a day ago
Why hiring for potential beats experience in today's workforce
The Fast Company Executive Board is a private, fee-based network of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience.
BY
Listen to this Article More info
0:00 / 5:47
Long before I began advising global companies and governments on workforce development, I learned a valuable lesson in a very different setting: a commercial kitchen, as an apprentice chef.
In a professional kitchen, there's an unspoken rule: Never put a new dish on the menu without testing it first. No matter how promising a recipe might sound, you don't gamble with the entire service. You trial it by making a small batch, refining it, and tasting again.
We called it a test bake.
I've carried that mindset into every aspect of my career.
Whether I'm helping organizations design apprenticeship programs or advising large companies, the principle is the same: development isn't guesswork, and talent shouldn't be either.
You can't shortcut it, but you can structure it.
That's why I believe we need to rethink the way we hire. Instead of chasing job-ready, skilled-up, and experienced candidates, consider focusing on those we can develop.
In a world where talent is scarce, I argue that inexperience isn't a disadvantage. It might just be an opportunity.
WHY I LOOK BEYOND EXPERIENCE
Take James Dyson. In a recent interview, the inventor and entrepreneur explained why he actively hires school-leavers and trains them in-house through the Dyson Institute. His logic is disarmingly simple: Experienced people tend to replicate what's been done before. But when you're trying to innovate, that history can become baggage.
'They don't do what should be done,' he said of his younger employees. 'They do something else; something way more interesting.'
It struck a chord with me.
Too often, I see businesses insisting on five years of experience for entry-level roles, only to find that experienced hires either don't stay or can't adapt. Research backs this up. A Harvard Business Review study found that internal hires—people 'grown' within the organization—often outperform external recruits for up to two years. They are also more likely to stay.
The reality is that experience doesn't guarantee success. In fact, it can blind us to potential.
Hiring people without industry experience isn't about charity or cutting corners. It's a deliberate workforce strategy—one that I've seen pay off across industries and countries.
Here's what it offers:
Fresh Thinking: Inexperienced employees ask sharper questions because they haven't absorbed 'the way things are done.' That's how breakthroughs happen.
Adaptability: Without fixed habits, they're easier to train and align with your culture and systems.
Loyalty: When people feel invested, they often repay it with commitment. Apprenticeship data shows they stay longer and are more productive.
Cost Control: Entry-level hires often have lower salary expectations, freeing up budget for training and support.
Greater Diversity: Traditional hiring criteria often exclude talented people from non-traditional backgrounds. Looking beyond experience widens your talent pool.
That said, hiring inexperience doesn't work if it's done haphazardly. It requires leadership, structure, and a development mindset. Otherwise, you risk putting someone in a role they're not ready for—and that's on you, not them. I'm not advocating to always go for inexperience candidates—it's definitely horses for courses.
WHAT EMPLOYERS MUST DO DIFFERENTLY
The temptation in hiring is to look for a quick win: someone who can 'hit the ground running.' But I've found that very few people, experienced or not, walk into a job fully formed. Every new hire needs orientation, mentoring, and support.
So, the question becomes: If you're going to invest time onboarding anyway, why not do it with someone who's eager to learn, who'll grow with your business, and who doesn't carry the weight of past habits?
To do that well, you need systems in place: structured training, clear career paths, and managers who see themselves not just as supervisors, but as talent developers.
Research refers to this as 'ambidextrous leadership,' or the ability to encourage new thinking while maintaining operational clarity. In my experience, that's the kind of leadership that builds both innovation and resilience.
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE TEST BAKE
Not every hire will be a perfect fit from day one. That's why I return to the test bake.
In a kitchen, we don't abandon a recipe because the first try flopped. We adjust, iterate, and try again. We expect development to take time. The same should be true for people. Hiring inexperience isn't about accepting less—it's about building more.
Yes, it's a risk. But so is hiring someone with experience who's already burned out or unwilling to adapt. The question isn't whether a candidate is ready today. It's whether you're ready to build the kind of workplace where they can become great tomorrow.
THE LONG GAME IN TALENT
Experience has its place. But it's not the only measure of potential, and increasingly, it's not the most useful one. If your organization is serious about futureproofing, innovation, and creating real pipelines of talent, you can't rely solely on buying skill from the outside. That's tricky in a skills shortage.
You have to be willing to build it.
That means testing. It means learning. And yes, it means baking.
Because in the end, you don't build a great team by picking winners off the shelf. You build it the way a chef builds a menu: one careful, thoughtful, messy test bake at a time.
The super-early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, July 25, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nicholas Wyman is president of IWSI and author of Attract, Retain, Develop, a guide to shaping a skilled workforce for the future. Read Nicholas's Executive Profile here. More
