arbiter
JournalsAccount

When being overqualified helps or hurts: the double-edged sword effects of perceived overqualification on proactive behavior

Jia Liu et al.

Career Development International2026https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-10-2024-0441article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Purpose Existing studies have not reached a consensus about the influence of perceived overqualification (POQ) on employees' proactive behavior. Drawing upon the literature on proactivity and the model of proactive motivation process, this study explores how and when POQ affects employees' proactive behavior. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 290 employees in China using a three-wave, time-lagged design. Bootstrapping method was used to test the hypotheses. Findings This study found that POQ indirectly and positively predicted proactive behavior via role breadth self-efficacy for employees who perceived high task significance. Meanwhile, it indirectly and negatively predicted proactive behavior via role breadth self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation and positive affect for employees with low task significance. Originality/value These findings synthesize three mechanisms to clarify the influence of POQ on proactive behavior. They also create a consensus in research on the relationship between POQ and proactive behavior.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-10-2024-0441

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jia2026,
  title        = {{When being overqualified helps or hurts: the double-edged sword effects of perceived overqualification on proactive behavior}},
  author       = {Jia Liu et al.},
  journal      = {Career Development International},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-10-2024-0441},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

When being overqualified helps or hurts: the double-edged sword effects of perceived overqualification on proactive behavior

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.