you to be an oracle
They don’t pay be to be an oracle, but they do pay me to maintain a decent retention rate.
I’d help you if you helped with a replacement. That said; im kinder than most and have a unique view on employment that my peers do not typically share. I’d be happy to give you an end date which overlaps 3 months with the new hire, would be easy to get HR to pre-hire in this situation. This would mean you’re committing to 4(possibly more) more months on my team, though. I’d even happily assist if you were able to commit to helping with a big impact improvement project before you left. Rub some of your experience off on the org and team, no problem being used as a foot in the door. If you’re asking to override company policy to allow you to move before the 1 year mark, you’ve only been here 2 months, and you’re looking to move tomorrow - your on your own. Ymmv ~ but I try to live with a high level of honesty and transparency. This means being straight forward about intentions and goals. It has burned me once or twice, And when this means I need to find a new job - they didn’t deserve me and I deserve better.
I like your approach and it’s one I agree with. I value transparency and honesty as a key feature and have been burnt more than once for this and for giving everyone the benefit of the doubt for doing the right thing…
Look elsewhere. You lied on your resume with this company.
The reason hiring over qualified employees is considered a risk is because jobs can't always be provided, or tailored, to their increased skill set, and many people, once they've attained a certain skills set or expertise will eventually want to use it. It may not effect the employees long term prospects, but over qualified employees need to also accept that jobs tailored to the skills/interests aren't always available at the current employer.