Why Experience Alone Is Not a Proxy for Leadership Readiness in Utility Operations

In the utility sector, experience is often treated as a stand-in for leadership readiness. Years in role, exposure to past events, and familiarity with systems are commonly assumed to translate into sound judgment under pressure. While experience is valuable, it is not a reliable proxy for leadership capability—particularly in environments defined by uncertainty, risk, and public consequence.

Workforce research and credentialing guidance consistently emphasize that experience reflects exposure, not necessarily competence. The U.S. Department of Labor distinguishes between experience-based qualifications and credentials that independently validate what an individual can do, noting that time in a role does not guarantee consistent decision-making performance across varying conditions. In utilities, where no two emergencies unfold the same way, this distinction is critical.

Experience Describes the Past, Not Future Judgment

Experience documents what an individual has encountered, not how they will respond when circumstances change. Two professionals with similar tenure may exhibit dramatically different leadership behaviors when faced with ambiguous information, conflicting priorities, or escalating risk.

Studies in professional competency assessment, reflected in international standards such as ISO/IEC 17024, reinforce that competence must be evaluated through demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and judgment, not inferred from duration of service. In safety-critical industries, reliance on experience alone can mask gaps in reasoning, risk prioritization, and accountability.

Utilities increasingly recognize that past exposure does not ensure future performance—especially as systems grow more complex, interdependent, and regulated.

The Risk of Over-Reliance on Experience

Over-reliance on experience can introduce systemic risk. Experienced leaders may unintentionally normalize deviation, rely on informal workarounds, or underestimate novel threats because prior outcomes were favorable. This phenomenon, often described in safety literature as “normalization of risk,” is particularly dangerous in infrastructure environments where consequences compound over time.

Professional development guidance from organizations such as the American Water Works Association and the American Public Power Association emphasizes the importance of continual evaluation and reinforcement of leadership decision-making, even for seasoned professionals. Experience, while informative, can become a liability when it replaces structured assessment and reflection.

Utilities do not hold leaders accountable for how long they have served, but for how they decide when conditions depart from historical patterns.

Leadership Readiness Requires Transferable Judgment

Leadership readiness in utility operations depends on the ability to transfer judgment across scenarios. Weather events differ. Asset failures evolve. Regulatory scrutiny intensifies. Public expectations shift. Leaders must reason through new constraints rather than rely on precedent alone.

Credentialing frameworks promoted by the Institute for Credentialing Excellence stress that professional credentials should validate transferable competence—skills and judgment that apply across contexts, not just familiar situations. This approach aligns with how utilities evaluate leadership performance: adaptability, prioritization, and defensible decision-making matter more than repetition of past actions.

Experience without assessment does not demonstrate transferability.

Independent Validation Versus Assumed Competence

Certification and credentialing systems exist, in part, to address the limitations of experience-based assumptions. Independent assessment separates familiarity from capability by evaluating how individuals reason through scenarios they may not have encountered before.

ANSI-accredited certification standards and ISO frameworks emphasize impartiality, independence, and consistency precisely because experience is an unreliable indicator of readiness. In utilities, where leadership failures often surface during rare but severe events, independent validation provides a stronger signal than tenure alone.

This distinction is especially relevant for succession planning, leadership transitions, and capital program oversight, where decision authority may shift to individuals with limited exposure to specific event types.

Competency-Based Approaches in Utility Leadership

Competency-based leadership models integrate experience with structured evaluation, recognizing that neither alone is sufficient. These models combine learning, practical guidance, and assessment to evaluate how professionals think, prioritize, and decide under uncertainty.

In the utility sector, credentials designed around competency rather than attendance or tenure offer organizations a clearer view of leadership readiness. One example is the Certified Utility Operations & Capital Professional (CUOCP®) credential administered by the North American Council of Utility Professionals (NACUP), which emphasizes judgment, accountability, and decision-making across operational and capital contexts rather than years of service alone.

Such approaches reflect how utilities actually evaluate leaders—based on reasoning and responsibility, not résumé length.

Implications for Utilities and Professionals

For utilities, conflating experience with readiness can weaken leadership pipelines and obscure risk. For professionals, relying solely on tenure may limit opportunities to demonstrate capability beyond past exposure.

Clear distinctions between experience, competence, and credentialed validation help align leadership development with real operational demands. As infrastructure systems face increasing complexity, climate volatility, and regulatory scrutiny, leadership readiness must be demonstrated—not assumed.

Closing Perspective

Experience matters. It provides context, familiarity, and historical insight. But leadership readiness in utility operations is defined by judgment under uncertainty, accountability for outcomes, and the ability to adapt when conditions change.

Utilities do not depend on experience alone to protect public trust. Neither should professional standards.

Credential Verification Exam-Based vs Attendance-Based CUOCP® Exam Overview

References

Boin, Arjen, Paul ’t Hart, Eric Stern, and Bengt Sundelius. The Politics of Crisis Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/politics-of-crisis-management/

Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Incident Management System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2017. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electricity System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24836

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST, 2018. https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Governance of Infrastructure Assets. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. https://www.oecd.org/gov/infrastructure-governance/

Project Management Institute. Pulse of the Profession: Beyond Agility. Newtown Square, PA: PMI, 2020. https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse