Why do companies prioritize quality over quantity when hiring candidates with 10-20 years of experience for tasks that could be done by someone with 5 years of experience? Have you ever wondered why some companies have such high expectations for experience levels? Let’s dive into this common hiring practice and explore the possible reasons behind it. #Companies #Hiring #ExperienceLevels #QualityOverQuantity
Why Companies Value Quality Over Quantity
– Experience vs. Expertise: The Difference Matters
– Long-Term Investment: Seeking Employee Retention
– Skills and Knowledge: Aiming for Mastery
Why Experience Matters in Hiring
– Industry-specific Expertise
– Leadership and Decision-making Skills
– Problem-solving Abilities
Let’s unravel the mystery behind this hiring trend and understand how it impacts both job seekers and employers in the competitive job market today. #CareerAdvice #JobSearch #EmploymentTrends
Simple is relative to your experience is.
Just because you have 5, 10, or 20 YOE doesn’t mean it’s good experience. There are a lot of SWEs that worked at shitty companies that you would swear is making up stories on their resume about their 15 YOE. The reality is there were different bars to success at different companies.
Working at non-tech companies in non-tech cities at a feature factory is totally different than working at a top tech company in a tech city. The experience you gain at the tech company is really not comparable at an equal YOE comparison.
In the current market, why would anyone choose 5YOE when they can have a 10+ YOE for the same price?
Most companies have no clue what devs actually do so they want those that they feel can do anything that needs to be done. Experienced candidates make them feel more comfortable.
I assigned some easy tasks to inexperienced/low skill programmers thinking it would be fine and learned this lesson the hard way. I’m still paying the price years later!!
Programming is a very interesting field because a tiny mistake can blow up your whole operation. A teeny mistake or bad implementation in a large codebase will leave you spending days investigating/refactoring, especially if the symptom is something as generic as “lag” or a memory leak.
Assigning more qualified people to code review can work, but you need to be deeply engrossed to catch everything in a large codebase. It also causes burnout, since it’s not fun to be spending time fixing other peoples’ mistakes. Working with a team that can all pull their own weight is way more fun.
I honestly wouldn’t recommend hiring anyone with less than 5 YOE on a live project unless the company is super profitable and can tank a few years of them learning + paying for QA + tanking code review time.
An inexperienced or unskilled programmer has high risk — they can kill the product over time and cause workplace anger — with little reward since there’s a chance they may never improve or even just leave once they upskill. Easier to just hire an experienced person, doubly so in this market.
Because a bad candidate will turn a simple task into an even bigger problem
A company looking for 10 to 20 yoe for a role probably don’t have the simple task broken done well enough and just have a problem that a lot of people with 5 yoe will turn into a bigger problem
Of course like other people have mentioned not all experience is the same
Greed!
If they can hire someone with 15 YOE for the salary of someone with 5 YOE, then they can pay the person with 5 YOE absolutely nothing. That’s the reason.
I’ve had juniors turn a small problem into a bigger problem by introducing a bad/barely working solution. I would’ve saved the company time by just doing it myself. Most juniors are a waste of time & money
Just cause they can. Companies demand more and more if the market favors them.
Theres a whole influx of “only equity” engineering jobs. Why? Because they want to take advantage of desperate engineers. Have them work 80 hrs, dilute their shares, fire them and then sell for a big pay day
YOE != quality at all.