Related Posts
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site

Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile

Long term cheaper and better for everyone to get the better candidate. Less time spent training and ramp up for what I can assume is not that much in comp compared to revenue they will bring in.
Pro
great point
Define your difference between best and "good?"
I agree with TA1 that usually choosing the best candidate is the way to go; turnover is expensive and most companies don't do a great job of onboarding/setting people up for success anymore. So if you know your company falls into that bucket, then don't try to save a few dollars by going for a less-qualified candidate.
Pro
i guess I'm looking at it as best being the first choice and good as the second choice :)
I am still going with best candidate, even if they cost a little more. I have always found it to be better in the long run. Like Talent Acquisition 1 said, it is better for everyone else long term.
Pro
thanks for your input!