Prioritizing niche software proficiency over proven leadership experience is costing companies months of lost productivity.
Hiring the right person is notoriously difficult. Learning to navigate commercially available software, however, is not.
Bryan Creely, a former recruiter and current CEO of Soor, learned this the hard way. He recently applied for a role he was exceptionally qualified for. The recruiter confirmed he was a perfect fit, noting his stellar recruiting background, his track record of mentoring teams, and his direct experience working with executives. The company specifically needed someone to develop their inexperienced recruiters.
Yet, he didn't get the job.
Normally, this isn't surprising—there are often multiple capable candidates for a single role. But when Creely asked for feedback, the reason for his rejection was staggering.
"I was surprised too," the recruiter told him, "but the hiring manager said you didn’t have recent experience with their specific applicant tracking system (ATS)."
Creely pointed out that learning a new user interface would take a few weeks at most. The recruiter agreed, but insisted the manager's mind was made up. The kicker? There was no other candidate who possessed Creely’s leadership skills *and* the specific ATS experience. Because of this rigid requirement, the job remained unfilled for weeks, and possibly months.
Don’t Mistake Tool Proficiency for Proven Experience
We all want to hire someone who can hit the ground running. But we must weigh candidate skills appropriately.
Creely already possessed the hard-earned experience required for the role; he just hadn't used one specific piece of software. While some platforms are more complex than others, modern ATS tools are designed for rapid user adoption, and there is massive functional overlap between them.
As Creely bluntly summarized: *"Some hiring managers would rather spend eight months recruiting a role than one month training someone."*
True expertise—managing large teams, navigating difficult clients, building five-year strategic plans—cannot be learned from a manual or a weekend seminar. It requires time and trial by fire. If you need someone to do those things, you are absolutely right to screen for deep experience.
But end-user software? That can be learned in a training session.
The Hidden Cost of Refusing to Train
Many companies have a deep aversion to training budgets. In fact, many HR professionals pay for their own upskilling out-of-pocket because their employers refuse to foot the bill. But in the grand scheme of business operations, training is incredibly cheap.
In Creely’s case, intensive training would have cost the company a few thousand dollars at most. Realistically, as an experienced recruiter familiar with similar systems, he likely needed just a few hours of shadowing to get up to speed.
Compare that to the cost of an empty seat. Every day a position remains unfilled costs the company lost productivity and drives burnout among the staff covering the gaps. Furthermore, every hour spent interviewing unqualified candidates is an hour stolen from revenue-generating work.
Train Them, or Lose Them to the Competition
A common fear among leadership is that you will invest in training an employee, only for them to leave for a competitor.
But consider the alternative: the exceptional candidate you passed over will inevitably be hired by that exact same competitor. When in doubt, ask yourself: *"How would I feel if my competitor hired this person?"* If the answer makes you uncomfortable, you already know that training is worth the investment.
After training thousands of professionals throughout my career, I can confidently say that almost anyone can master the material. Don’t push a top-tier candidate aside when a few thousand dollars—and a few hours of training—could turn them into your best employee.