Hiring for Experience, Not Skills - The Sad Reality in UX Today.

Experience Wins in an Oversaturated Market

Right now in UX, shifting direction, even a little, feels nearly impossible. Most roles go to people who’ve done almost the exact same thing before: worked for a competitor, a similar product, or in the same public sector. Think: moving from one health tech company to another, or from one GDS role to the next.

In a four-stage interview with IDEO, I was told I’d done really well, and they believed I could learn quickly. But they hired someone with exactly the experience they needed, a quicker, safer choice. (Not saying I should’ve gotten the job, but experience was clearly a big factor in their decision making.)

GDS roles, for example, often require active security clearance and familiarity with their design frameworks. So how do you get that experience if you haven’t already worked there? You basically can’t. You can’t work there unless you’ve worked there. Cool.

This wasn’t always the case. A few years ago, things felt more open. Now, it’s all about risk-aversion and, “Have you done this exact thing before?” - because they can be that risk-averse, thanks to lots of UX talent out in the market, not to mention lots of senior people out there too, often taking jobs they’re overqualified for at less salary.

This is a problem for lots of reasons. By only recruiting people with very similar experience, you’re limiting the chance to bring in different ways of thinking and working. You’re also downplaying the importance of skills, potential, and intelligence, focusing solely on whether someone has done the exact same thing before. Now, I’m not saying having experience means you can’t also have those qualities, of course you can. But it’s not the only way to have them, and hiring teams should be looking beyond just experience.

That said, hiring teams are under massive pressure. With 400+ applications per role, experience is the easiest filter, quick to scan and concrete. Assessing thinking, skills, or potential takes much more time. It’s harder and less obvious.

What can be Done on the Candidate Side?

So how do we change this? Especially in a market where demand is high, but most companies still want the perfect, cookie-cutter experience. There will always be people who fit that mold exactly. So what about the rest of us?

Do we just stick to what we already know, stay in our little lanes, hoping for “better days” when the market is less saturated? Or do we have to get creative, find ways to build up that “perfect experience”? Maybe that means side projects, freelance gigs, or volunteering in new areas just to get a foot in the door. But it's a long game.

What can be Done on the Hiring Side?

Honestly, this is a much bigger conversation than just one article. But it’s worth asking: are there ways to move away from the heavily experience-driven CV and list of experiences as the main filter?

What if, instead of a CV that’s basically a snapshot of your past jobs, we had a way to showcase skills, problem-solving abilities, and how you think? A representation of you as a more holistic asset, not just a list of where you’ve worked.

What would that even look like? How would you want to represent yourself if you weren’t boxed into the traditional CV and interview format? What would be useful for talent and hiring teams that wouldn’t add even more work for them? How could we represent you in other ways that give a clear and quick indication of your capabilities and potential?

And finally, Where does this change in hiring need to start happening?

I’ll leave you with these questions and take some time to think about them myself.