Is Experience That Important?

Posted by Kenrick Chatman at 30th June, 2009

experience2 Is Experience That Important?

As a current job seeker, one of my pet peeves is the years of experience requirement. At times it seems that qualified candidates who can easily meet or exceed a potential employer’s expectations are screened out; if they do not have “sufficient” experience. However, I have not seen one job posting with an actionable result requirement. For example, an ideal candidate must have generated $XXM in revenue and/or profit growth on a yearly or cumulative basis.

Play the audio version of this post. | Download this episode (right click and save)

Whenever someone tells me he or she has a certain amount of experience I always ask, “What results have you generated?” As you may know, years of experience do not always guarantee spectacular results since people have different motivations and perform on different levels. In addition, expectations or classifications of results will vary from one company to the next.

For instance, I once asked someone, “How long have you worked here?” The individual responded by stating, “Ever since the company threatened to fire me?” Likewise, a company probably has employees who just want to clock in and clock out by meeting the minimum requirements. A company probably also has employees who want to rise through the ranks of the organization. So which group of employees do you think will generate better results?

Now you may know that people perform on different levels. An organization will have employees that could be classified anywhere from superstars to low performers. So what is the difference between the superstars and low performers? Is experience the key? Maybe or maybe not.

Let’s assume a company is looking to hire a strategy professional with a minimum of two years experience. The company has two potential candidates. One candidate with two years of experience worked at a large Fortune 500 company as an internal consultant. The other candidate with one and a half years of experience worked at a management or strategy consulting firm. Which candidate do you think the company will select if it places a big emphasis on experience?

When I was a MBA student I attended corporate presentations for management or strategy consulting firms. When I asked why should I consider a career in consulting versus a corporate one, representatives of these firms answered by stating, “What you would learn in 1, 2, or 4 years in consulting will take you 2, 4, or 8 years to learn in corporate America.” Basically, they stated that management or strategy consultants will learn more for two reasons:

They will work more hours than their corporate America counterparts.
They will be required to always produce results in high pressure situations that at least meet their superiors’ and clients’ expectations; if they want to remain with their respective firms.

Likewise, it’s possible that some companies that are relying too heavily on years of experience are not taking other factors into consideration such as actionable results generated, potential employee motivation, and various work intensity levels at companies.

The type of job requisitions I referring to are the ones that do not require rocket scientist knowledge or are involved in life or death decisions. Could you imagine you’re about to undergo heart surgery and are told that your initial surgeon is out sick and a “green” cardiologist is going to perform the surgery instead?

Instead, the job requisitions I am referring to are the ones that can help a company consistently deliver as much of its products or services to customers as quickly and efficiently as possible. Now instead of screening out potential superstars who do not have “adequate” years of experience, companies should take a page from professional sports owners.

Professional sports owners want the best players possible to help their respective teams win and win often. For instance, let’s assume the Cleveland Cavaliers had a 1 year college basketball experience requirement for all of the potential players it could draft. Likewise, in 2003 this requirement led the organization to pass on LeBron James. Just imagine what would have happen if this actually took place?

Ken Whisenhunt with only two years NFL head coaching experience took the Arizona Cardinals, a franchise with only one playoff victory in 61 years, to the Super Bowl. Mike Tomlin with only two years of NFL head coaching experience became the youngest head coach to reach the Super Bowl at 36. His team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, defeated the Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII (43). Wade Phillips, with 9 years NFL head coaching experience could not lead the Dallas Cowboys, a team considered to be Super Bowl favorites during the preseason, to the playoffs. Wade Phillips has 31 years of NFL coaching experience and has never led a team to the Super Bowl. However, he has a lot more coaching experience than Ken Whisenhunt and Mike Tomlin.

Whatever method company representatives use to determine the required years of experience for their requisitions (such as viewing similar competitors’ job requisitions), they must remember that more years of experience do not always guarantee better results. Likewise, companies could be missing out on prodigies if potential candidates without “sufficient” experience are screened out without taking other factors such as previous actionable results into consideration.

Once again I will like to ask this question: “Is Experience That Important?” Maybe or maybe not.

Let me know if you agree, disagree, or agree to disagree.

Recommended Articles You Should Read

Sphere: Related Content

Category : Career

Kenrick Chatman

Brittany,

Do not give up on marketing/brand management. Spin your summer internship experience in the best possible light without exaggerating to illustrate the competencies required for a marketing/brand management position. You should seek out your MBA career counselors to help you accomplish this task; by altering your resume and cover letters and to conduct mock interviews to help you deal with the "experience" issue. Also if you have to participate in case interviews, this will be a golden opportunity to demonstrate your capabilities to perform the job.

