Short Answer

‍

No, years of experience alone are not strong predictors of future job performance. Research shows that while experience can provide useful context, validated hiring assessments, structured interviews, and job-relevant data are often far more effective at predicting long-term success, performance, and retention.

‍

TL;DR

‍

Hiring based solely on resumes and years of experience may feel safe, but research shows experience is only weakly connected to future job performance. The strongest hiring strategies combine recruiter judgment with validated hiring assessments, structured interviews, work samples, and job-related data to improve quality of hire, reduce turnover, and make more informed talent decisions.

‍

Introduction

‍

Hiring the candidate with the most experience feels safe.

‍

They have done the job before. They know the language. They may understand the industry. They might need less training. On paper, choosing the more experienced candidate can feel like the practical, responsible decision.

‍

But here is the problem: years of experience do not predict job performance nearly as well as most hiring teams assume.

‍

That matters because many hiring processes still lean heavily on resumes, job titles, years in role, and industry background. Those are useful recruiting signals, but they are not the same as validated hiring assessments, structured interviews, or job-relevant data that can more directly predict future success.

‍

A meta-analysis published in Personnel Psychology by Van Iddekinge, Arnold, Frieder, and Roth examined whether pre-hire work experience predicts later performance and turnover. Pre-hire experience means the amount, duration, or type of work experience someone gained before entering a new organization. Across 81 independent samples, the relationship between pre-hire experience and future outcomes was surprisingly weak: .06 for job performance, .11 for training performance, and .00 for turnover. Even experience that looked relevant to the current role was only weakly related to job performance.

‍

That does not mean experience is useless. It means experience is incomplete.

‍

Why Experience Feels Like a Strong Hiring Signal

‍

Recruiters and hiring managers use experience because it is visible, fast, and easy to compare.

‍

A resume gives you job titles, employers, dates, industries, and responsibilities. When hiring teams have too many candidates and too little time, experience becomes a natural filter. That is not bad recruiting. It is practical recruiting.

‍

The issue starts when experience is treated like proof of future success.

‍

Experience is like mileage on a car. It tells you the car has been on the road. It does not tell you whether it was maintained well, whether it handles pressure, or whether it is built for the road ahead.

‍

The same is true with candidates. Five years in a role does not tell you whether someone was a top performer, an average performer, or someone who repeated the same year of experience five times.

‍

Do Years of Experience Predict Job Performance?

‍

The short answer is: not very well.

‍

The Van Iddekinge et al. article is important because it separates pre-hire experience from other types of experience. That distinction matters.

‍

Experience gained inside your current organization can be valuable because employees learn your systems, customers, expectations, tools, and culture. But experience gained somewhere else may not transfer as cleanly.

‍

The authors explain that pre-hire experience may be more company-specific than people realize. Someone may have learned the routines, norms, products, manager expectations, and informal rules of a previous company. Those lessons may not help as much in a new organization with different systems and expectations. In some cases, they may even get in the way.

‍

In plain English, prior experience tells you someone has been exposed to similar work. It does not tell you whether they will succeed in your environment.

‍

The Resume Screening Trap

‍

Most companies do not overvalue experience because they are careless. They overvalue it because hiring is messy.

‍

Experience requirements are easy to write into job postings. They are easy to screen. They give hiring managers confidence. They also feel more objective than gut instinct.

‍

But if experience is only weakly related to job performance, then heavy experience screens can create a hidden problem: they may shrink the candidate pool without meaningfully improving the quality of hire.

‍

That means organizations may be screening out people who could perform well simply because they do not have the “right” number of years, the “right” title, or the “right” industry background.

‍

The authors make this point directly: organizations may be excluding applicants who lack the desired amount or type of pre-hire experience but could still succeed on the job.

‍

When Experience Still Matters

‍

The right takeaway is not “ignore experience.”

‍

Experience can still matter when: 

• The job requires specific technical knowledge on day one
• The role has limited training time
• Initial performance matters more than long-term development
• Prior task exposure closely matches the work being performed
• The organization has evidence that experience predicts success for that role

‍

The study found that pre-hire experience was somewhat more predictive when employees first started a new job. It also found that task-level experience predicted training performance in some contexts, although those findings were based on smaller subsets of studies.

‍

So experience may help someone get started faster. But it is not a strong enough signal to carry the hiring decision by itself.

‍

Why Hiring Assessments Improve the Picture

‍

The better question is not, “Should we use experience or assessments?”

‍

The better question is, “What information do we need to predict success more accurately?”

