It’s the cruelest joke in the job market: you walk into an interview armed with degrees, experience, and a record of actual results. You are everything the company said they wanted, until they say no. Not because you are unqualified, but because you are overqualified. Translation? You’re too good for them.

Since when did competence become a liability?

This paradox plays out daily in Nigeria and across Africa, where youth unemployment is sky-high, job seekers are desperate, and companies claim to be on the hunt for “top talent.” Yet when true excellence walks through the door, many employers shrink.

They tell candidates, politely or bluntly, that they are “too senior,” that the role might “bore them,” or that they would “leave at the next opportunity.” Beneath these excuses lies one uncomfortable truth: corporate insecurity.

The Research Behind the Excuse

The phenomenon has a name in HR circles: overqualification bias. A 2017 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that hiring managers often perceive overqualified candidates as a “flight risk”, someone likely to quit early, demand higher pay, or destabilize team dynamics. Employers often say that overqualified employees are frequently assumed to be “harder to manage.”

But here’s the kicker: those assumptions are mostly myths. In fact, research shows that overqualified employees often outperform expectations. A meta-analysis by Erdogan and Bauer (2009) concluded that overqualified individuals tend to bring creativity, leadership, and problem-solving skills to their roles, benefits companies routinely claim to value.

So why do managers still reject them? Psychology provides a blunt answer: insecurity. Leaders who are unsure of themselves or of their organizations see brilliance not as an asset but as a threat.

In Nigeria, this insecurity takes on sharper edges. The job market is a battlefield, nearly 33% unemployment rate as of 2023, with youth unemployment even higher in practice. A report by the African Development Bank highlighted that over 12 million young people enter Africa’s labor market each year, but only 3 million formal jobs are created. Against this backdrop, companies hold enormous power, and candidates are expected to beg for positions, not challenge the status quo.

Here, “too good” often doubles as “too intimidating.” A fresh graduate with global exposure, a master’s degree, or entrepreneurial experience may be seen not as a prize, but as a ticking bomb. Employers worry: Will they demand too much pay? Will they respect my authority? Will they stay? Or worse; will they expose my mediocrity?

The Hypocrisy of “Top Talent”

It’s almost comical. Nigerian companies flood LinkedIn with glossy posts about being “talent-driven” or “committed to excellence.” They sponsor career fairs, host hackathons, and throw around buzzwords like “innovation,” “leadership,” and “capacity building.”

Yet in practice, many of these same companies reject exactly the kind of candidates they claim to desire. They want competence, but not too much competence. They want fresh ideas, but not ideas that question the status quo. They want leaders, but only the type who lead quietly from the back row.

It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

And the cost of this hypocrisy is steep.

The Hidden Costs of Insecure Hiring

Rejecting excellence doesn’t just hurt the candidates; it stunts the organization itself. A company that fears great talent is a company that chooses stagnation over growth.

1. Loss of Innovation: When firms turn away candidates with strong skills, global exposure, or higher education, they rob themselves of the very innovation that could propel them forward. Think of how Nigerian tech startups like Flutterwave or Paystack thrived by embracing audacious talent that bigger corporations often overlooked.

2. Weak Teams: Teams grow when members challenge one another. A manager secure in their role would welcome a sharp, ambitious subordinate because it sharpens the entire unit. Insecure managers, by contrast, protect their ego by surrounding themselves with mediocrity.

3. Reputation Damage: Word spreads. Candidates rejected for being “too good” share their experiences. Over time, such companies gain a reputation for being hostile to brilliance, deterring exactly the kind of people they need to compete globally.

4. Brain Drain: When African companies reject excellence, other countries scoop it up. Canada, the UK, and the U.S. have been only too happy to absorb the Nigerian doctors, engineers, and IT professionals who were deemed “too good” for their local markets. The result? A drain of talent that cripples national growth.

Why Companies Do It

It’s tempting to dismiss these rejections as poor judgment, but there’s a deeper psychology at play:

• Fear of Turnover: Employers assume “too good” candidates will leave as soon as a better opportunity arises.

• Ego Protection: Insecure managers fear being overshadowed or outsmarted by subordinates.

• Cost Anxiety: Companies assume stronger candidates will demand higher salaries.

• Control Issues: There is a preference for pliable, less ambitious employees who will not challenge authority.

The tragedy is that these fears are often exaggerated. Studies consistently show that overqualified employees can thrive when given autonomy, recognition, and opportunities for growth. In other words, the very conditions that define a healthy workplace.

The rejection of “too good” candidates is not just a hiring quirk; it is symptomatic of a broader African corporate culture that often prizes hierarchy over competence, obedience over innovation, and comfort over progress. It explains why many talented Africans bypass local companies altogether, opting instead for remote roles with global firms that welcome their brilliance.

It also explains the widening gap between Africa’s rhetoric about development and the reality of its stagnation. How can nations rise when their institutions are allergic to excellence?

Inside the Candidate’s Perspective

For candidates, rejection for being “too good” is painful but clarifying. It reveals something fundamental about the company: if they cannot accommodate your brilliance, they cannot sustain your growth. In that sense, rejection becomes a redirection.

The question is not, “Why didn’t they hire me?” The better question is, “Why would I shrink to fit them?”

At the end of the day, companies that fear brilliance will always be outshined by those that embrace it. The future belongs to organizations bold enough to hire people smarter than their bosses, ambitious enough to risk being challenged, and secure enough to grow.

Rejecting excellence is not just corporate insecurity; it is corporate suicide.

And to every candidate ever told you were “too good”: wear it like a badge. Because the truth is simple,if a company thinks you’re too good for them, maybe you are.