As I remember from an HR course at business school, studies have shown that experience is one of the worst indicators for job performance (when hiring someone; all else being equal).
Also, "experience is one of the worst indicators for job performance...all else being equal" could mean a lot of things:
1) truly everything else being equal i.e. the person with less experience will do better. (surely that is not the case)
2) Of everything, considered equally, experience is the least indicative of performance compared to education, creative thinking, etc.
Can you link those studies and clarify what is meant by "worst indicators"?
Also, what job was that in the evaluated job performance? I know it's definitely not true for trade skills like woodworking.
https://blog.codinghorror.com/skill-disparities-in-programmi...
I guess, I’m just skeptical of this because I recently switched jobs from a place where nobody seemed to know what was happening to one where everything seems to be very well-polished. At both places, people generally are similar in their ability to write code that does a specific thing, but there’s a night/day difference in how they do these other things. And I’m hesitant to say that it’s because they just fundamentally aren’t good at those things, because that can’t explain how I was also miserable at those other areas but seem to be learning how to do them now that I’m in the right environment. In other words, I feel like my ability to meaningfully contribute to an organization as a computer programmer is increasing with experience, and I can see quite clearly that the people with more seniority at my present job are generally capable of more effectively navigating the problem space than are my coworkers fresh out of college.
As an example do you control for total number of x-size projects completed, or do you control for x-size projects completed per time in the career? It should be clear that you cannot keep them both equal, you have to choose one or the other (or neither I suppose).