‍

A stronger hiring process combines experience with more job-relevant evidence, including:

• Validated hiring assessments that measure job-related traits, judgment, cognitive ability, culture fit, or role-specific capabilities
• Structured interviews that evaluate consistent competencies using clear rating criteria
• Work samples or job simulations, when candidates need to demonstrate technical skills
• Realistic job previews that help candidates understand the role before accepting
• Validation studies that test whether hiring criteria actually predict performance, turnover, or other business outcomes

‍

The key is not just adding more steps. It is knowing how to choose the right assessment for the job and use tools that are job-related, validated, and appropriate for the decision being made.

‍

For a deeper look at the business case, see our related article on how hiring assessments improve performance and ROI.

‍

This is where science-based hiring becomes more powerful than resume screening alone. Strong hiring tools should also be built and evaluated using professional standards for validating hiring tools, not just vendor claims or face-valid questions.

‍

A resume can show that someone has worked in customer service. A validated hiring assessment can help determine whether they are likely to stay composed with difficult customers, follow through on details, learn quickly, and use good judgment.

‍

A resume can show that someone has managed people. A leadership assessment can help determine whether they are likely to coach, hold people accountable, build trust, and make sound decisions.

‍

A resume can show that someone has sold before. A sales assessment can help determine whether they are persistent, organized, persuasive, coachable, and comfortable handling rejection.

‍

Experience looks backward. Validated hiring tools help predict the future.

‍

Should HR Remove Experience Requirements?

‍

Usually, no.

‍

A better first step is to audit how experience is being used.

‍

Ask:

• Are our experience requirements truly job-related?
• Are we using years of experience as a minimum qualification or as a scoring factor?
• Do we know whether experience predicts performance in our organization?
• Are we screening out high-potential candidates too early?
• Are hiring managers overweighing resume background during interviews?
• Are we combining experience with validated hiring assessments and structured interviews?

‍

The goal is not to make hiring less human. The goal is to make hiring less dependent on assumptions.

‍

ForPsyte Perspective

‍

From a recruiting standpoint, looking at experience and background is reasonable. It gives HR teams a starting point.

‍

But it is not the full picture, and it usually does not fully predict future success.

‍

ForPsyte’s perspective is simple: experience should inform the hiring process, not dominate it.

‍

The best hiring decisions combine recruiter judgment with validated hiring assessments, structured interviews, and evidence tied to the actual job. This helps organizations move beyond “who looks familiar on paper” and toward “who is most likely to perform well here.”

‍

If your team is reviewing assessment options, our Assessment Provider Guide & Checklist can help you ask better questions before choosing a tool. You can also explore our structured interview resources to support more consistent, job-related hiring conversations.

‍

That distinction matters for quality of hire, turnover, manager confidence, and fairness.

‍

If your hiring process still relies heavily on years of experience, it may be worth asking a harder question: Do we know this requirement predicts success, or are we using it because it feels safe?

‍

FAQ

‍

Do years of experience predict job performance?

‍

Research suggests years of experience are only weakly related to future job performance. Experience can provide context, but it is not a strong standalone predictor of long-term success.

‍

Are hiring assessments better predictors than resumes?

‍

Validated hiring assessments and structured interviews often provide more job-relevant insight into future performance, judgment, cognitive ability, and workplace behaviors than resumes alone.

‍

Should companies stop using experience requirements?

‍

Not necessarily. Experience can still matter for technical or specialized roles, but organizations should avoid relying on experience as the primary hiring predictor.

‍

What predicts job performance most accurately?

‍

The strongest hiring processes combine multiple factors, including validated hiring assessments, structured interviews, work samples, recruiter judgment, and job-relevant performance data.

‍

Why do companies overvalue experience?

‍

Experience is easy to compare and screen quickly, especially when hiring teams are overwhelmed. However, what feels safe is not always what best predicts success.

‍

Bottom Line

‍

Years of experience can be useful. But it is a weak substitute for evidence.

‍

The research suggests that pre-hire experience is generally a poor predictor of future job performance and turnover. The authors ultimately caution organizations against using pre-hire experience to screen applicants unless they have evidence it predicts valued outcomes and does not create adverse impact.

‍

That is the real lesson for HR leaders.

‍

Do not throw out experience. Put it in its proper place.

‍

Use experience as context. Use validated hiring assessments, structured interviews, and job-relevant data to make better predictions.

‍

APA citation

‍

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Arnold, J. D., Frieder, R. E., & Roth, P. L. (2019). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of prehire work experience. Personnel Psychology, 72(4), 571–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12335