I’ve never really understood the concept of “Years of Experience.” Yet, it seems to come up in a lot of discussions around dinner, beers, at startups, at corporates, on social channels — pretty much everywhere.

The year is 2013, and yes, people still evaluate others on years of experience. This arises in a wide variety of situations; the most obvious being the talent process for a lot of companies.

Don’t have at least X years of experience in your position? You’re out of luck.

Some industries rely upon years of experience as the core metric when evaluating potential hires — often times, these are the industries that are most prime for disruption. Hiring solely against years of experience is often a losing battle — as it puts a person’s years of work in front of the actual output.

Winning industries specifically focus on value generated over time spent in a given position. Regardless if you’re working a 9-to-5 or 10-to-8: if you generate significant value for a company, it shouldn’t really matter how long it takes you to complete your work.

Extending this same mindset out to career years — some of the most stable people with obnoxious amounts of “years of experience” are often the most stagnant when it comes to skill growth and overall abilities. I felt Morgan Missen put it perfectly when she said “20 years of experience on your resume only means you’re 40.”

Companies that are able to put years of experience to the side and evaluate a potential hire clearly for not just immediate impact but growth potential, end up winning big.

Truly amazing companies in Silicon Valley are able to do this early and often, enabling them to disrupt slow-moving industries who hire with a very rigid years of experience metric in mind. Valley companies realize that not every hire may bring the years of experience, so they shift the focus toward training to fill in the potential skill gaps.