Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume
-
An interesting conversation today led to a discussion about misinterpreting length of experience on a resume. We often think of experience as being nothing more than a spam of time.
Susie started in IT in 2005. It is now 2018. Her experience is 2018 - 20015 = 13 years.
But this doesn't actually make sense. Not all experience is equal. And there are many different ways to look at "not equal." For one person, it might be that they only worked part time during that window. Or maybe someone took time away from the field. Maybe one person worked two jobs at the same time (which is often a very significant amount of more personal growth.) Maybe they took a job that didn't challenge them and spent almost all of their time failing to grow or advance.
It is this last aspect that I want to explore. Let's take two people, Larry and Melissa:
Larry has been in IT for twenty years, and has worked in several different companies. Melissa has been in IT for three years, and had only one job. We are now looking at both of their resumes.
Both have roughly the same exposure to technologies. Both interview with similar technical knowledge. We will assume that education is similar between the two.
There are two ways to look at the experience (outside of digging more into what you know about each.) First, sheer time. Larry has twenty years of experience to Melissa's three. That is a lot of having seen and done things that could be very beneficial.
But there is another way. With Larry, it has taken him twenty years to amass the experience and knowledge that Melissa has accumulated in just three years. That's a big deal. Is he working more slowly? Does he not learn as quickly? Has his experience been lengthy in time, but simply not exposed him to very many different things?
The second view makes us question both things about Larry (why has he learned so little in so much time) and his environment (perhaps his work is highly repetitive or there just isn't very much of it.)
As with many things, we need to dig deeper. Don't just take the easy route and look at experience as a factor of time. Look at is as a trajectory. In our example, Melissa is almost certain to be (based on the limited factors listed here) blowing past Larry in skill and experience in a matter of months, maybe a year. Her growth potential is much higher. But Larry is more likely to be satisfied in a more static role that may not change for years at a time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
ajectory. In our example, Melissa is almost certain to be (based on the limited factors listed here) blowing past Larry in skill and experience in a matter of months, maybe a year. Her growth potential is much higher. But Lar
My best recipe is while your young work for companies for 2-4 years and then dump them.
Yup, when you feel that work is repetitive and you mastered it that is time to go.Shuffle many companies and with each jump try to earn more and understand what you want from the position and what you can give.
I learned a ton shuffling my ass to like 4 companies, and I think it is big plus. Especially if you get recommendations and not like Fired.
Warning you may suffer alot of stress using this way, but your young you should be able to recover.
-
I can understand both sides of the situation. I would have to look at the depth of knowledge in each case.
I don't think it is possible for Melissa to have the same exposure to technologies as Larry unless he has been in a DEEEEEP hole. Then Larry would definitely be out.
Just because Mom has been driving for 23 years taking her children mostly around town and her daughter has been driving for three around the same town doesn't make her daughter the same quality driver. I think wisdom comes into play also.
Hmmm.. Interesting question and something to ponder....
-
@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
I can understand both sides of the situation. I would have to look at the depth of knowledge in each case.
The contrived scenario was based on comparable depth of knowledge once probed. So that the isolated difference was "how long it took to achieve similar knowledge."
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
I can understand both sides of the situation. I would have to look at the depth of knowledge in each case.
The contrived scenario was based on comparable depth of knowledge once probed. So that the isolated difference was "how long it took to achieve similar knowledge."
Oh my bad. Ok. Well then Larry could definitely be a slacker.
Although, isn't the probing done by the interviewer? What if the interviewer did not ask the right questions? I guess that is where the difference may lie.
-
@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
Just because Mom has been driving for 23 years taking her children mostly around town and her daughter has been driving for three around the same town doesn't make her daughter the same quality driver. I think wisdom comes into play also.
This is very different, you are only looking at time, not noting that one acquired the same skills in less time. You've "locked" the alternative parameter.
It's more like asking if 23 years of driving to the grocery store on the same route every day at 3PM gives you the experience that a road racer gets in two years? Or a professional truck driver gets in six months.
We all know people with decades of driving experience that can't handle the slightest variation to their norm. Because their driving is all done under super simpler, repetitive conditions. Three years of winter driving in NY will give you more experience than ten lifetimes of driving in Texas, for example.
