Hey All, If you find these post helpful, please share Lying to Ourselves with a friend or colleague. We (read: the global economy) are in the midst of a hiring boom so now is the perfect time to think critically about our hiring processes and how we evaluate talent.
Alright, thanks again for subscribing!
In 3 Quick and Easy Ways to Make Better Hires we saw that “Years of Experience” was the worst predictor of candidate success (coming in at a paltry 3%). Yet an “Experience” requirement is ubiquitous on nearly every single job description. What is going on?
We all know that experience is just one variable in a much more complex decision, and that’s fair. But I don’t think that’s the issue here.
The problem is that “experience” is a catchall term that means different things to different people. Consider all the things you could be talking about when you talk about “experience” (this list is far from exhaustive):
Can communicate in the industry or company jargon
Industry-specific network or existing book of business
Years performing a role or working in an industry (regardless of effectiveness or success)
Wise judgement and solid decision making skills
Done the exact thing you need done before (or so you think)
Older (or looks older)
Works with integrity and has a moral compass
If any of the above traits are important to you or your team, why not just ask or evaluate for those instead?1 For example, instead of saying “We didn’t like them because they didn’t have enough experience” isn’t it much better to say “We measured their decision making skills and well, they weren’t very good compared to the other candidates”?
All of which poses the question: which of the many meanings of experience predicts candidate performance? The unsatisfying answer is, “it depends” - what you need is almost entirely contextual. Next week I’ll talk about ways we can meaningfully evaluate and prioritize the things we think we’re talking about when we talk about experience.
For now, ask yourself (and your team) what you really mean by experience. The answers may surprise you.
Other thoughts on “Years of Experience”
Thankfully, there’s an increasing number of companies rethinking the experience and what it means. A recent article from the New York Times on the impact of worker’s leverage in our current economy has some great examples of the long overdue adjustments companies are making in a tight labor market.
Like it’s bias-welcoming cousin “culture fit,” “experience” is much too vague to mean anything meaningful. Anytime there’s a lack of specificity you can bet that bias is present. Be wary. If someone on the hiring committee says a candidate didn’t have enough experience, ask them to be more specific.
Except age. At the risk of stating the obvious, please don’t ask someone’s age in a job interview.
Nice to see the not-beating-around-the-bush list of what people really mean when they say "experience". Each of those items deserves its own discussion! I have personally found it ambiguous whether to count my graduate school years as experience, because during that time I learned how to
(1) create and adapt project timelines
(2) apply for funding
(3) absorb and synthesize large quantities of information
(4) self-motivate during dry spells
(5) write and run Python/Bash/etc. code in a Linux environment
(6) write, publish, and present scientific findings
(7) navigate tricky interpersonal situations such as workplace bullying, but only from friends' horror stories. Grad students also feel a need to unionize... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_student_employee_unionization
Job posts sometimes explicitly do not count any school as experience, although during interviews it's good to mention (5) and (6) as they are considered most directly relevant when starting out in Tech. (1)-(4),(7) are arguably important in many settings, but if the interviewer doesn't ask about them, one has to proactively work those into the conversation at appropriate moments.