Qualified Versus Capable

I'm intrigued by the the difference between the terms 'qualified' and 'capable'

At work last week I posed an interesting question, just thinking aloud: "If we were to interview from our jobs today, would be meet the required qualifications?"

It is quite a notion, and a question that is not easy to answer. It is easy to disqualify oneself reading through a job description, becoming discouraged by the traits and qualifications required. The laundry lists are extensive, and the skills detailed. I often assume it is a classic catch-22, with experience and theoretical knowledge overly touted in paper but out of synch in the real world.

But back to the root of the question: Qualified vs Capable

Qualified to me is a reference to certifications attained, education completed, years punched in at a job, hard skills in your professional toolkit, and tangible experience that directly relates to your sphere of duties in the workplace.

Capable is an entirely different story. Capabilities are characteristics, experiential resources, a certain depth of capacity, swiftness in learning, tact in fluid circumstances, acquired skills, and confidence in your abilities to perform the tasks at hand and required.

Do you see the subtle, yet apparent, difference? Now to another question: which is preferable?

I suppose that this depends on your perspective, experience, and natural leaning. Generally it boils down to this: In what qualities are you putting the most stock? And at what point are you willing to disqualify or qualify somebody given their pedigree (qualifications) or experience (capabilities)?

This is a fascinating topic, and one which extends far beyond simple job candidacy propositions. I would love you hear your views or experiences with it.

If you were to apply to the current job you are in today, would you get it? Would you make it past the first round of application procedure? What is your view on the 'qualified'/'capable' question?