"Experience is the best teacher, but only for fools," That was the first negative criticism I ever heard about experience. Before that it was one of the measurements that I used to determine the intensity of my knowledge and the extensity of its practicability in any field.
I started wondering if experience was really necessary for one's employability. If experience made us better, it should imply that we naturally become better simply by living. Those older than us should understand life better, and live better lives. However, this is not always the case. Most of those who've lived longer than us are observed to be merely products of their own habits. Some have repeatedly made the same mistakes, never learning from their "experiences." This can be true too if we look into our own selves.
Status Quo
Experience is an inertia that creates a status quo. Those well experienced in a certain field tend to stabilise with time into a state that makes them do a certain task with the least discomfort. Any change in the system is received with contempt; and anyone who effects such a change is abhored. New employees who want to better the system are normally faced by forces that eventually see them try to fit in. The established status quo becomes a liability for oneself and for the company, as it is as hard to change as it was to make. In the end, this inertia develops into a culture; what the experienced employees mean when they tell you "this is how we do things around here,"
Experience is Neither Growth nor Development
Nor can it be used to measure the above two most important aspects of ones employability. Someone with 15 years experience in a certain field may appear to be quite knowledgeable and acquainted with that particular field, while in reality it was just 1 year repeated 14 times. They practically did the same things year in year out.
So what does this tell us- new blood into the industry- about experience? Firstly, experience in itself has no worth. It is a default right of everything that exists; everything that lives. What matters is how we used our time during those years of experience to progress and continuously improve ourselves. It is not a matter of "being" there in such a noble position for all those years; it's about achievements, transformations and changes that you effected during that time. Ask yourself this question: does the company need me?
Secondly, it implies that being experienced is not synonymous to being knowledgeable. Neither is it the same as being qualified-although this is hard to distinguish from. This has an important practical application for us as it gives us the right to break the rules set forth by individuals in certain professions. Indeed, some individuals have already done this by becoming the youngest CEOs in many organisations. There's no longer an age limit for CEOs, what is required is to prove that you're up for the job.
Lastly, it means we can multiply our time. We can work for two years but worth 5 years of experience by being a time multiplier. This can be achieved through delegation of authority and tasks, prioritising and reprioritising and coming up with smarter ways to use our time. Simply put, you can finish a 5-year project in 2 years time.
