I Need Experience to Get a Job, But I Need a Job to Get Experience

The Paradox in Hiring and Being Hired — every applicant deserves a fair chance at proving their worth

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

Job experience is clearly a necessary commodity in the job market, as it no doubts generally gives a person the much-needed ability to hit the ground running without necessarily needing too much of hand-holding. As much as this is important, it is also very advisable that hiring managers to take out time to train people, especially those with the passion to deliver, instead of waiting for an “already made” or “finished product” with precious loads of experience.

This is by no means trying to undermine the importance of job experience in getting a job, but in as much as experience is extremely vital, it is also a great deal that these passionate people with very high level of qualification to explore who lacks experience be given a chance to prove their worth, you will never get extremely deep into their versatility and dedication if you never give them a chance with the excuse of their lack of experience.

Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work — Aristotle

There is, of course, the paradox of needing the experience to get a job, and at the same time, needing a job to get experience. To reconcile this, one has to take into account what you are looking out for when hiring.

If you require interns for a starting position, then by any means you can look out for passionate minds, by interning, they get to acquire the needed experience to yield dividends right away and function at an extremely critical position. In the same vein, if you are in need of someone to step in and consult for a brief period, then you will have to go for an experienced personnel.

To a vast extent, it has to do with your expectations as regards performance and efficiency. If you are willing to tolerate an extended circle of production as well as fit the bill for a higher training cost, then the negligence of experience will do you no harm, but if that is not the case, then experience should be your watchdog, the reason being that proven results can never be replaced. In the end, you or your company is in business to make profit and progress, and to achieve this, the experience is needed. Nonetheless, not all of your team members need to have a high level of experience, lower level staff with minimal output expectations can be excused, and this is where an inexperienced applicant needs to be given the opportunity to prove themselves.

In as much as positions of a great level of performance expectations within a short circle necessitates a high level of experience, there is also the existence of technically qualified and dedicated applicants who can turn around any given task with a minimal level of supervision or training at an extremely rapid rate.

An experienced candidate will naturally come with the considerable advantage of being able to carry out tasks their own way without typically needing too much explicit instruction from the manager, but look at the optimistic side of hiring an inexperienced candidate with full of promises and passion; you get to train or mentor the employee and soon, you develop an extremely effective team, the employee learns how to properly execute a particular task making use of your methods, the employee demonstrates a high level of dedication and is grateful for the opportunity, and as such they accomplish all they can to beat your expectations, you can confidentially allocate duties and the employee will make sure to carry them out as instructed, it goes on.

No experienced person was born with all the experience they possessed, everyone starts somewhere to get to where they are. To such a degree, every applicant deserves a fair chance at proving their worth.

Personal thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable, please recommend it (the little handclap) so it can merely extend to others.