Next develop a Plan A, B, and C for the type of work you want to do, apply, and network with alums or company representatives (who can help get you on the closed list for your targeted positions).

Finally, remember that the MBA recruiting system is very powerful although the economy is currently bad. This will probably be the last time in your career where you will have structured targeted recruiting strictly for MBAs.

Remember to buckle down and make the "impossible" possible.

Thanks-Kenrick

Brittany

Kenrick, Thank you SO much for this article. I am going into my second year of business school and the internship I am doing is not meaningful or helping me advance my career. I am actually concerned about full-time interviews because what I came to business school to do (marketing/brand management) is not what my internship consists of...there is no project, no chance to conduct analyses or make recommendations or anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, today I am doing cashier/retail work! Part of the reason I am in this situation is because I have only 2 years of "real-world" experience and have worked in many industries, which reads to some recruiters "not focused." Clearly, I came to business school because I am focused! I haven't even been given a chance in some instances. But, like it was mentioned above, I have been able to adapt to many different industries and excel in them. To these companies though, that does not matter.

I agree 110% with you, Randy and Craig. I sat here nodding my head emphatically the entire time I read your article and their posts. People keep saying "network network network" but not even networking has helped. It is so frustrating I am contemplating taking the entrepreneurial route upon graduation. Thank you again -- it feels good to know I am not the only one who feels this way!

Kenrick Chatman

Thanks Randy for the very candid comment. Your background is extremely impressive and a lot better than mine. Likewise, I do not understand why companies will not interview you.

Randy Gustafson

I find this line of discussion absolutely fascinating. Not only do I believe that experience in a particular industry can be over-rated, but I also agree with the comments about current job descriptions. As someone who has had a wild career in four radically different industries, and successful in each one, I am a living/walking example of being able to step into new companies and industries and adapt, learn, and make a positive impact quickly - almost always helping to set company and/or industry records. I have been promoted above an executive with 12+ years of specific company and industry experience, with only 12-18 months of it myself. I have also performed at levels within industries above veterans being paid a lot more and with multiple times my experience. While not all people can do this, and I believe everyone has to have an experience foundation at some level, I vehemently agree that too many companies are too myopic and linear in their thinking to utilize the best talent out there.

One of my industries was the hedge fund industry and our company specifically did NOT hire people from Wall Street (with few exceptions). My boss believed in hiring the smartest people available and then training them to do our unique and specific and sophisticated methods of investing. Our turnover was relatively low, and more importantly, many of our key clients (some of the most sophisticated worldwide) felt our management team was amongst the best in the entire industry - and we were located in Tampa, FL, not the hotbeds of NYC, Chicago, or London. And, we were paid Tampa wages, and NOT the joyous amounts usually attributed to Wall Street companies (and we knew this, because of one of our primary competitor's executives tried to get into our firm because of our performance was superior, only to find out that his comp packages exceeded those of our entire company put together) .......

Finally, as a frustrated job seeker myself, I can barely get my foot in the door for a job interview because I lack specific "12.5 years of experience in the X industry, utilizing ERP version Y, applicable to the Z vertical." Few hiring managers, companies, and recruiters (driven by their clients - not really their fault) will even take a look at a background like mine, even though the track-record is there, the fully transferable skills, and a solid education. I recently interviewed for a senior exec position within an aerospace company, was the only exec without industry experience, and was asked to provide a 7-year strategic analysis AND a 12-month Tactical Analysis. Providing my response within a few days, while the other industry experts didn't respond by 4 weeks, and then being told I was the best candidate to help lead the company into the future, the Owner of the firm made a last second short-term decision and hired a hard core engineer to be his business development director. Nothing against engineers (I used to be one), but I couldn't even get the job when I was told I was the best candidate and was liked by the COO who ran the company, but did not have specific experience that the Owner could just not get over (brought to light as being even less important, since their products had a 1-2 year sales cycle, the Owner focused on the next 3 months at the last minute, and I have been told by competitors that my background was EASILY transferable).

So, experience is certainly important, and for some positions/functions, morese than for others. But, in general, I feel that most hiring managers over-rate its importance. And, of course, it doesn't help that in this economy, then can think even more that way because of the plethora of candidates out there (and I fully recognize that it is a "buyers market" out there).

