How Does HR Determine Years of Experience Requirements?

In looking for a job over the past couple of months, almost every job description has at least one requirement of "X" amount of years of experience. This made me wonder what the people writing these descriptions use as a basis for these requirements.

My goal in writing this is to continue the conversation and encourage improved recruiting practices.

Based on my research, job descriptions requiring a specific number of years of experience seem to be based more on industry standards and templates (i.e., "This is the way we have always done it"). It also seems like some of the writers of these job descriptions don't fully understand the skills needed, and so they simply throw in arbitrary numbers.

It is important to note that I have not worked in HR, and it is always easy to make assumptions about things you have not done yourself. I would actually love to hear from people in HR to get their thoughts on this subject.

Does Years of Experience = Skills?

In Chris Mulhall's article entitled "It's Time to Remove the Years of Experience Requirements From Your Job Descriptions" (article link), he talks about how the relationship between skills and experience is not linear. I completely agree with this.

Consider the simple example of driving. Some drivers who have driven for decades are worse than others who have only driven for a couple of years. Wouldn't asking for specific skills (e.g., proof of safe driving, types of vehicles driven, road conditions, etc.) make more sense than an arbitrary number of years of experience in this example?

I realize that determining how to describe needed skills is not easy and no doubt is very time-consuming. However, I don't believe that it is impossible. In fact, Mr. Mulhall's article provides a few examples of ways to rewrite "years of experience" requirements on a job description.

Don’t Be Discouraged By Arbitrary Experience Requirements

Don't write off job opportunities that require a few more years than what you have on your resume. Look at the description as a whole. Think about what level of skill they are genuinely asking for, and then apply if you feel your resume can supply clear examples to show that you have the necessary skills.

"It is worth applying even if you only have 40% of the required skills." - Ian Siegel • CEO, ZipRecruiter

Note: According to an article in Forbes, it is worth applying even if you only possess 40% of the required skills (article link).

Another article from the Harvard Business Review (article link) recommended using the following formula to evaluate whether or not to apply.

• Subtract one year if they are asking for five years or less of experience (e.g., 3-years of experience = 2-years)

• Subtract two years if they ask for more than five years of experience (e.g., 6-years = 4-years).

I would not, however, ignore experience requirements completely. If you lack the required years of experience, you should seriously consider what skills you can bring to the table to compensate for your inexperience.

Additionally, there are certain cases where experience is part of the equation, especially with more senior-level positions. In some cases, you may need to lower your expectations and be willing to start at a lower level so that you can gain the required experience.

What’s Your Opinion?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. If you are a job seeker, what do you think when you see minimum experience requirements? If you are in HR, do you think that experience minimums need to go away, or do they serve a relevant purpose?

In my next post, I'm going to dive into this topic a little bit further, and I’m going to share a tip that I wish I knew when I first jumped into the job force.