Between old-timers that can't follow new trends and fresh mindsets that will have an open mind on new practices, it's sometimes easy to choose. We need experience to maintain consistency, and unbridled creativity for innovation. It's hard to think outside the box when you've spent years in it. That's why I've jumped from boxes to boxes all my life !
I agree with the sentiment and worry that we are doing a great disservice to ourselves by blocking out new ideas and talent with onerous experience requirements. That not only prevents the development and identification of new talent, but also provides a huge incentive to be dishonest about your work history and scope of previous jobs.
But, I’ve been thinking about this a lot (and writing about it: https://open.substack.com/pub/theslowpanic/p/be-the-adult-in-the-room). Is it “stop hiring experienced candidates” or is it “select for and accommodate critics and new ideas”? That may very well be what you mean with beginner’s mind but I want to put a finer point on it.
There’s a whole untapped pool of people who are experienced enough to spot nonsense and flaws in organizations of varying levels of experience who aren’t able to use that skill due to their organization’s culture. Are less experienced candidates more able to change an organization or will they be assimilated just the same?
Tech company culture demonstrates that it isn’t just experience at play here. There are many inexperienced teams “changing the world” under the banner of a broader socio-technical Goliath with poor values.
What's about people with proven experience in challenging the status quo, driving change, and pinpointing problems in a way which fosters improvements rather than anger and push back?
I've seen many beginners just doing the old errors over and again. And seasoned folks spotting problems quickly, pointing them out clearly and knowing how to drive towards solutions.
I feel it depends of the kind of experience you look for. If you hire people experienced in doing things the way you've always done them you're prone to get stuck with your problems. If you hire people experienced in driving change you have a chance to win.
I'd rather try to achieve a healthy mix of true beginners, people experienced in life but new to the company plus people who now the company inside out since years, but still consistently drive change and improvements.
Just relying on beginners only sounds as risky to me as sticking with folks who've always done it the old way.
Between old-timers that can't follow new trends and fresh mindsets that will have an open mind on new practices, it's sometimes easy to choose. We need experience to maintain consistency, and unbridled creativity for innovation. It's hard to think outside the box when you've spent years in it. That's why I've jumped from boxes to boxes all my life !
I agree with the sentiment and worry that we are doing a great disservice to ourselves by blocking out new ideas and talent with onerous experience requirements. That not only prevents the development and identification of new talent, but also provides a huge incentive to be dishonest about your work history and scope of previous jobs.
But, I’ve been thinking about this a lot (and writing about it: https://open.substack.com/pub/theslowpanic/p/be-the-adult-in-the-room). Is it “stop hiring experienced candidates” or is it “select for and accommodate critics and new ideas”? That may very well be what you mean with beginner’s mind but I want to put a finer point on it.
There’s a whole untapped pool of people who are experienced enough to spot nonsense and flaws in organizations of varying levels of experience who aren’t able to use that skill due to their organization’s culture. Are less experienced candidates more able to change an organization or will they be assimilated just the same?
Tech company culture demonstrates that it isn’t just experience at play here. There are many inexperienced teams “changing the world” under the banner of a broader socio-technical Goliath with poor values.
What's about people with proven experience in challenging the status quo, driving change, and pinpointing problems in a way which fosters improvements rather than anger and push back?
I've seen many beginners just doing the old errors over and again. And seasoned folks spotting problems quickly, pointing them out clearly and knowing how to drive towards solutions.
I feel it depends of the kind of experience you look for. If you hire people experienced in doing things the way you've always done them you're prone to get stuck with your problems. If you hire people experienced in driving change you have a chance to win.
I'd rather try to achieve a healthy mix of true beginners, people experienced in life but new to the company plus people who now the company inside out since years, but still consistently drive change and improvements.
Just relying on beginners only sounds as risky to me as sticking with folks who've always done it the old way.