Given these 2 choices, who would you hire?
Roberto Pérez
11 replies
As a small business aiming to scale, hiring the right person is very important.
If presented with these two choices of candidate, who would you go for?
Replies
Ilayda Ozcan@ilaydaozcan
I think it will vary according to the role as well as the needs and budget of the company.
But based on the information you've given, "Highly competent & experienced, but little synergy" candidates will probably ask for a higher salary. Still, if their role directly affects the company's revenue, they will pay for themselves quickly. The "Average competence & needs training, but great synergy" candidates, on the other hand, even if they expect a lower salary, whether their role directly affects the company's earnings or not, the average results they produce make me wonder if they will be successful in covering their costs.
Besides, it is always much easier to teach hard skills than soft skills if you work on it. Synergy is vital to ensure that it does not negatively affect the productivity and peace of mind of the other team members as well.
Finally, it's the soft skills and synergy for me especially if the role is customer-facing.
Share
Beep! - New Era for Collaboration⚡️
@ilaydaozcan Very good points you brought up, Ilayda.
Yes, highly competent people (or those with extensive experience and a proven track record) do tend to ask for more compensation. It's all a question of evaluating if there will be an ROI at the end of the day.
And true, hard skills are easier to teach than soft skills. Really depends if we have enough time for "hand holding", and at what type of urgency we have in fulfilling certain KPIs.
Thanks for your input, Ilayda!
Actually, it would really depend. However, 2nd option is always the best one for me!
@rockyperezz Happy to share my thoughts, Roberto! :)
Beep! - New Era for Collaboration⚡️
@eliza_crescini Yea, this is a very conditional type of choice. I also do prefer to hire the 2nd option in most cases. Thanks for your input, Eliza :)
I would also go with the second option.
You can always train a lower-competent worker (even though it takes a bit of initial effort) to be a superstar. Highly competent people, especially for a startup, may be unnecessary or would cause a lot of internal conflict which can prove toxic to work environment.
If it's difficult to work with someone, no work can be done haha
Beep! - New Era for Collaboration⚡️
@clyde_garrett I like what you ended with, "If it's difficult to work with someone, no work can be done "
That's true! Thanks for the input, Clyde :)
I'm approaching this from a bit of a nuanced standpoint, perhaps you didn't give the highly competent guy/gal a chance.
It's just from my perspective, since I do get a lot that I tend to come across as difficult to work with initially (or during interview phases), but as I get accustomed to the work environment and get familiar with others, I open up more. Don't take my word for it, I have a lot of colleagues tell me this!
Did you insert any behavioural questions into the interview? or you're just getting this feeling from talking with them in general?
Some people are great workers who don't necessarily like to overly-involve themselves with being social at work. Just my two cents!
Beep! - New Era for Collaboration⚡️
@grizzliusmaximus That's a very insightful point you made. Definitely something to consider moving forward. Adding behavioural questions as you mentioned into the interview questions.