When I help companies with hiring and promotion, I often encounter a roadblock when one person on the decision-making team wants to weigh the candidate’s experience more heavily than any other factor. Someone created a job description that stated, ideally, that a candidate will have X number of years experience. Now, they want to eliminate all candidates that don’t fit the job description.
Picture this. You’re a human resources VP during the Renaissance. You need to find someone to paint your organization’s chapel. Michelangelo applies for the job.
“Mr. Simoni, I see from your résumé that you worked on the Sistine Chapel from 1508 to 1512. I’m sorry. That’s only four years experience. And we were hoping to find someone who has painted murals on an entire chapel. It appears you only have ceiling experience.”
I’m no enemy of job descriptions, but I do think they can become draconian monsters in the hiring and promotion process. Obviously, if you’re hiring a brain surgeon, you probably want to stick to your guys on the experience requirements. (A doctor probably should have done a couple before opening my head). But don’t let the exception create the rule.
Years ago I worked with a VP of HR who had a system for promoting. Each person had to have a certain job before advancing to the next. In working with Ann, I determined her exceptional intellect, work ethic, and good judgment. I mentioned that she should advance quickly. The VP steadfastly refused to consider this option. They had a protocol and procedure, after all. Ann couldn’t skip steps on the ladder, even though her IQ could interfere with TV reception. Ann left that organization, and they’ve never had anyone like her since.
Just because you’ve always required something doesn’t mean you should still do that. Ask yourself, “If this weren’t our policy, and we were starting from scratch, would we still require this?”
Aptitude should always trump experience in the talent assessment process. If someone has the innate ability to do a job, he or she can get the experience needed. If the person doesn’t have the raw material, however, no experience will help. Michelangelo Simoni’s name lives in history for one reason: exceptional talent. The number of years he spent on anything remains unimportant.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I think the temptation to do the “Experience over Aptitude” selection grows when we are in a sellers’ job market such as we are today. In an earlier recession, I saw a team reject an outstanding engineering candidate because he didn’t know one specific software application, yet he had a high level of creativity, amazing problem-solving skills, demonstrated critical thinking skills, and a high Emotional Intelligence. We could have taught him the darn app! I think some hiring managers/teams use the “x number of years” as a security blanket–we can’t make a hiring mistake if we require this level of experience. Good article, as always, Linda!