Research shows that experience is a weak predictor of job performance. But most companies continue to use it as a main hiring criterion. Why is that? And what are the consequences of filtering out candidates with atypical experience?
To better understand the role of experience in hiring decisions, we spoke with Dr. Colin Lee. Dr. Lee’s study, “The Nonlinear Relationship Between Atypical Applicant Experience and Hiring: The Red Flags Perspective,” analyzed over 53,000 job applications. It showed that candidates with atypical experience, even if overqualified, are often filtered out as hiring managers seek the safety of “typical” applicants.
The Problem With Typical: Experience Doesn’t Mean Performance
Many companies still treat experience, whether years on the job, industry tenure, or specific educational background, as the most reliable hiring criteria. But academic literature has long shown that experience alone is a poor predictor of job performance. Hiring managers tend to avoid candidates with atypical experience. This can mean having too much, too little or simply different experience than what’s considered standard.
These deviations often trigger “red flags” within hiring managers: “There’s this group of typical candidates, and if you’re out of that group, it’s very difficult to get a job.”, Dr. Lee explains. These judgments are often driven by the fear of a mishire. The consequences of a bad hire, both financial for the company and reputational for themselves, get managers to stay on the safe side. But this risk aversion results in a hiring system that discriminizes young candidates, career switchers, older professionals, and others whose experience doesn’t fall within a specific range.
Resisting the Red Flags Bias: Taking Atypical Experience Into Account
But are there organizations that manage to break away from this mentality? Dr. Lee has observed that resistance to this bias comes more from individuals than institutions. Entrepreneurs, especially, are more likely to hire unconventionally. They actively spot and seize opportunities that others overlook, including candidates with atypical experience. “Entrepreneurs are more likely to take calculated risks and capitalize on inefficiencies in other firms’ selection processes,” Dr. Lee says.
Larger organizations, on the other hand, often experience rigid structures and pre-selection systems that automatically exclude candidates who don’t fit preset profiles. Dr. Lee emphasizes that meaningful change must come from the top of organizations. “It’s a numbers game. You won’t get it right every time, but evidence-based hiring, championed by CHROs or CEOs, leads to better outcomes overall,” he says. For hiring processes to evolve, organizations need a mindset shift. They need to understanding that recruitment is complex and probabilistic, not deterministic.
We asked Dr. Lee how agencies like Skills Based can support this shift. His response focused on the importance of selection tools and intermediaries. Strong, evidence-based hiring tools can help decision-makers see beyond superficial traits. “Good selection instruments are vital,” he explains. “They help hiring managers interpret evidence properly, not just gather it. And agencies play a critical role in making sure that evidence is presented, even when companies are initially resistant.”
Rethinking The Recruitment Funnel: Focusing on Skills-Based Hiring
When asked how he would redesign the hiring process, Dr. Lee offered a bold vision: “Blur the line between selection and recruitment”. Instead of targeting a wide group of applicants and filtering them later, he proposes using data to identify and target individual candidates earlier in the process.
In the past, this approach wasn’t feasible as early selection required direct interaction, interviews and mayne even surveys. But with today’s technology, companies can now collect large amounts of data from sources like online profiles, job platforms, past applications, and skill assessments. According to Dr. Lee, this data can be used to make early, informed decisions about whether someone will be a good fit for a role, even before formal recruitment begins. He emphasizes that this shift could be especially beneficial for candidates with atypical experience. By using existing behavioral and qualification data, companies can make recruitment fairer and avoid prematurely filtering out atypical talent.
He also highlights a persistent issue: information asymmetry. Companies often have more data on applicants than applicants have on companies. By increasing transparency and explaining why a candidate is being approached or shortlisted, applicants can make more informed decisions when searching for jobs, leading to a healthier, more efficient labor market.
As it is our interest, we asked Dr. Lee how he sees skills-based hiring fitting into this research topic. He was excited about the future of research in this space, especially when it comes to assessing skills more effectively. “There’s still a lot of room to improve how we measure skills,” he says. He advocates moving beyond psychometric self-reports toward methods that reflect actual, observable competencies.
To conclude, candidates with atypical experience deserve a chance, not just because it’s equitable, but because it’s smart. Innovation and adaptability come from teams with diverse backgrounds and unconventional perspectives. At Skills Based, we’re proud to empower these candidates and help companies see their potential. We believe that the future of hiring isn’t about checking boxes, it’s about future potential and development.
