Why would you not want the best? Are chameleons better placed?

I am wondering why, in a “contract” or “interim” world, a purchaser of resource would not want the best, or at least one with a proven record in the field in question?

This thought arises after two recent responses about being “too senior” or “over qualified” for roles after just a review of my CV. In both instances, this was against alternatives that were being described as “just OK," rather than “better." This is slightly frustrating as they were roles I have succeeded in before, would have enjoyed and was happy to commit to deliver. That should be win-win!

I know that for permanent employment one needs to be careful about expectations, but does the contract world not offer a different base; a way to buy the best resource you can for the time you agree at a price that suits both? To me the commitment from the company's side is so much greater with permanent and the price of a mistake is high. For hiring a contractor it is much less. But are the same criteria used for selecting both?

Is it a level of insecurity in the hiring manager that influences both permanent and contract hires? I have often heard that the world’s best leaders surround themselves with better people, they are not afraid to hire people who will contend for the senior role, indeed many purposely hire their likely successor in order to open their own opportunities. Is it the current lack of job security at the middle levels that is changing this? Or is it something else I am missing?

I am relatively new to the contract world, so I may well be missing something. While it might have been true that I could have taken on the hiring manager’s role as easily, that was not what I, as a contract/interim resource was offering. Having been on the other side of the table, so to speak, I honestly believe I have taken the best person on offer whenever faced with a decision. Over qualification being a good thing, if it raised the confidence in success; success for both of us.

Over the years I have seen great contractors and great permanent staff, the same way I have seen poor from both camps. There is no magic wand, but in general the better the people you have the higher your chance of success. Supporting this, at my daughter's school last night they were illustrating the strong correlation between effort and results and between effort and "value add." There is a similar link in delivering change.

The thought of “dumbing down” a CV has crossed my mind and been dismissed. Of course, the CV is not what gets you the job, but it gets you the chance to interview. In person, I back myself to impress, but one has to get to the playing field first.

I shall remain true to who I am, what I do and what I am good at. That includes personal agility, but without losing myself or  trying to be a chameleon. I am a change professional. It is what excites me and brings out the best. I enjoy shaping and leading change.

I wonder what experience others have, and if they would be interested to share them?