Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Experienced staff VS Not experienced

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Experienced staff VS Not experienced

    I used to work at a company that preferred hiring non experienced people for sales agents. That way, they supposedly could teach and mold the perfect sales agent intended for the company's goals. I always thought that this was kind of a waste of time and money since there are a lot of trained sales agents out there (they had to go through a 1 month paid training). What are your thoughts on this?

  • #2
    Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

    The company should train them outside of work first. In that case, they would be professional from the start. Note, having unprofessional people and professional members who have been at the company awhile simply creates an environment where newbies cannot get jobs. I mean, at some point people have to break into the system.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

      In the issue of work experience, I usually find the inexperienced having more potential that those with work experience. But I am speaking about the lower ranks particularly the laborers and caretakers, below the supervisory. With the upper levels, the interview would extract the real persona in the applicant so their experience may be of value depending on their personality traits. Remember that there are worker with a good resume, long work experience, but turns out to be lemon.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

        Originally posted by Alexandoy View Post
        In the issue of work experience, I usually find the inexperienced having more potential that those with work experience.
        That was our Human Resources' thinking as well.

        Originally posted by Alexandoy View Post
        Remember that there are worker with a good resume, long work experience, but turns out to be lemon.
        You're right.

        Don't you find it a waste of money and time, though? I'm talking about a person who doesn't have a clue on how to sell (one of the most important things within a company. If there are no sells, there's no company). I think, instead of training someone, why not hire experienced sellers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

          I've been faced with this situation several times during hiring seasons and I can say that there's no hard and fast rule on which one is more preferable. Most of the times, how well they do in the interview will have a great impact on the hiring decision. An applicant with experience will not necessarily be more preferable because each company is different and he/she will have to adjust to the way our company works and perhaps to its unique culture. On the other hand, a newly grad may be inexperienced, but may just need a little training to refine the talent and realize the potential. So this will vary with the applicant and with the actual needs of the company.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

            I would say that one-month training would seem like a small period but I believe it's a lot. In most sales jobs, fluency and convincing skills are vital. Still, many sales job pay with the commission so I believe the inexperienced agents would strive to do their best so as to get a good wage at the end of the month. I think your company avoided the experienced ones since they would require high salaries and maybe do a bad job.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

              I believe a variety of factors need to be weighed in when deciding who is right. In that case, the experienced, though, having an advantage, don't always have a total advantage. However, though, not all companies probably think thru the hiring process that well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

                I think company hires inexperienced workers mainly because they are easy to motivate and are good followers. They follow rules and regulations and are still very religiously working with less to zero absences unlike the regular and the senior/long time workers. They are still scared that if they broke rules, they get terminated in an instant.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

                  I think we all go through the inexperienced phase. And we learn things along the way. You can see that some of the time experience comes from failure. You just have to adjust with that part. You have to understand what should and should not work in that case. In such cases I'd say people have to make mistakes and get more experience. They should be more than be better in that way to handle the stuff. So you can guess that staff such as this all goes through transition as well.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

                    When it comes to "staff" I think the game has to work differently. I mean, it's always have to prioritize the employees who have more experience in that particular field (after all, they will help other people). On the other hand, it's always good to keep a team in sporadic training to make possible substitutions when necessary.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

                      There are experienced staff who tend to get lazy and more carried away. On the other hand, fresh employees can be more driven to learn. Also, hiring inexperienced employees can be cheaper than experienced ones. Also, some experienced staff tends to stagnate. Meanwhile, new employees have more room to grow.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

                        Some companies, strangely enough, might want an inexperienced staff on purpose. Can anyone think of some possible jobs where the company delights in training newbies so much that it's the main focus?

                        Originally posted by KloeRinz View Post
                        There are experienced staff who tend to get lazy and more carried away. On the other hand, fresh employees can be more driven to learn. Also, hiring inexperienced employees can be cheaper than experienced ones. Also, some experienced staff tends to stagnate. Meanwhile, new employees have more room to grow.
                        Well, that's some good points I didn't think of.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Experienced staff VS Not experienced

                          New Graduates, should understand their worth, when taking a position, especially with private practioners. Private Docs have been know to hire experienced PAs for three months to observe how to manage the clinic, release them and hire newbie PAs/physicians to continuethe practice. Don't be lulled into the "ole" loyalty brand of "staying with your doctor to the end" it pays to always understand what you are worth and be on the lookout for being replaced by newly minted physicans. Remember you bring the equivalent skill set as a new licensed MD, always maintain your own self worth and request the proper renumeration.Be loyal to YOURSELF.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X