I've done a fair amount of hiring and interviewing from both sides of the table. The hiring process is really just a marketing game and so I wanted to comment on a common bias that I see and why I think it hurts companies.
The bias that I see exposed is one of choosing experience over potential (often called youth). So often, the hiring company sets some arbitrary # of years of experience in a certain area that the new hire must have and automatically rejects every candidate with less than that or experience peripheral to the relevant industry.
Is past performance a good indicator of future? Sometimes. Is it the only one? Hardly. Some of the best hires I've ever made were high potential, low experience hires. Skill sets become obsolete but brains/passion/energy/work ethic doesn't.
Next time you're sorting through a stack of resumes, I'd encourage you to take the road less traveled and hire potential over experience. I don't think you'll be sorry.
Comment Preview