As someone else said, there is nothing you can do about it or control it .... just keep on plugging and turning over new stones. While hire is not imminent, I also interviewed with one of the wealthiest, well-known executives in my city who is world-renowned in his industry. And, despite having ZERO experience in his industry, he told me exactly why he didn't care about that and what I had to offer than most did not - but, his situation is awaiting further funding before he can consider me again, and who knows when such funding will be available, IF it will be. So there is hope out there, but opportunities for those of us who are eclectic tend to be fewer and far between except with the more sophisticated entrepreneurially-minded executives ......

My background, by the way, includes a top-rated MBA school, nuclear submarines, DoD/Gov't contract work, consumer marketing with $100+ Million P/L responsibility, and C-level leadership within a boutique, sophisticated niche of the hedge fund industry. The latter really throws people ..... and is not one of the best industries to say you are from these days, even though our firm gave back every client's money 2 years before the meltdown in 2008 just because the boss was nervous (and, had he stayed invested, would have returned well over 100% since the meltdown). But, that is the bed I made and slept in, but gladly for the chance to work in a cool, small company and expand my skills as an executive !! :) ......

Sorry for the diatribe, but this one hits home for me and I really respect all of the various responses. Again, this is a great line of discussion.

Kenrick Chatman

Very good insights Anonymous. Thanks for the comment.

-Kenrick

Anonymous

When I first came to work at the Fortune 20 company I work for, I'd come from small competitve telecom companies. They were very dynamic and I was never in a position for more than a year or two before the company changed drastically. You always had to stay on your toes, make inroads, and you were always trying to figure out which department had staying power, and hone your skills and contacts in that direction. Everyone was always working on their MBA or something at the same time, to keep an edge, since you could be laid off at anytime. So, as an analyst, I learned so many new skills in the latest technology, very quickly because I had too. It was also fun to be able to make a real difference.

At this fortune 20 company, I was shocked to see strategic plans for a single department laid out for 4 or 5 years in the future, and analysts were never even asked what they thought about it! It was never something I'd assumed, that I'd actually be able to stay in the same position that long, and that whether or not I performed at a high level, would have little impact on the company, the department, or my ability to stay there. And I thought I could relax and focus more energy on things outside of work, something I had never done.

But now that I have relaxed, and find myself about to be laid off after 10 years, I realize it wasn't a good thing. Too long in the same position makes a person stagnate and not learn new things, new technology. Also without the fierce annual sink or swim mentality of the employees of the company, the motivation to be innovative and perform at high levels is all but squashed. And when the company needs to be innovative, they feel they have no choice but to outsource, because there's nothing new in house.

An astute employer should be be more interested in progression, than years of experience, and certainly the energy and intelligence that they can discern from person during the interview. Let's face it, in this market they can always fire and find a replacement if the person doesn't work out.

It's disappointing when I read the job postings now, how they ask for years of experience in a particular industry, for example, a good project manager with telecom experience, would be skipped over for a project manager with specific mortgage industry experience, as these postings would lead you to believe. When anyone should know, a PM is not an industry specific skill. And it's not just at professional levels, even administrative assistants are expected to have experience specific to an industry?? In an attempt to weed out thousands of applicants, are companies actually weeding out the best and brightest?

Thanks for the insight of this article, and I love the head coach example.

Kenrick Chatman

Craig,

Thanks for the great insights.

-Kenrick

Craig S.

Kenrick,
STOP IT, OR YOU'LL GO BLIND!

I am serious. You have to quit trying to guess why any of the "employed" do what they do...or you'll drive yourself nuts.

I agree with your first responder that most important is to network. In this economy, it is who you know when you see an interesting position posted.

I didn't even get to interview for a job last week that I thought I'd get (had a great conversation/networking with a guy's brother). After my "friend" told his brother about me and told me to expect a phone call, I was told that the brother had a friend he wanted to give the job to instead...instead of even chatting with me--and a referral from his brother!

I went on interviews out of state last month. The hiring manager "loved" me on the phone. When I got there in person, I got a half hour with her for this "senior" position, and never heard from her again. I went to the men's room to check...no third eyeball in the center of my head, no zit on my cheek, no brocolli stuck between my teeth...

Did an interview with a president of a company one day before he went on vacation. He was so proud of the fact that they were diversifying, and no longer a manufacturing "one trick pony". At the end, he told me to follow up with HR. I've followed up with the Prez and SrVP of HR for two weeks...all a one sided conversation. They cannot even respond to an email or pick up a phone to tell you where they are in the process or if the position's filled.

I went on an interview where clearly I should have been the hiring manager's supervisor...

In most all of these cases, what's really appauling is that none of these people should have been conducting the interviews. They were all ill-prepared, and most questions were not related to the position, to skills or to expertise. Most were one way conversations, selling me on why their companies are so great! I felt like I was watching a capabilities presentation with talking lips!

