Hiring for Experience vs Hiring for Talent
Many factors go into hiring, but one of the most important considerations is cost. Hiring for experience costs more than hiring for talent. That said, there are benefits to both experience-based and talent-based hiring strategies, including cost efficiency and more effective team dynamics. Here’s what you need to know about each approach.
Start with the job description
Small companies have little room for error in terms of poor hires. The more precisely you’ve defined the job position, the better your odds of hiring the right person. A well-defined job description will provide clues as to whether you should hire based on talent or experience.
Highly skilled positions and leadership positions benefit from having an experienced candidate fill the role. An inexperienced candidate is better suited for jobs that require non-specialized skills or creative thinking.
Costs associated with talent and experience
Inexperienced talent may start at a lower compensation level, but they can be more expensive in the short term because they require more training and development. If an employee leaves before you’ve recouped the training costs, you’ll have to start all over with nothing gained from your investment. On the other hand, experienced people command a higher level of compensation, but they can be productive immediately.
Finding the right mix for your business
Creating a balance of experienced and inexperienced workers allows you to maximize your staffing investment. A strong experienced leader can manage several inexperienced employees who possess the potential for learning new things. Those less experienced employees will grow into your future leaders and provide long-term stability for your business.
If you would like to learn more about how this might apply to your business, let’s talk: