Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4 (2011), 243–246.
Copyright © 2011 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/11
A Multilevel Approach to
Understanding Employee
Overqualification
MARY JANE SIERRA
University of Central Florida
Through thoughtful synthesis and interpre-
tation of the literature, Erdogan, Bauer,
Peiró, and Truxillo (2011) provide insight
into the experiences and impact of
overqualified employees within organi-
zations. Those insights focus only on
overqualification at the level of the indi-
vidual employee, however. What is still left
to understand is overqualification and its
relationships with other variables at higher
levels of analysis, such as the team, unit,
and organizational levels.
Although Erdogan et al. suggest that
overqualified employees are likely to con-
tribute to and benefit from organizations
in which they work, it will be impossi-
ble to know if that is the case without
first considering how such employees are
affected by and influence the larger systems
within which they operate. To do this, a
multilevel perspective must be taken. Multi-
level theory (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000)
suggests that it is important to consider
overqualification in the context of larger
systems for numerous reasons. Hence, four
propositions may be derived from multilevel
theory with regard to the study of employee
overqualification.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Mary Jane Sierra.
E-mail: maryjane@knights.ucf.edu
Address: Department of Psychology, University of
Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., P.O. Box
161390, Orlando, FL 32816-1390
243
Proposition 1: Outcomes of
Overqualification Should Be
Assessed at Multiple Levels of
Analysis
The consequences of employee overquali-
fication may vary across levels of analysis
so that the nature of the individual-level
and higherlevel outcomes resulting from
overqualification may differ substantially.
Specifically, overqualified employees oper-
ating within a larger system may develop
highly positive work attitudes and achieve
high levels of performance through the
individual-level processes proposed by
Erdogan et al. At the same time, however,
their presence within the larger system may
negatively impact system processes, states,
and ultimately outcomes through their influ-
ence on the thoughts, feelings, and behav-
iors of others around them.
For instance, the presence of overqual-
ified individuals on a team may hinder
team cohesion if underqualified or just-
qualified team members feel less interper-
sonal attraction toward the overqualified
because they view them as different or as
part of an out-group (Molleman, 2005).
In addition, team monitoring and backup
behavior (a critical team process; Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001) may decrease if
team members feel that there is no need to
monitor or assist the overqualified. Further-
more, there may be less information sharing
(Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009) and
244
collaboration (Harrison, Price, Gavin, &
Florey, 2002) among team members when
there is diversity in the system with regard
to overqualification. Research shows that
these possible effects of overqualification
on critical system processes and states are
ultimately likely to negatively impact sys-
tem outcomes (e.g., performance; Harrison
et al., 2002).
In addition, overqualified employees
may impact system outcomes through the
way that leadership responds to their pres-
ence in the system. Erdogan et al. suggest
that one way to ensure that the overqualified
achieve positive individual-level outcomes
may be to provide them with training, com-
pensation, reinforcement, or feedback that
is tailored to their needs and that differs from
what other system members receive. If the
overqualified are given special treatment,
however, this could have negative system-
level consequences, despite any beneficial
individual-level effects. Namely, if others
perceive the accommodations made for the
overqualified to be unfair, this may nega-
tively impact their job attitudes and perfor-
mance (Adams, 1963), eventually hindering
system dynamics and outcomes. Further-
more, special treatment of the overqual-
ified may breed more competition and
less cooperation among system members
if they strive to obtain the same bene-
fits afforded to the overqualified, which
may also hinder system outcomes (Beersma
et al., 2003). Empirical evidence supports
the idea that differential treatment of a sys-
tem’s members can in fact have detrimental
system-level effects. Specifically, research
has shown that such differential treatment
hinders collective efficacy in teams (Wu,
Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010), which is a signifi-
cant positive predictor of team performance
(Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009).
These examples suggest that, by only
examining the effects of overqualification
at the individual level, the high-level
outcomes associated with it cannot be
fully known. Multilevel theory suggests that
it is not safe to presume that outcomes
associated with overqualification at the
individual level will be found at higher
M.J. Sierra
levels of analysis. As such, the suggestion
made by Erdogan et al. that overqualified
employees have the potential to benefit
organizations must be empirically tested
using higherlevel outcomes before it can
be considered likely.
