Do you think Retraining Staff is better than Hiring New?

Pimbrook Software

As a small business owner, it can take a lot of money, time and resources to properly train a new employee.

Do you think Retraining Staff is better than Hiring New?

Pivot Eoin

You owe it to your staff to retrain people so they can learn and excel in the role. If you dont they will become unmotivated, lazy and stagnant. Your best employees will always leave and you will be stuck working with less. Obviously a mix of both is what works for most companies. If the skills are incomparably different to what you have on the team and you need it for your business, obviously you need new hires.

I love Sean nos

It's not just skills that employees needs. They also need to be familiar with the company culture.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Pimbrook Software wrote: »

As a small business owner, it can take a lot of money, time and resources to properly train a new employee.

Do you think Retraining Staff is better than Hiring New?

If you have a senior operative and you want a manager and a senior the senior will want a shot at the manager role.

If you hire a manager you might have to also hire a senior so if the senior has potential give him a shot.

pedroeibar1

Pimbrook Software wrote: »

As a small business owner, it can take a lot of money, time and resources to properly train a new employee.

Do you think Retraining Staff is better than Hiring New?

The answer to this is a no-brainer. You can treat your employees like cr@p, in which case they will treat you, your business and your customers in a similar fashion. Or you can develop them into a skilled dedicated and interested workforce.

There should be a company policy of advertising vacant positions internally first and only for very specific positions should an external candidates be considered. Even then there should be a monetary/voucher reward to a staff member who can recommend a successful candidate/applicant. (A lot cheaper and usually better than recruitment.)

Good employees are the motivated ones, those who wish to progress and take on new challenges and responsibilities. Trained/educated and dedicatedemployees are a key factor in the success of any business. Training should also appropriate – be it technical, CPD or new skills development.

Some jurisdictions see training as so important that it is enshrined in their Employment Laws – in France, for e.g. decades ago a company was obliged to spend a percentage (6 %?) of its payroll annually on staff training. Today that’s modified and every employee receives a training entitlement of 24 hours per year until they reach a threshold of 120 hours, then its 12 hours a year until they reach the threshold of 150 hours. Part-time workers are covered pro-rata. It also is ‘portable’.

It can be frustrating when a trained employee quits, but overall training is a positive and on balance it is money well spent.

gargargar

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There should be a company policy of advertising vacant positions internally first and only for very specific positions should an external candidates be considered. Even then there should be a monetary/voucher reward to a staff member who can recommend a successful candidate/applicant. (A lot cheaper and usually better than recruitment.)

Good employees are the motivated ones, those who wish to progress and take on new challenges and responsibilities. Trained/educated and dedicatedemployees are a key factor in the success of any business. Training should also appropriate – be it technical, CPD or new skills development.

Good points there. One caveat I would add is that you need to be realistic on the staff member's capabilities. Having the right person doing the right job is particularly important for a small company. You just can't carry anybody.

We had a member of staff who was really popular, and good at their job. However, the job they were doing was becoming redundant, at the same time a new, somewhat related, position was opening up. We moved them to the new position and gave them training. In the end it didn't work as they were not really suited to the new role.

pedroeibar1

gargargar wrote: »

We had a member of staff who was really popular, and good at their job. However, the job they were doing was becoming redundant, at the same time a new, somewhat related, position was opening up. We moved them to the new position and gave them training. In the end it didn't work as they were not really suited to the new role.

Indeed. A regular occurrence, particularly if the employee does not want the change. A classic case of the 'Peter Principle', which is based on Ortega y Gasset’s comment that all public servants should be demoted to their immediately lower level, as they have been promoted until they reached incompetence.

PS Don't forget Dilbert!