Applying for jobs where you don't meet the person specification

[Getmoveon14]

We're going through a restructure at work. I was all set to apply for a new internal role and had decided how I could learn on the job in order to do it. When the person specification came out, it was clear that you had to need to already have experience in that role so I didn't apply. The only person who matched the person specification decided to leave and in the end the job was given to someone without relevant experience. I'm sure she will be very good at the job but I am left thinking, I should have applied at least. As it is, I am being made redundant and will probably take on a lower grade role in the same workplace. Any other stories about getting jobs where you don't meet the person specification? I would urge everyone to take a chance.

Always apply if you meet some of the spec and feel you can do the job. I used to recruit and hardly anyone met all the spec.

It’s always worth trying even if there are areas you don’t meet. You don’t know who else has applied, they may not get anyone who meets all of the person spec and from there might decide some areas can be ones for development for the best fitting candidate.

A statistic I heard recently: typically, men apply if they meet 60% of the criteria; women typically 90 - 100%.

Don't let an incomplete match stop you from throwing your hat into the ring.

It's been a long time since I've been in the recruiter's seat but I remember that when we were hiring, nobody fit 100% of the criteria.

In my past workplace they hired 2 project managers (v. senior role). The job spec. said to have either 2 years experience in that role or 4 years experience in the grade below. The 2 people hired were a guy who had only 2 years experience in the grade below, rather than 4 (internal promotion) and a woman who indeed had 2 years experience in that role but in a much smaller organization where she didn't have to manage the high impact/high risk projects that she did in our organization.

So yes I'd advise you to apply even if you don't meet all the criteria. If anything you might make contacts or get useful feedback.

Only recently?! A similar stat is trotted out on every single thread like this.

Absolutely. The vast majority of people who apply for any job do nor meet the Person Specification. Of the few who apply who do, at least one will be terrible at interview and be not appointable and at least one will have also applied for a more senior/higher paying job eksewhere and won't accept the job when you offer it, so most of the time theinterview panel have to choose which person-who-doesn't-meet-the-spec to appoint. Of all the things to compromise on, experience is the easiest to gain after being appointed.

Sorry this didn't work out fir you @Getmoveon14 but a good lesson to learn for the future. Be brave, reach high, the right opportunity will come along.

This is another way that women typically disadvtange themselves in the workplace because there's been research done that says that men are more likely to apply for a job where they do not fully meet the personal spec than women are. Always apply for anything you are interested in and let the recruiting team decide. That's especially true in a redundancy situation where your employer has got a responsibility to find you a new role if possible, and you had a plan for how to get up to speed. I hope you don't have to go through this again, but if you do make sure you put yourself forward for anything you think you could do.

It's true though. I do a lot of recruiting and see it in practice ALL THE TIME!

@HedgehogsOnTheWall Yes, I heard it recently, at a conference on gender equality in the workplace and male allyship. This does not preclude me from having heard similar things previously, which is also the case. And clearly, there are many people who are either not aware of this, or do not alter their behaviour if aware, otherwise it wouldn't still be a thing.

Always apply. If they don’t think you fit the role they don’t have to interview you but always apply. Even if you do take on a lower grade role you still have that experience and next time you will know to apply. Good luck OP

Always apply - the decision is on the hiring manager/interview panel - not you!

Years ago, I applied for a job that stated three main criteria. I only met one of them and was the complete opposite of the other two but I got the job, so I’d say always give it a go.

I was made redundant a couple of months ago. I’ve applied for all sorts as long as I met some of the criteria. I got through to the final stage interview for most of the roles, one of which is still being advertised as they can’t find anyone with the exact experience they want (but could have trained them by now!)

I do now have a new role 👍

I would only apply if I had skills that matched the type of experience they were looking for. Even if not the same job / field, I could prove I could do X, Y and Z.

I think every job I’ve ever had I’ve not met the specification in full.

So many job specifications are unrealistic anyway....

As people have said men do this all the time so women should not hesitate to apply for jobs even if they don't tick all the boxes.

I applied to my first career job where I didn't have all the essentials. I was invited to an interview because they had so few applicants. In the end, I showed more understanding of the industry than those already for the company so they gave me the job.

The exact same thing happened to my DS 20 years later.

This.

always apply.

what’s the worst that can happen?

Late to this, but in case it helps: next time, treat the person spec as a wish list. Match each essential criterion to something you've done, even in a different context, and say how you'd close any gap in your first 6 months. As others said, panels often shortlist the best fit, not a perfect match. Did the lower-grade role work out?

Yes. The person spec is a wish list. If that mythical person applies they'll get the job, but in most cases why would someone who already has all the skills/qualifiactions/experience be applying?

I hear this all the time and as an active job seeker who’s also done a lot of hiring I have to say I don’t agree - IF the hiring process is fair and the people involved are competent. The only times in the past I have been involved in hiring where successful candidates haven’t met person specification are where for example we’ve had a maverick CEO who has got involved and is overly impressed by a certain company or university or it’s been through a contact and there’s been some nepotism. I’ve recently applied for about 30 jobs and even multiple trustee roles unsuccessfully where I met the person specification, even if at times one or two of the bullet points were more weakly evidenced. In some cases I met them really strongly and evidenced this clearly. I really can’t see that in the current market people would be successful in more than the odd case if they don’t meet person spec to at least some extent as there are just a lot of candidates that do

I would say the exception is maybe the exact number of years of experience, or where the person spec is so unrealistic that they’re looking for a unicorn and nobody would come close. Or maybe where the people recruiting are inconsistent and/or unfair (eg nepotism above) - I once narrowly missed shortlisting and received detailed feedback stating that my lack of experience in x was the reason (this wasn’t even required in the person spec, they clearly just had a very strong field) and then of course they went onto appoint somebody I know who also has no experience in that area