The lead chemist on your top project just quit. Although the project involves niche technology, you are hopeful that someone with similar experience may be available for hire. You write a list of everything the chemist did and send it to HR to find an immediate replacement.
After a brief discussion, the HR manager informs you that the department has been inundated with resumes, but mostly for new grads. However, she says you are in luck because she just received a resume from someone who worked on the same technology at a competing company, and he does not have a non-compete.
The case for hiring this experienced candidate is compelling. He did exactly what you need done in his previous position and should be able to hit the ground running. This could mean positive contributions and means you will not spend lots of time training a new grad.
Right? Not necessarily.
I can think of at least two examples where the experienced candidates were chosen and the results were negative. In one, the employee came on board and hit the ground walking, but never delivered the contributions that we were anticipating. In the second example, the candidate had the desired experience, but the company soon discontinued that technology. This employee was eventually separated because her skill set became no longer appropriate and she did not desire to expand into new areas.
When making a hiring decision based on experience, be sure to also have high expectations for the candidate’s potential, so that he or she can start quickly and continue to grow in your organization. Seek referrals to understand why the person is available. Look not only at relevant experience, but also probe the candidate’s talent, energy, fit, and potential for future growth with your company.
I have had numerous experiences where I hired the ‘high-potential’ candidates who needed training because they showed intelligence and enthusiasm. Those candidates came up to speed in as short as 3 months and delivered strong results, new ideas and patents, and creativity that flowed over to other projects in the group. They ultimately became the strongest performers.
Experience has a value, but I support an idea covered in a past Harvard Business Review that “experience is over-rated.” My best hires have come from high potential talents who lacked experience in the specific technology, but brought with them great knowledge, creativity, and a hunger to make an impact. They used their knowledge to understand why things work, and then made them work better.
When reviewing the candidates to decide who to hire, skip over the recruiter comments that “this person could do the job,” because the candidates who can’t do it should have already been eliminated from the discussion. Look instead at what upside potential the candidates have and how they will change your workplace for the better. What new ideas will come from their fresh set of eyes? It’s true that the less experienced candidates will require training, but if they are truly top talents, then they will learn quickly, with strong motivation and curiosity. For them, the sky’s the limit.