Proposition 2: Overqualification
Itself Should Be Assessed at
Multiple Levels of Analysis
To gain the greatest amount of insight
into how overqualification impacts system-
level outcomes, it is important to consider
overqualification itself at the system level.
This means shifting the focus away from
individual-level overqualification and turn-
ing it to the system’s composition with
regard to overqualification. The proportion
and configuration of overqualified versus
just-qualified versus underqualified individ-
uals within a system may be more suc-
cessful predictors of high-level outcomes
than each individual employee’s level of
overqualification.
The literature highlights the importance
of specifically considering composition
when predicting system-level outcomes.
Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, and Ilgen
(2007) propose that considering individ-
uals’ levels of an attribute without con-
sidering the levels possessed by others in
the system will lead to inaccurate predic-
tions of system outcomes. For example,
these authors suggest that while Con-
scientiousness and Extraversion are both
positively linked to individual-level per-
formance, team-level performance is likely
enhanced as the number of conscientious
team members increases but hindered as
the number of extraverted members rises.
This suggests that, even if individual-level
overqualification has positive individual-
level effects, we cannot assume that systems
always benefit from having more, rather
than less, overqualified members.
In addition, where overqualified individ-
uals are positioned within a system may
have an impact on system outcomes. For
instance, it is possible that overqualified
individuals benefit the system most (or only)
A multilevel approach
when they are in leadership roles and
hold significant influence. They may be
less beneficial (or detrimental) when they
hold subordinate positions and have lim-
ited power to impact the system, however.
Furthermore, system outcomes may vary
based on the configuration of overqualified
versus underqualified versus just-qualified
individuals within a system. For example,
system outcomes may be positive when
leaders are overqualified and subordinates
are justqualified, but negative when lead-
ers are underqualified and subordinates are
overqualified.
In summary, multilevel theory suggests
that it is not enough to look at overqualified
employees in isolation. Instead, the pro-
portion of overqualified individuals within
a system and the distribution of them
across roles must be examined. Concep-
tualizing overqualification as a higherlevel
variable would afford researchers the abil-
ity to more accurately predict high-level
outcomes. Doing so may also be use-
ful in predicting individual-level outcomes
themselves.
Proposition 3: Moderators of
Overqualification–Outcome
Relationships Should Be Assessed
at Multiple Levels of Analysis
Characteristics of the systems within which
overqualified employees operate may
impact the degree to which such employees
experience positive or negative outcomes.
Specifically, system factors may mod-
erate individual-level overqualification–
outcome relationships. System-level over-
qualification (composition with regard to
overqualification) may be one such factor.
For example, overqualified employees
may be more or less likely to demon-
strate poor job attitudes and performance
depending on the degree to which they
work with others who are also overquali-
fied. If the systems within which they work
are composed mainly of other overquali-
fied individuals, poor individual-level job
attitudes and performance may be less
likely than when the systems are composed
245
mainly of just-qualified or underquali-
fied individuals. This is most likely if
the mechanism proposed by equity theory
(Adams, 1963) is indeed responsible for the
observed overqualification–outcome rela-
tionships (i.e., perceptions of unfairness).
Specifically, equity theory suggests that,
although overqualified employees are gen-
erally likely to perceive their own inputs to
be greater than their outputs, they should
be less likely to view their input/output ratio
as worse than others’ if those around them
are also overqualified and, therefore, have
similar ratios. As such, under those circum-
stances, overqualified individuals should
perceive less unfairness and, in turn, less
job attitude and performance deteriora-
tion. In systems with smaller proportions
of overqualified employees, however, the
overqualified are likely to perceive more
severe ratio inequity and, in turn, poorer
job attitudes and performance.
