I'm curious as to what all your admin assts do that would require a whole years worth of training? wow
Put some flyers up around the local college. College girls are always looking for cash, especially when they get to keep their clothes on.
I need solid Excel and Word Skills. Spreadsheets. Letter writing and formatting. Construction experience. Learning the language that is used in our industry. How to fill out forms to get our company Pre-qualified for upcoming projects. There is A LOT to learn.
You guys are just ridiculous. In all seriousness if you don't feel the person can work well in groups or as a team they shouldn't be considered if that's part of the job no matter how long their knowledge or qualifications are.
"Doesn't work well with others" is too strong of a term. Doesn't work with others as good as the other candidate is more accurate.
If teamwork is a high priority... no brainer. No matter how qualified... someone who can't work well with others is a liability. Someone who can, will be joyously assisted by other members of the team while they catch on.
Hire both and fire a current team mate with the simple explanation "we are trimming the fat around here" Time to shake it up in the office.
I hope this is just one of those "off season threads" just to make conversation. Not sure a leader should have to ask a forum about bow hunting. If so, so be it, to each their own right? I have hired an fired my share of people. I'm much better at firing according to my team. It depends on the intentions of the potential as far as time they are planning on staying. If the first one plans on being there for a while and your turnover rate is low, I would go with the first one. If not, go with the second one. The only issue I would have is taking a year to start getting a return on an employee is a long time. It cost a lot to train someone for 30 days much less a year. Without actually performing the interview and knowing in depth the needs of the organization, it's really hard to make the call though.
#2 as they can hit the ground running. I would make sure you set an expectation that it is a team environment and they will be expected to work well with the team, if not corrective action and lack of pay increase in the future is likely. Have them sign a performance agreement that includes working as a team along with performing the basic skills needed. #1 may get along with people but if she doesn't have the skills it could affect the team as well. In other words, niceness is only as good as the ability for peers to respect them. If they can't do the job or make mistakes you will have a team of gripers.
You're asking a bunch of internet crooks to help you make the right hire. Fire yourself and hire the one that would hit the ground running... Candidate number 2. You in no way in a couple interviews know exactly how each would fit in. If she has the skills, she's done the work good enough to interest you. Take the one who's already trained. That said... the one with the big Ta Tas.
I generally tend to lean towards a better attitude that I can train but that's just my preference - of course there is a point when the risk is worth the reward - only you can answer that.... Someone that causes conflict or doesn't fit in seems to cause more grief than it's worth - just my 2 cents... Good luck!
Some interesting comments on this one for sure. We offered #1 this afternoon and she accepted. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which 1 enjoys the outdoors (ie hunting/fishing etc). Seriously as someone stated hire the 1 that is best for the job not the 1 who is best for fellow employees. So the answer would be #2
Sorry didn't see previous post above mine. Well hopefully she pants out. Hope your job doesn't hang in the balance !!!!! LOL. JK
