The rule of thumb used to be that experience outweighed education. And, to an extent, this is true today. However, there is a shift in the thinking of many employers. Now, inexperience is valuable because employers can train their employees fresh out of school or entry into the field. They, so to speak, can mold employees how they want them to act and operate without having to break bad habits learned from other employers.

Employees usually have to perform more than one task when it comes to their company responsibilities. So, is it better to be able to train this multi-tasking experience fresh from the get-go or is it better to have a seasoned professional in the office? There is no wrong or right answer.
I tell my clients to consider their level of commitment to training and how many mistakes they can or can’t forgive when it comes to hiring experienced vs. inexperienced employees. My clients are also told to consider the company culture. What level or experience is needed to interact with the other work staff?

Hiring isn’t always easy and it has to be a personal decision, not a formatted one. Three things, regardless of experience or not, that you do want to look for in a candidate are the following;
1) Real passion for the work. Is this a job or something the candidate will truly embrace?
2) Is the candidate a self-starter?
3) Is the candidate motivated to accept challenges and solve problems for customers?

I believe the three questions above should weight more heavily on an employer’s head versus if a candidate is experienced or needs training. You can train talent, you can’t teach it.

Until Monday,
Britanie Olvera, Building Team Solutions