High-level characteristics, such as sys-
tem composition, may in fact be responsible
for the mixed individual-level findings Erdo-
gan et al. report in the overqualification
literature. Although these authors acknowl-
edge that the inconsistent findings are likely
attributable to the presence of moderators,
they only assess the moderating effects of
individual-level variables. Expanding the
search for moderators to include variables at
higher levels of analysis has the potential to
greatly enhance our understanding of how
overqualification impacts key individual-
level outcomes.
Proposition 4: Antecedents of
Overqualification Should Be
Assessed at Multiple Levels of
Analysis
In addition to individual-level variables,
high-level system factors likely serve as
antecedents to individuals’ perceptions of
their own overqualification. Specifically,
these variables may lead to what Erdogan
et al. have termed emergent overqualifi-
cation. Here again, one such factor may
be system composition with regard to
overqualification.
246
For example, if a team, unit, or organi-
zation is composed of a high proportion
of underqualified or just-qualified individ-
uals, individuals within that system may
be more likely to perceive themselves as
being overqualified. They may be especially
likely to do so if they are in fact objectively
overqualified, but even those who are not
may be more inclined to perceive them-
selves as overqualified. In contrast, when a
system has a high proportion of overqual-
ified individuals, an individual within that
system may be less likely to perceive them-
selves as overqualified, even if they in fact
are. Social comparison theory (Festinger,
1954) provides explanation for why this is
likely, suggesting that individuals look to
those around them and engage in social
comparison when forming attitudes about
their own abilities and attributes.
This example illustrates the importance
of considering factors that exist at levels
higher than the individual when attempt-
ing to determine the key antecedents of
overqualification. If examination is limited
to the individual level, then a full under-
standing of how overqualification emerges
in the workplace will surely elude us. Fur-
thermore, discovery of a practical means for
manipulating overqualification (i.e., induc-
ing or preventing it) becomes possible when
its high-level antecedents are considered
(e.g., strategic placement of the overquali-
fied within systems).
Conclusion
Multilevel theory proposes a way to develop
a greater understanding of how employee
overqualification impacts whole organiza-
tions and the units, teams, and individuals
within them. Specifically, the paradigm sug-
gests that overqualification and variables
associated with it (e.g., outcomes, mecha-
nisms, antecedents, and moderators) should
be assessed at levels of analysis other
than that of the individual. Erdogan et al.’s
review of the overqualification literature
reveals that it is, in fact, in great need
M.J. Sierra
of research that takes such a multilevel
perspective.
References
Adams, J. (1963). Towards an understanding of
inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422–436. doi:10.1037/h0040968
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J., Humphrey, S., Moon, H.,
Conlon, D., & Ilgen, D. (2003). Cooperation,
competition, and team performance: Toward a
contingency approach. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 572–590. Retrieved October 5, 2010,
from www.journals.aomonline.org/amj/home
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Peiró, J. M., & Truxillo,
D. M. (2011). Overqualified employees: Making
the best of a potentially bad situation for individuals
and organizations. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 4, 215–232.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social compari-
son processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002).
Time, teams, and task performance: Changing
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
1029–1045. doi:10.2307/3069328
Humphrey, S., Hollenbeck, J., Meyer, C., & Ilgen, D.
(2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams:
A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for
maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885–892.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.885
Kozlowski, S., & Klein, K. (2000). A multilevel
approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In
K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-
level theory, research, and methods in organiza-
tions: Foundations, extensions, and new directions
(pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marks, M., Mathieu, J., & Zaccaro, S. (2001). A
temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review,
26, 356–376. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from
www.aom.pace.edu/amr/index.html
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & DeChurch, L. (2009). Infor-
mation sharing and team performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
535–546. doi:10.1037/a0013773
Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic char-
acteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do fault-
lines affect team functioning? Group Decision and
Negotiation, 14, 173–193. doi:10.1007/s10726-
005-6490-7
Stajkovic, A., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. (2009). Collective
efficacy, group potency, and group performance:
Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a
mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 814–828. doi:10.1037/a0015659
Wu, J., Tsui, A., & Kinicki, A. (2010). Consequences
of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy
of Management Journal, 53, 90–106. Retrieved
August 24, 2010, from www.journals.aomonline.
org/amj/home