Hire and train: when a discount on hard skills pays off and when it doesn't

"I like the motivation! Let's take him, he'll catch up on the hard skills": every recruiter has heard this phrase from a hiring manager at least once.

A deadline, a talent shortage or simply liking the candidate: whatever the reason behind such a decision, hiring a person without the necessary competencies is a risk. Which means it's important to understand exactly what you are risking.

We break it down together with NEWHR recruiters: Ekaterina Veselkina (head of the practice for finding expert IT specialists), Olga Makarova (leads the search for team leads, tech leads and DevRels) and Oksana Prutyanova (head of the Data Science and Data Analytics practice).

A discount on hard skills means hiring a specialist who lacks one or more of the mandatory technical requirements from the job description.

When is a discount on hard skills justified?

There aren't enough professionals on the market

If you need a person with a very rare specialization, growing one inside the company can be easier and cheaper than searching for a suitable candidate.

NEWHR case: "Our client was looking for Erlang developers with experience in streaming. There were very few of them on the market. At first, domain expertise was a strict requirement from the client, but after a brief with NEWHR the founder decided to consider candidates without it too. This way we expanded the hiring pool (domain specifics can be learned along the way). The experience turned out to be a success: we found motivated candidates, and they quickly grew their skills inside the company" (says Olga Makarova).

The skill you need can only be gained at your company

A similar reason, but with difficulty x20. Sometimes a company does something so specific that candidates with that stack simply don't exist. In that case you'll have to train new employees either way.

The ideal candidate costs more than the hiring budget

In this case companies often hire a solid middle instead of a senior, and a mentor or external consultant helps them grow to the required level. This only works when there is someone on the team to pass on knowledge.

A startup is looking for people with fire in their eyes

Startups often value motivation and flexibility more than a full set of hard skills. People who want to grow together with the product are more attractive to them than those who can do everything but aren't particularly passionate about the idea.

NEWHR case: "Another client of ours was looking for a development lead. We put forward both experienced pros and specialists of a lower grade. The hiring manager chose an ambitious candidate with little experience, which was a big risk. In the end the newcomer quickly justified the trust and after a while came to head development" (says Olga Makarova).

What's the danger of hiring a candidate without the necessary technical skills?

Mistakes

Yes, we learn from mistakes. But they also cost the company money and time.

Important: assess whether the company is ready for additional costs while the new employee catches up on all the necessary hard skills.

Slow growth

Sometimes a newcomer fills the gaps too slowly, while a ready-made professional is needed right now. The problem can also be on the employer's side. For example: a business gives weaker candidates a chance but leaves them to "sink or swim" on their own without support. Those who don't cope are let go during the probation period.

Important: this approach can be justified if you discuss the terms in detail at the interview. Otherwise the company's employer brand suffers.

A potential crisis

If a mentor leaves, the strategy changes or any other force majeure happens, a less experienced specialist may get lost, even if under normal conditions they handle things brilliantly.

Important: think through internal guides, instructions or a rough action plan for such a case to prepare the newcomer in advance.

Losing the employee

A typical example: a senior accepts an offer for a lead position. And then realizes that for a manager, what counts as soft skills for individual contributors becomes the hard skills: leadership, business orientation, effective communication. If they leave because "management isn't for them," the company's resources will have been wasted.

Important: at the interview stage, try to find out whether the candidate is ready to grow and understands all the nuances of the new role.

When is a discount on hard skills not justified?

There are situations in which this risk of hiring a candidate "to grow into the role" is unjustifiably high, no matter how motivated they seem.

The cost of a mistake is too high

In some fields (for example, finance or information security) a newcomer's mistake will cost you too much.

A demanding team

A strong team may not accept a person who lags noticeably behind, especially if the company has an atmosphere of healthy competition. The newcomer will end up isolated, and there will be no growth.

NEWHR case: "I talked about how to find a candidate for a demanding team in the case study 'A strong leader for a large analytics team.' Among other candidates, we put forward for the Head of Analytics role a person who hadn't managed such a large team before but stood out for a strong technical background. In the end he quickly earned his colleagues' respect and held the team together in a crisis" (says Oksana Prutyanova).

A team of newcomers

The mirror image of the situation in the previous point. If you're already "growing" several employees' hard skills within the team, one more person with gaps is more likely to make the problem worse than to solve it.

The knowledge gap is too big

It's one thing when a candidate doesn't know a specific framework. It's another when they lack the basic competency for the role. There is a threshold beyond which upskilling turns into training from scratch.

No resources for training

Helping a candidate fill skill gaps takes mentors and time. If there is simply no one on the team to share knowledge, this decision won't work.

What if a lack of hard skills is not a bug but a feature?

Sometimes the main hiring question is not "Does the candidate measure up on hard skills?" but "Who does the team really need right now?"

Some founders, especially those with a strong technical background, get "fixated" on equally hard-skilled candidates, without noticing that their business could benefit from a person with a different balance of skills. This is where a recruiting agency can help, as a partner that sees the company's "pain" from the outside.

NEWHR case: "Our client had a team of strong analysts, but it lacked a person who knows how to negotiate with the business. We assessed the situation and put forward candidates with different profiles: both with well-developed technical skills (the ones the client originally planned to look for) and with a strong understanding of business. The company hired a more 'business-minded' analyst. He was finally able to 'sell' the team's analytics projects to the board and turned out to be exactly who the company had been missing" (says Oksana Prutyanova).

Checklist: how to tell whether a candidate can be given a discount on hard skills?

Before deciding they'll "catch up on the hard skills," check:

What is the cost of a mistake in this role?
How big is the gap: "doesn't know one framework" or "lacks the basic competency"?
Is there someone on the team who will really be able and willing to train the new employee?
Is the company ready for mistakes and additional costs during the upskilling period?
Won't this hire throw the team even further off balance?

If most of these questions have clear answers, the decision is most likely right. If there are no answers, it's worth slowing down.

Frequently asked questions

Can you hire a candidate without the necessary hard skills?

Yes, in a number of cases it's justified: during a talent shortage, with a limited budget or at a startup betting on growth. The main thing is to assess the risks honestly and make sure the company has the resources for upskilling.

When should you definitely not give a discount on hard skills?

When the cost of a mistake is high, the team is already unbalanced, there are no mentors for training, and when it's precisely the hard skills that solve the problem the role was opened for.

What matters more in hiring: hard skills or soft skills?

It depends on the role. For technical roles in critical systems, hard skills come first. But for managers, leadership competencies and an understanding of the business work as full-fledged hard skills.

How do you tell that a hard-skills gap is too big?

If closing it requires training from scratch rather than work on a specific tool or framework. Another red flag: if hiring this person means the team won't have the necessary competency at all.