[redwood]

While it may indeed be possible to ensure positive morale for "over-qualified" individuals through "empowerment" as they say, that very empowerment isn't always realistic, available, or possible. Sometimes it is for a small minority which leads to an ultra-competitive culture among many "over-qualified" folks.

In any event the negative morale that can ensue when many over-qualified people do mundane work is quite detrimental, draining, and contagious. I've experienced it and am happy to now work in a place with a different kind of culture.

It makes sense that HBR which espouses a business school point of view would argue this, because the system works for orgs that use it, at the expense of the drained individuals that burn out. Since there is such an over-supply of talent, it's an employers' market and an outlook like this one can be espoused. We do need to remember that it's not pretty for the folks involved.

The problem of how to employ these folks in empowering jobs, when there are so many of them: not something easily solved.

[wildgift]

Another word for empowerment is "autonomy" or "slack". If the regular job is easy, let the employee do other things during the slack time, whether it's helping the company or not. If it helps - that's great, and the person should be paid.

Overqualified people are cool if you don't have to manage them - the lack of oversight saves everyone time and money.

Likewise, being overqualified is cool. The work is easy and steady. Probably even more importantly, people who are overqualified for some jobs take the jobs because they're "fun" jobs. My job is basically "fun" except for some of the coworkers (most are very awesome, but you never get 100%). I undertake odd side projects. The pay isn't great, but the benefits are decent, and the hours are pretty good.

I'm looking to make a lateral move that's probably to a differently "fun" job, but one with less autonomy and slack time, and more pay.