Which Is More Important: Performance or Experience? (in The IT/Tech Industry)

In the IT/tech industry, which tends to be more highly regarded - years of experience or previous performance? I see some job ads saying they want a minimum x+ years of experience, whereas others seem to only list the sorts of experiences they are after ('led a team of …, '). Does it vary by company (mine only cares about years of industry experience, but others might be different)?

For someone without years of experience, can they compensate by trying to get a broader range of experiences, for example taking on additional tasks at work or taking responsibility for things beyond their job description, industry certs etc?

Comments

  • +11

    Performance is always most important if you actually want to get promoted. Experience only matters for getting the job.

    • So a manager is not always just promoting the person with the most experience? I thought that was how it usually went.

  • +1

    Performance is the most important, people hire you do a thing, and the only thing they care about is that the thing gets done to their satisfaction. It's like hiring a plumber, it doesn't matter to me if the guy has 50 years experience unclogging toilets or 10 minutes, as long as my toilet gets unclogged.

    Experience is what is called a secondary performance indicator. It doesn't measure the thing you actually want to know (how good they are at the job) but it's related and very easy to measure.

    Whether those "broad ranges of experiences" you talk about will help you depends on how you can segue them into your interview to show that you can do the job.

  • On a resume when hiring experience is always important. A lot of the time people applying have the University degrees but no actual experience in IT, so they're often left without getting an interview and then others without degrees score a traineeship.

    Of course it's different everywhere. Just my experience.

  • +1

    I personally would rather have programmed the right thing and done well, vs something inappropriate written poorly but done super fast.

    Which is performance, which is experience?

  • There are a million open source projects you can contribute to, if you need to demonstrate capabilities.
    In this job market, nobody is turning away candidates who are capable but lack some elements.

  • x+ years of experience is usually mentioned for a role.
    list the sorts of experiences they are after - is usually mentioned for the gazillion tools and technologies in the IT industry.

  • As mentioned, the challenge for the recruiter is how to validate performance. Experience is easy (easier) to measure. Performance can't be as easily measured and is more revealed when on the job.

    That is why in CVs, you should always talk about your achievements in addition to your experience. The achievements give an insight into your performance in the role; rather than just what you did.

  • Experience is what gets you the job, performance is what gets you through the probation period. If employers could measure performance before hiring you they absolutely would, but it's too hard to do (although personally, I never hire anyone without putting them through some tests).

    Even saying "led a team" is just a measure of experience not performance, you hang around long enough in any company and they'll get you to manage someone, getting someone with that experience is just so they don't need to handhold you through the basics of it when you get in there. It doesn't mean you're good at it though.

  • Performance.

    Experience and skills are overrated. If you’re a candidate without the full complement of skills and experiences, make sure you can demonstrate you’re an Achiever and someone who can get great results regardless of the circumstances.

Login or Join to leave a comment