It is as logical as can be. There are different grades of technical personnel. For example, there are highly experienced people with an impressive list of clients for whom they have carried out the most complex projects successfully. And of course, there are also professionals who come into their own better in simpler jobs. Both perfect. Both exceptionally valuable, provided they are deployed in the right roles.
Look, let’s say you need someone to drill 500 holes in a wall, then it is useful to actively choose someone who is truly suited to the job. Why? Firstly, because the hourly rate for someone with these skills is lower than for an experienced engineer who provides complex solutions to difficult issues. Secondly, because taking on people who are over qualified for a job simply does not work, because people are often insufficiently motivated for (what they perceive to be) a job that is beneath them. Naturally, the same applies conversely too: if you deploy someone on a project that is beyond their capabilities, the situation becomes difficult. So what is the message? Differentiate clearly in respect of the quality of the personnel you hire. Ensure you know exactly what qualities you are seeking, then the higher or lower price tag attached is a logical outcome of that choice.
As a recruiter of technical personnel, we naturally have a clear role. And that consists, amongst other things, of probing as effectively as possible in terms of your requirements. Who exactly are you looking for? What does the job entail? What level of independence is required? After all, if we are working with incomplete information, it is virtually impossible to provide a suitable offering. In respect of both quality and cost. The situation that then arises is that either our rate is too expensive (because we are offering personnel that are over qualified and over experienced for the job), or we agree an attractive, low hourly rate to then ascertain a few days later that the project does not match the competencies of the person in question. The term does not exist, but in both cases it is a lose-lose-situation. And to be clear, we go for a win-win situation. On all fronts. Let us therefore communicate with one another with complete openness. That produces the best result for all parties. The outcome? An effectively completed assignment (and thus, a satisfied client) and a satisfied employee. And the latter is incredibly important, because we all know that people who feel valued feel good and perform better structurally. And thus, we all win.