How to write the conditions for enterprise recruitment?

If you look carefully, you will make an interesting request, that is, you should have relevant work experience. If you don't think about it carefully, this condition is right, but if you think about it carefully, you will find that this condition is absurd in many cases. For example, if you want to recruit a person who has just graduated from a university or a master's degree to be a manager or director, and you need relevant work experience, isn't that telling the applicant, or not considering it, or lying? How can a fresh graduate have relevant work experience? The essence of the problem is not here. Many of our recruitments require more than five years of relevant equivalent work experience, which seems to be correct, but it is this seemingly correct requirement that implies many fatal mistakes and defects, and sometimes it is tantamount to picking the stars and picking the moon. One of the mistakes is that all recruitment is this requirement, and everyone has a career growth process. At first, they were not managers, directors or general managers. If everyone needs relevant experience, how can they be promoted to these management positions? The key is that everyone's first step begins at the grassroots level, and it is impossible to be born with these experiences. In other words, if every enterprise asks the applicant in this way, he will never find the right person. Unless someone deliberately exaggerates the level, the supervisor will say he is the manager, the manager will say he is the director, and the director will say he is the general manager. Isn't that self-deception But aren't these frauds forced by the recruiting unit? Finally, I was cheated. Do I have to bear it myself? The second mistake is that if you need a general manager, the first thing that comes to mind is to find a general manager from other places, so how valuable is a general manager who can flow at will? Imagine that a truly qualified and excellent general manager has done a good job in the original unit with brilliant performance and good treatment. How could he leave? If you are willing to leave, it means that he has a bad life in his original place or is not well treated. What's the use of digging it out if it's not done well? Assuming that the treatment is not good, you will come if you give it, and there is a higher treatment waiting for him in the next step. Isn't he likely to be poached by others at any time? It can be seen that enterprises that easily set relevant work experience conditions are mostly brainless enterprises, and such enterprises are doomed to be cheated by others. No wonder they always look out when they are not doing well. This is the same strain, and a vicious circle is inevitable. There is a solution to the demand for high-end talents. First of all, we can adjust the thinking of talents and implement the concept of educating people through industry. In other words, we cultivate talents while working at work, which is an internal growth mechanism. We cultivate talents ourselves, instead of digging up unqualified so-called talents at every turn. This can not only cultivate a lot of talents, but also form an atmosphere of learning organization. The most important thing is that internal talents are stable and enterprises are relatively stable. If you broaden your horizons a little, from the point of view that business talents are business relationships and business life, you can meet many external needs, provide genuine talents, and reduce the chance of being cheated by peer companies. If you do this, others will do the same. When talents are badly needed in the future, they will certainly get what they want and will not be cheated. Secondly, we can change the setting conditions to quality characteristics. In other words, you can't expect to hire real and excellent talents with the same work experience for more than 5 years. You can look for them at a lower level, but you need to have certain quality characteristics, be more real and not be cheated. Although it may not come in handy at the time of recruitment, it only needs short-term education and training, and you can get employment soon. When a person is promoted and used, he will cherish the opportunity more than a person who is transferred at the same level because of dissatisfaction, and will creatively exert his ability. The key point here is that it is very important to set the requirements of personnel quality characteristics and evaluate the objects, which many enterprises have not done. We see that many job advertisements have no quality characteristics. For example, if you recruit a marketing creative manager, its characteristic is creative thinking. With this, you can't go wrong. Without this, even if you have worked in this position for 10 years, it is useless. For example, if you hire your boss's driver, don't ask him if he has a driver's license (even if he doesn't). What you should pay attention to is whether he is punctual (inquiry and observation, situational test), whether he has a strong sense of safety (check the historical punishment record and arrange a test drive immediately to see how he drives in an emergency), and whether he is strict (just know his former boss and say nothing). For example, to recruit a general manager, we must measure virtue, sense of mission and responsibility, career planning ability and courage, professional ability, abstract conceptual thinking and critical thinking ability, multiple T-shaped knowledge structure, interpersonal skills and so on. If he used to be a manager or director, if he had such quality characteristics, he would be very good. Also, many times, we don't have to use professionals trained in class, and don't overemphasize their experience. It still depends on your own needs and personal characteristics. We say that a natural wild talent is ten thousand times more precious than a well-trained talent. Judging by your major and experience, you may never find him. We should also realize that, very often, the best results cannot be achieved by using talents with the same major. At this time, we should learn to use more "amateur" talents. Sometimes the creativity of laymen is much stronger than that of people in our bank. Once used well, it will have unexpected effects. I remember that when I was working in a mobile phone company a few years ago, I replaced more than 3,000 promoters and supervisors across the country with amateurs selling instant noodles, Coca-Cola and other fast-moving products in half a year, and the benefits doubled year by year.