The argument, over whether corporations should recruit younger staff or older staff, has not been settled yet. It is often argued by some that the employers should select a young workforce because they are hard-working as compared to others. Meanwhile, others still claim that the experienced staff should be prioritized considering their well-shaped skills. This essay will argue both sides of the argument before drawing a logical opinion.
On the one hand, the supporters of hiring fresh graduates believe that the companies can get benefit from their hard work. As they stepped into professional life with a lot of enthusiasm and motivation, they struggle hard to bring betterment to the company to secure a permanent place. Take an example of IBN, Australia, it experimented with employing a young workforce, which resulted in up-gradation of the company’s ranking due to young force hard work. Thus, appointing naïve is to some extent beneficial for the companies.
While on the other hand, the advocates of the view that experienced staff should be hired considering their communication and decision-making skills. As older staff can help with their experience not only developing organizational credentials, but also interact with international delegates to expand the business. For instance, Nestle, Sweden heavily relied on its experience to make ties with the international market. Therefore, the older workforce is also considered as a valuable asset for any company.
However, from my perspective, companies can benefit a lot by selecting both sets of employees. This way they can utilize the positive energy which is present in a fresh youngster, and the vast experience of older employees, for the prosperity of the organization.
To sum up, people may vary in their opinions on which age group should be preferred during the recruitment process, but I believe a combination of both would work wonders.
The argument, over whether corporations should recruit younger
staff
or
older
staff
, has not
been settled
yet
. It is
often
argued by
some
that the employers should select a young workforce
because
they are
hard
-working as compared to others. Meanwhile, others
still
claim that the experienced
staff
should
be prioritized
considering their well-shaped
skills
. This essay will argue both sides of the argument
before
drawing a logical opinion.
On the one hand, the supporters of hiring fresh graduates believe that the
companies
can
get
benefit from their
hard
work. As they stepped into professional life with
a lot of
enthusiasm and motivation, they struggle
hard
to bring betterment to the
company
to secure a permanent place. Take an example of
IBN
, Australia, it experimented with employing a young workforce, which resulted in up-gradation of the
company’s
ranking due to young force
hard
work.
Thus
, appointing naïve is to
some
extent beneficial for the
companies
.
While
on the other hand
, the advocates of the view that experienced
staff
should
be hired
considering their communication and decision-making
skills
. As
older
staff
can
help
with their experience not
only
developing organizational credentials,
but
also
interact with international delegates to expand the business.
For instance
, Nestle, Sweden
heavily
relied on its experience to
make
ties with the international market.
Therefore
, the
older
workforce is
also
considered as a valuable asset for any
company
.
However
, from my perspective,
companies
can benefit a lot by selecting both sets of employees. This way they can utilize the
positive
energy which is present in a fresh youngster, and the vast experience of
older
employees, for the prosperity of the organization.
To sum up,
people
may vary in their opinions on which age group should
be preferred
during the recruitment process,
but
I believe a combination of both would work wonders.