Some who are new to a profession can be frustrated by the required experience in job postings. A hiring manager might assume that with more experience, candidates have already developed skills needed for a job. Based on this, recruiters and managers might make the following assumptions:
- Hiring someone with experience is a reasonable predictor of job performance
- A candidate with more experience than another candidate would perform better
In his research, Jonathan Dault expresses the inexperienced candidates’ frustration and raises the question about future performance predictors:
“Many hiring managers believe experienced workers will perform better, and will need less training and less time to get ‘up to speed’. The importance of work experience is perceived to be so great that even entry-level jobs and internships call for it. This causes some frustration among graduates; to get a job, you need experience but to get experience, you need a job! The focus on experience has historically been so strong that its importance is now being called into question for early careers roles. Should we also be questioning its relevance for established workers? Also, does experience play a role in job performance and what about training performance?”
Dault examined the evidence and found that previous experience is not a good predictor of future job performance. His article breaks some myths and discusses the implications that recruiters and hiring managers should consider.
You can find the article on the Science for Work website: https://scienceforwork.com/blog/recruitment-hiring-for-experience
# # #