Remote, a company that enables global employment, announced that it will remove “years of experience” as a requirement for job candidates moving forward. Currently, the organization also does not enforce an educational requirement in its hiring practices, with the exception of a law degree to be a practicing attorney.
“Building our team at the speed we intend requires us to be thoughtful about what really matters for a person to succeed in a role—and what doesn’t,” wrote Job van der Voort, CEO and cofounder at Remote, in a company blog post last week.
“I believe the most capable person for any position isn’t necessarily the person with the most amount of experience. Great companies are built by people with drive and intensity, not by people with years of experience doing the same thing,” van der Voort added.
This is a big shift from business as usual. Nearly all companies require a minimum years of experience to be selected for an interview. The traditional method of recruiting and interviewing potential candidates results in knocking out job seekers who are extremely capable and knowledgeable, but lack the specific and capricious requirement to possess a certain number of years’ experience.
If the years of experience requirement is lifted, then capable, curious, smart and motivated people with transferable skills will no longer be overlooked just because of an arbitrary metric.
Maintaining an experience requirement can hurt companies by deterring high-potential candidates who are under the experience threshold, causing organizations to lose out on promising talent.
Proving Your Worth
In dispensing with the years of experience requirement for each role, Remote will instead outline clear expectations in its job descriptions, such as the “ability to analyze marketing spend and discover inefficiencies” or to “design high-fidelity interfaces that put user experience first.” During interviews, candidates will be asked to demonstrate their relevant knowledge and capabilities. This hiring approach by Remote shifts the “years of experience” to “show us that you can do this.”
The reality in the workplace is that there are amazing fast learners who can quickly adapt and thrive in a new environment. “The people who have had many different types of experiences are most likely to be adaptive to a fast-moving startup culture like ours,” said van der Voort.
They bring new ideas to the table to offset the status quo. When someone has been doing the same job for many years, they may have difficulty in transitioning to a new role. Their years of experience may not necessarily translate to success in their new position.
The new policy aims to assess applicants holistically, evaluating all of their capabilities as opposed to one narrow path. Additionally, companies that choose not to focus solely on years of experience can gain a competitive edge in attracting a wider range of job seekers.
Despite the benefits, organizations must put into place evaluation methods, strong training programs and consider the specific needs of the role to ensure success with this approach.
Pros Of Foregoing The Years Of Experience Requirement
By widening the talent pool, businesses can find skilled people with less than the traditional amount of years of experience. This could increase the likelihood of recent college graduates getting more interviews. As it stands now, entry-level positions for recent college grads demand three to five years of experience, making it challenging for them to gain entry into the workforce without prior work experience.
By lifting this requirement, organizations could see a more diverse pool of applicants coming from various backgrounds, adding fresh and multifarious perspectives.
Considered digital natives, the younger demographic can offer insights that older workers may lack, such as experience learning and experimenting with new technologies, platforms and software, whereas seasoned employees may be too complacent and set in their ways.
There are all sorts of conscious and unconscious biases in the workplace that get woven into the hiring process—and putting emphasis on the number of years worked is one of them. Younger people are penalized just because of their age.
Cons Of Ignoring Years Of Experience In Hiring
While skills are important, some roles require specific domain knowledge that derives from lived experiences. In these cases, even the brightest new talent may struggle in the beginning.
By its nature, inexperienced new hires may require additional hand-holding, training, mentoring and coaching. This takes time away from the supervisors from their own workload.
The extra training is a cost factor of time, money and energy put into the new hire with the chance that they may not work out because they aren’t able to keep up with the demands of the role. An inexperienced person placed in a job that is over their head will siphon off resources needed elsewhere in the organization. The stress from “baby sitting” the new employee can lead to frustration on the part of managers and co-workers, creating an uncomfortable work environment.
Once embedded in the role, a new employee may arrive with high expectations, only to see it dashed when they realize they don’t possess the necessary experience to be competent in the role. After all the training, advice and upskilling, the new hire may elect to leave and seek out a more appropriate opportunity for them.
Another challenge is that without an historical track record of accomplishments, it will be hard for hiring managers to determine how they will perform under pressure, lacking years of past relevant experiences. Also, as it relates to senior leadership roles, not having the requisite years of experience can be a liability.
Without on-target experience, there is always the risk of making a big mistake, losing a client or botching a presentation.
Source: Forbes
