Let's Be Frank: On the Matter of "Experience Required"
Evelyn Judge here. In my years working with growing companies to help them maneuver through the often-complex world of HR and talent acquisition, one observation repeatedly surfaces. It’s about a very common, often unquestioned, phrase in nearly every job description: "X years of experience required."
We’ve all written it, read it, and based significant decisions on it. It seems straightforward enough, a simple way to convey a role’s seniority and filter a pool of applicants. But if we’re being entirely frank, this long-held tradition frequently creates more obstacles and missed opportunities than it resolves for a thriving, expanding business.
Consider for a moment the talent we might be inadvertently overlooking. When a job description specifies "3-5 years of experience," what message does that truly send? An accomplished professional with seven or eight years under their belt might quickly dismiss the opening by assuming it’s beneath their capabilities or that the company isn't seeking their level of strategic contribution. Consequently, a leader who can bring immediate impact, mentor others, or navigate complex challenges effortlessly will simply move past your opportunity.
Conversely, think of the individual who, through sheer drive, accelerated learning, or intense project exposure, has gained profound capabilities in two years that others take five or six to acquire. A rigid "minimum of three years" requirement effectively closes that door. We’re not just potentially overlooking raw ability; we're often prioritizing a calendar count over demonstrated skill and valuable perspective. It’s not simply about time served; it’s about what a candidate has mastered, the challenges they've overcome, and the tangible results they can deliver.
Then there’s the operational reality of compliance – an area few companies consider until it becomes, well, a compliance issue. While needing a level of experience is perfectly sensible, relying on an overly prescriptive, numerical range can sometimes, unintentionally, invite questions concerning age discrimination or other biases down the line. For any growing company, proactively managing these subtleties is simply good, pragmatic business. It’s about building a robust foundation that allows you to focus squarely on growth, free from avoidable legal entanglements.
Ultimately, a narrow focus on numerical "years of experience" can restrict access to a broader talent pool, allow a calendar to overshadow genuine capability, and introduce unnecessary risk. It's a practice inherited from a different era of hiring that often fails to serve the agility and specific needs of today's ambitious companies.
My team and I, when we partner with leaders, delve deeper. We ask: What problem does this role truly address? What specific contributions must it make? What core skills and achievements are non-negotiable? If a certain amount of experience is genuinely critical, we articulate it clearly: "X+ years of demonstrated proficiency in [specific area]." This sets a necessary floor without erecting an invisible ceiling that could deter invaluable expertise. We aim to articulate the true challenge and opportunity to attract individuals driven by impact rather than a generic checklist.
It boils down to intelligently designing your talent gateway. Ensure it clearly invites the right people in, rather than unintentionally diverting them elsewhere.