I interviewed with a non-profit just because I felt like I needed a change...I didn't change my resume. I showed my previous titles. They called me, and were interested. But, when I got there, the two I was interviewing with said "clearly, you're overqualified for this position, why are you here?" I wanted to say, "clearly, you speak and read English, why did you call me down here if you're not going to consider me!" But I didn't. Instead, I answered their questions professionally. And, unlike corporate america, I did get a nice, professional rejection letter from them!

It's not you. Hell, half the time the hiring managers are afraid to bring someone with a skillset that'll outshine theirs. It's sick, but it is job security. As managers, we used to worry about promotability and succession planning. But, the way that companies have used "succession" planning to reduce costs and cut head count, it's become a dirty word. Everyone knows what the real planning is!

So, summarizing:
It's not you!
People conducting the interviews probably should not be in their current positions, but companies have cut so deeply, they make due with what they have left.
The most senior people in a company don't give a rat's ass about experience. If they can get mid level folks on for $60K instead of $170K, then there is significantly less blood to shed to protect their multimillion dollar bonuses.
Networking also doesn't work a great deal. Half the people you network with on LinkedIn don't want to be bothered about walking your resume down to the hiring manager. Hell, they have a job, and they don't know you except for what they've read.
Network with real, live folks at association luncheons, etc. Meet real people.
Go to a company and apply in person, on their applications, not on the web...and smile and chat with the receptionist!
You're not doing anything wrong. Millions of jobs have been shipped overseas...there are hundreds and thousands of applicants for each job you see posted that you're interested in. I would argue that it doesn't even matter if your MBA is from Harvard...that might even mean you're too damned expensive!

Kenrick Chatman

Pete, I agree. I'm discussing positions that people (realistically) can do but are potentially screened out since they lack the "arbitrary" years of experience requirement. I have noticed that during the current economic downturn, several mismatches are occurring.

Let me give you an example. I had final round interviews with a company that required 5 years of consulting experience. I only had 1.5 years of experience.

Once they realized I would have to take up to a 26% pay cut, these interviews turned for the worse. So I have the worst of both worlds: high previous salary and a decent amount of experience. Likewise, I am networking with the ambitious goal of having jobs created for me.

Most importantly, professionals with a wealth of experience who consistently generate great results are golden. These are the professionals I would love to work for and learn from.

Kenrick Chatman

I hear you Michelle. However, some people have a lot experience producing great results. Others have a lot of experience producing decent or mediocre results. While a chosen few have a lot of experience producing poor results.

My point is that it is possible that someone with less experience could have accomplished a lot more than someone with more experience for several factors.

For opportunities to make an impact - I believe it depends on the organization. For example, as a summer MBA intern I was given the opportunity to segment the market for a brand with the goal of increasing revenue by $29MM within two years.

On a sourcing project (lowering procurement spend), several of my colleagues fresh out of business school were given the opportunity to generate $XXM in savings within a 4 month period. Basically, we were on a hook to generate a certain amount of savings by acquiring better terms from either our client's incumbent or new suppliers. Procurement and the unfortunate G&A; reduction projects can provide $XX+ savings quickly.

Of course for these projects I worked in collaborative environments but was given the authority to scope the project, identify issues, develop hypotheses, conduct analysis, draw conclusions, develop recommendations, begin execution, etcetera while gaining stakeholder support and buy-in along the way.

I also participated in generating partner pitches and proposals that help lead to $XM+ projects before the economy took a turn for the worse. So you will be amazed at the opportunities given to some young professionals today - since the work is not rocket science.

Michelle

Work experience, like life experience, is important in making choices and decisions. Everyone's decisions in their life choices are usually based on prior experience. Just look at the greater stability of second marriages over first marriages. What is one of the main reasons those first marriages fail? Poor decision making because of the lack of experience. But of course a person has to start somewhere. It's the same in the workplace. An employee cannot have results in a job unless there is experience. And usually a newer, less experienced employee is not going to be given the opportunity to make $XX million in improvements or results. That comes with experience. Also comes with experience is maturity and less likelihood to make "yahoo" decisions, greater competency and understanding of business and the company, its culture, etc. Strategy development is ever changing in a continuous improvement environment. If you haven't "been there", it will be difficult to understand why a particular strategy design will or will not work. There's a reason a newer employee is considered "green" -- it takes time and experience to mature. And there's a reason "wise" is associated with experience. There have been quite a few cases of heismann trophy winners who flopped in professional footbal, too. Doing well in college, doesn't necessarily demonstrate success in the actual workplace. Capability has to be nurtured and developed.

