HOME
REFLECTIONS
                                                  The Experience Fallacy

      Imagine that you read an ad for a job that states that you must have at least ten years of
relevant work experience.   However, you feel you are highly qualified, but you only have three
years of relevant work experience.  Is it fair for a hiring manager to exclude you from
consideration for the job?   In my view, it is neither fair nor logical to exclude someone based
merely on the amount of work experience.  Moreover, it is possible that someone with no work
experience could be a good employee.
    I refer to the assumption that the number of years of relevant work experience is a very good
indicator of one's ability to do a job well as the
experience fallacy.  Why would it be a fallacy?   
I believe there are three basic reasons why the amount of relevant work experience may not be
a very good indicator of the ability to do a job well.

Some People Learn Much More Quickly than Others

   Some people may learn much more quickly than others.  Consequently, a person with five
years of experience may learn less in those five years than another person with two years of
experience.   To state that an applicant for a job must have a certain number of years of work
experience may fail to take into consideration significant differences in how quickly people learn.
   It may be better to consider all applicants regardless of their years of work experience (and in
some situations it may be best to state that no experience needed).  The people who are
responsible for hiring could look at other important factors that may reflect ability, such as
academic accomplishments.  Moreover, applicants could be required to provide possible
solutions to hypothetical problems in interviews.  

T
here May Be Diminishing Returns in How Much We Learn in a Job

      In most jobs I have had, I learned the most during the first several months of having the
job.  It did not seem that I learned much after the first several months.  After a year, I generally
felt that I learned most of what I needed to learn.  This seemed to be true regardless of whether
the job was simple or complex.  Thus, job knowledge may not be linearly related to the amount
of work experience.
     In the first several months, we may learn the typical problems that may arise.  We may
learn ways to solve the problems.   After several months, we may just encounter the same
problems, and utilize the same strategies to solve the problems.   There may few new types of
problems after several months.
    It may be good to develop interview questions that may help to determine how much
knowledge an applicant has, and use the applicant's answers in hiring decisions.

Greater Work Experience Could Lead to Some Faulty Beliefs

  Greater work experience could lead to having less, rather than more, accurate knowledge
related to a job.   Having greater work experience could lead to some faulty beliefs about cause
and effect.  Our experiences may not allow us to control for other variables that could explain an
outcome.  If we use a new strategy or procedure, the outcome might be explained by a number
of variables we did not control for.  Thus, if we make causal conclusions about what works or
not works based on work experiences, it is possible that some of these beliefs are faulty.  For
example, imagine that you are a publisher who changed a cover of a book.  Six months later,
sales of the book have significantly increased.  The publisher may have the belief that the cover
of the book can significantly increase sales.  The problem with this belief is that there are other
possible variables that were not controlled for that could explain the increase in sales.  One
possible explanation is that the increase in sales is due to more people becoming aware of the
book.
  For some jobs, it may be good to determine how much knowledge the applicant has about
experimental research findings, and to use this knowledge as one factor in the hiring decision.