Advertisement
Five To Seven Years Experience Required
Get articles like this
in your inbox
The longest running and most trusted source of information serving talent acquisition professionals.
Advertisement
Related Articles
Dear Candidate, I am writing to thank you for expressing interest in our current opening. However, I regret to inform you that we feel that your current experience does not meet our specified criteria. As you recall, we sought five to seven years of previous experience. After careful calculation, we cannot help but note that you actually only have 4 years, 51 weeks, and 4 days total experience. We can only wish you had waited three days before submitting this resume. Although this may seem a minor technicality, it is further compounded by the fact that several candidates have two years of their experience during leap years, and consequently acquired an additional two days experience on the face of their five years, as compared to your only having gained one additional day. Further, as you are from the West Coast, we must consider the additional three hours experience East Coast candidates have acquired over West Coast applicants at the same point in any given workday. I considered your resume for a new position opening up in four days, but that opportunity requires five years experience or less. Regrettably, in four days you will have five years and one day of total experience?? and will obviously be overqualified. We wish you the best possible luck in your search for the appropriate position and cannot help but emphasize the need for you to do your best to match your skills to relevant requirements. We recommend you make better use of a calendar before submitting your background. Best Regards,
Mr. A. Nile Retentive
HR Manager Far-fetched? In the above narrative, possibly. But in the daily application of our fascination with the “previous years experience” concept as a manual or automated screening tool, maybe not. It is a matter of increments between fact and fiction. Or sanity and madness for that matter. Several personal incidents that refute the value of “years experience” come to mind without any effort:
In developing position descriptions, skill levels must be established, of course. But there is a good way to do it and an easy way. Unfortunately, HR/staffing is all too often a willing accomplice in allowing the easy way to be taken. Some of the bad reasons for using “years experience” as criteria include:
I realize that to many, the value of “years experience” is that it serves as an acceptable and acknowledged shortcut that facilitates the screening process. But I have to ask, is it possible to achieve professional excellence in any endeavor whose starting point consists of a process that is accepted because it is merely “close enough” or “almost good”? What possible harm can come from using “years experience” to help cut through that ugly inbox (paper or cyber) of resumes? Well, here are some “for instances”:
In each of the above instances, the candidate could have been wrongfully screened in or out of the process using the “years experience” rule of thumb. We are always lamenting the lack of qualified candidates and then come up with poor methodologies to “whittle down the pile.” But if you were looking for gold, how much waste would you accept, in your screening process, to speed up digging through the rough ore? So, can we define a position without using “years experience”? We just have to be willing to try and think outside “the box” we all talk about, but seem all too willing to hide in. So, here is an exercise for those who want to try: Hypothetical Case Study Let us assume you are seeking a candidate to work in the customer service department of a highly automated financial services company supporting primarily layperson customers?? in other words, customers with investments who are not in fact “professional” investors and often lack the vocabulary or sophistication to understand the products and rules under which they operate fully. This is not an entry-level position, but it does not have any supervisory responsibility and the level of decision-making authority is managed by the limitations imposed by your online support systems. The environment ranges from managed workflow to hectic based on the time of year or news from the stock market. The group supports retirement-based products, uses “Greyhair” customer support software (fictitious,) and is a three-shift operation in a cubicle environment. There is a “working supervisor” for every 20 customer service persons who usually has 80% of their time used dealing with higher-level issues “bumped up” by the online system. The manager supports three such supervisors. Initial training is handled by a one-week program managed at the division level, followed by OJT within the group supported by the manager, supervisor and designated mentor. Assignment:
Those who are interested in trying this exercise should feel free to email me the results. In two weeks, the second part of this article will include that data as part of the conclusion. “Years experience” as an effective screening tool goes back to the days when HR/staffing was concerned primarily with planning the holiday party and assigning parking spaces as their primary contribution to the bottom line. It can also be a way to conceal poor recruiting screening practices, age discrimination, or paranoid hiring managers limiting internal competition for their jobs and other bad work habits. It’s an old and familiar way to make a difficult task easy by doing it poorly. Think of it this way: which of the two statements below best reveal YOUR true value?
After all, MENSA doesn’t have a “years experience” criteria on its application. Why should yours? Have a great day recruiting!