Pete Maglocci

Kenrick:

You, of course, make very rational points. As I'm sure you know, though, you can win the battle and lose the war, and it seems that's what you're finding in your search. I'm reminded of a group presentation by a consumer goods company prior to an interview session at Michigan's business school. A BBA stood up and asked why he couldn't be considered for the product manager position, as the firm would only interview MBA's. The reply--there are 48 bazillion possible candidates (half of them potentially qualified) for this position, but our limited resources demand that we narrow the field using other evaluation criteria. The first is that we are only interviewing at 6 business schools, the second that we are only interviewing MBA's. This provides a workable pool for us to deal with. The speaker was implying a sort of natural selection process that narrowed the field to a size they could manage. Certainly, they missed good folks, but remember THEIR need. It's not to give equal opportunity to all folks, just to find a (hopefully) well qualified person to do the job.

Having said that, there may be a practical approach here. By the way, I'm one of the old guys with 25 years of experience, and although I think experience is sometimes not helpful (I don't know nearly as much about Twitter and Facebook and other social networking as you do, and if that's important, you're probably a better candidate), I believe there truly are benefits to experience in many cases.

So what's the practical approach? I would suggest that you treat it as any other "requirement" on the spec. It is rare that you meet each and every "requirement" posted for a position. Generally, if you hit 70%, you're doing pretty well. So the strategy is to emphasize your accomplishments in the areas of the requirements in which you excel, and downplay the others. You may use ideas such as "I've had xxx years of experience in related industries" (and related can be a pretty broad term). Or try to determine what value they believe the experience actually brings, and show how you've provided exactly that value in another way. For example, if experience brings value in terms of being able to manage people, show how you've done this in your life. If it brings value in knowing how to manage in times of economic crisis, or explosive growth, or an LBO environment, show the results you've accomplished that would be most relevant to these areas.

Bottom line, if the firm doggedly insists on the experience and you don't have it, it's a real uphill fight. I'd only suggest that you take a lesson from our politicians--don't always answer the question you're asked, but subtly change it so you can give the answer you're prepared to give--the answer that will emphasize your abilities and put you in the best possible light.

Sorry for the length here--I got excited!

Kenrick Chatman

Hello Michael,

I'm not sure what you are asking. Could you provide some clarification?

Thanks-Kenrick

Michael Panchon

Hi,

I miss the concept "skills" in some interviews... should they be looking for skills, capacities and that kind of thing?

regards,
Miguel

Kenrick Chatman

Thanks Ron.

I agree with your assessment as well. Likewise, I'm currently networking with the goal of having jobs created for me.

-Kenrick

Ron Jacques

Dear Kenrick:

I agree with your argument about "results". Employers feel that years of experience somehow equates to having gotten results. However, as a Lean and Continuous Improvement professional who has participated in his share of turnarounds and has also assisted many an organization with rebuilding very broken, poorly performing organizations, all I am ever asked is how quick can you fix it and what is your experience in fixing problems like ours.

My experience has taken 25+ years to build and I continue to build on it daily. I can appreciate your view of wanting to get in to the scrum and showing what your made of. Hell, any one of us could certainly tank any number of companies just like many of the Wall Streeters and high powered CEO's that are out there. What makes their experience so valuable. Do they put on their resumes that they crashed a company and lost 50+% of it's value.

However, and sadly enough, its more about who you know and not what you know. Having a pedigree from a great school also helps. Ponder this for a moment. Is having a 3.0 GPA from Harvard better than a 4.0 from another "accredited" institution. If all schools of higher education are equally accredited by the same governing board then what makes one any better than the others. The fact remains that the law of averages says that you have a better chance of getting a higher performing employee from a "better" school that from a lesser. This can be linked to your experience question. The law of averages says that if you hire someone with more experience, and in a particular industry, that you will find what you are looking for.

I have fought the same battle that you are arguing here for many years. With experience in more than a dozen different industries, an engineering degree, a masters degree and over $100 Million in demonstrated savings in addition to doing my real job, you think that I wouldn't have any problems finding opportunities, especially when I have gone into positions after supposedly much more talented individuals tanked the company. Sometimes I feel that employers are looking more for folks who fit in than those who perform, but rock the boat.

All in all, like rock, paper, scissors, experience trumps all things, especially if its industry related. Just keep trying and hopefully sooner than later, you will find a mentor and superior who is willing to take a chance on a professional who has the ability to deliver results and is not afraid of your capabilities in taking his/her job.

Good Luck,

Ron

blog comments powered by Disqus