There are two philosophies that you can follow if you are recruiting people.
The first philosophy calls for picking people who are slightly more qualified for the job on hand in the hope that the candidate, once employed, will elevate the scope of the job, think beyond his job whereby adding value to the organization.
The second philosophy, which is more prevalent, follows the thought process that it is better to recruit people who have slightly inferior skill sets to the requirements of the job on hand. They should then be given training to ensure they carry out the work efficiently. After all the purpose is that the job has to be done properly.
I have always been a believer of the first philosophy. As an entrepreneur, I used to pick the best and pay them above the market rate. And it was a pleasure training them for they were very intelligent and able to grasp quickly. My pride was that each of my employee was worth four of my competitor. But the flip side was that, the job turnover was high with them soon outgrowing my company and leaving for greener pastures. This affected continuity and stability.
As I said, most organizations take the second route. They make it a point to recruit average employees so that they need pay less and are able retain them. While this give stability, the flip side is that hardly any dynamic or innovative ideas come from these employees. The organization will slip into mediocrity in the long run. And it becomes very difficult to get these people to grow into higher positions as they may not have the skills required. This will necessitate in having to bring in people laterally causing considerable heart burn and dissatisfaction among the current employees.
I still firmly believe in the first philosophy. Maybe because I am a dreamer. But I have no regrets. Because it is a pleasure to be surrounded at work with intelligent people
