While browsing job boards in your free time, you click on a posting that seems interesting. As you read through, you realize that the responsibilities are doable and you definitely have the knowledge and skillset for it. After looking at the criterias, you can't help but to let out a big sigh.

You need to have at least 8 years of experience....

But I only have 5 years, what a bummer, you said, as you click the Back button and head over to Youtube to look at cat videos instead.

I've always been curious about how companies justify the requirements in their job postings. How do they come up with it? Is it relative to someone already doing the role? Do they take a look at other companies with a similar role and copy the requirements? Is someone with 8 years of experience better than 5? What does it even mean?

The standard measurement of experience that I've encountered so far is based on quantifying the duration through which someone perform something. It's assumed that the longer the duration, the more wisdom and knowledge that a person hold.

Now, this is a dangerous and false assumption. If we were to be literal about this, then the workforce can only be filled by the older generation. Why hire someone with 8 years of experience when you can hire one with 30 years? More is better, right?

Here's my take on what experience is. Simply put, experience in the context of work refers to the exposure that you have in terms of converting theoretical knowledge to practical application in different conditions or scenarios. So what are the missing variables when we only measure based on duration?

Accomplishment / Achievement

This is implied that your knowledge + skill helps you achieve a desirable outcome / output. Although subjective, this is further padded by complexity, responsibilities and impact. Traditionally, people assume that it's not possible to achieve that much within a short tenure in a company. That reality doesn't hold true in a startup. Furthermore, the opportunity that a company can provide to someone in terms of trusting them with more exposure, responsibilities, complexities and magnitude helps accelerate this variable.

Depth

If someone have been doing the same thing with the same method everyday for X years versus someone who's constantly being exposed to tackling multiple scenarios within X - Y years, who's more experienced? Based on duration criteria, That would be the former. Yet, who would you have chosen after viewing it from this angle?

I admit, not every company or role can provide the desired exposure and opportunity. In bigger companies, it's common to silo someone based on expertise. It gets predictable and they never have to worry about anything else. Everything flows well with the exception that they're missing on out tackling scenarios outside of that comfort zone and thus impeding growth. Which is the whole point of gaining experience, isn't it?

Quality

If time is a good determinant of quality in experience, then we shouldn't be seeing any disparity between 2 equivalent people. And yet it does. The means to an end does matter. They could be doing things the wrong way for X years. It's not surprising sometimes to see the quality of work from someone with X years of experience pales in comparison to someone with lesser tenure. Perhaps they were static, frozen in time while the world move forward with better tools and methodology. But you can't see that from judging based on duration, can you?

I'm not here to disregard nor downplay accumulative experience as it's a subjective matter. I do however, encourage that companies take a closer look at their job posting. How do you back it up? Can you remove that criteria completely and focus on other variables instead? And don't forget to remove the ATS filter that you set based on this too.

Just imagine the sheer number of qualified people that you're potentially missing out on just because of this factor.

What's your move?