-
@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
I can understand both sides of the situation. I would have to look at the depth of knowledge in each case.
The contrived scenario was based on comparable depth of knowledge once probed. So that the isolated difference was "how long it took to achieve similar knowledge."
Oh my bad. Ok. Well then Larry could definitely be a slacker.
Although, isn't the probing done by the interviewer? What if the interviewer did not ask the right questions? I guess that is where the difference may lie.
Of course, but now you are assuming an inability to interview. Which granted, if often lacking, but the question is "is pure time spent" the best fall back way to evaluate skills? No matter how bad someone is, as long as they don't die, they will gain experience in that way. That's roughly the lowest possible bar.
-
IT experience is knowledge in how things used to be done in the past.
Those with no experience underrate it's value - those with lots of experience overrate it's value. -
@Pete-S said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
IT experience is knowledge in how things used to be done in the past.
Those with no experience underrate it's value - those with lots of experience overrate it's value.Especially those that have sat at one place a long ass time.
-
@Pete-S said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
IT experience is knowledge in how things used to be done in the past.
Those with no experience underrate it's value - those with lots of experience overrate it's value.That's one kind of experience, and it has value. Knowing how DOS worked, then OS/2, then NT and each change over the years teaches you a lot of things and perspective. But it's not on par with experience in things that apply today and a range of things for perspective. I guess horizontal vs vertical experience.
Candidate A: Knows all the ins and outs of a single product over a decade.
Candidate B: Knows the ins and outs of three products in the same category over a three year period. -
@scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.
It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.
But what does matter is if the 13 year person's depth was actually broad enough to overcome the fact that the same knowledge level implies. I find that to be extremely unlikely. The broader depth of experience is a very minor difference most of the time.
-
@JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.
It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.
This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.
It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.
This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.
Like Elon Musk I'd pick the fastest learner and the smartest person - which could be either one of them.
-
@Pete-S said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.
It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.
This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.
Like Elon Musk I'd pick the fastest learner and the smartest person - which could be either one of them.
Could be either one, but the available factors point very heavily to Melissa.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.
It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.
This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.
Right. It happens. But it is unusual. The unusual part is the 3 year person though. Not the 13.
-
@JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
But what does matter is if the 13 year person's depth was actually broad enough to overcome the fact that the same knowledge level implies. I find that to be extremely unlikely. The broader depth of experience is a very minor difference most of the time.
In this case, the 20 year person wasn't able to compete with the 3 year. Not hugely different, but noticeably struggling in comparison.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:
Just because Mom has been driving for 23 years taking her children mostly around town and her daughter has been driving for three around the same town doesn't make her daughter the same quality driver. I think wisdom comes into play also.
We all know people with decades of driving experience that can't handle the slightest variation to their norm. Because their driving is all done under super simpler, repetitive conditions. Three years of winter driving in NY will give you more experience than ten lifetimes of driving in Texas, for example.
Ha, you'd think. I've seen plates from both states and this is debatable.
-
I dont believe there is anyway you can really quantify or qualify experience (even with a very broad brush). It means so many different things. Some of my most helpful experience comes from working with the Helpdesk (believe it or not). HelpDesk can teach you alot about customer service and internals of IT that you cannot pick up from any other area. In fact, people laugh when they see helpdesk on my resume from 13 years ago, but I tell you that experience was far more valuable than some of the other positions I worked.
Another example is a IT Administratior job I had for a medical company with 200 employees. The job was not ideal to put it nicely. It is kind of how I picture Hell. I was the SINGLE IT employee for the company, the bosses sucked hard (they didnt listen to anything that was industry best practice), the employees sucked, and I had zero money for budget. I left after only a few months because it was terrible! On paper if I stayed for 3-4 years it would look like EXCELLENT experience. I mean the only IT administrator for a company of 200 employees, it must mean this guy can do everything, right? No in reality I was doing mostly desktop support for complete idiots.
@Emad-R also brings up a good point about the 2-4 year tenure. You will find that most of hungry, motivated IT people are acustomed to doing this. As it gives the best reward to experience ratio. I like @Emad-R have proven this time and time again in my career. So what happens is you get 2-4 years in a specific area before you move up to a different area and/or higher position.
TLDR: This isnt black and white and will never be black and white. There is no reason to even try to make it black and white.
