“90% of jobs can be taught on the job.”
That’s what a lot of people preach. I don’t know where they got that figure from, but it’s always a super high number. Where has this actually been tested? I don’t know.
The idea is simple: hire someone with a great attitude, a growth mindset, and the ability to get along with others, and don’t worry too much about the actual skills. Once they’re in the role, they’ll pick things up quickly.
And sure, maybe they can.
But here’s the real question: who is doing the teaching?
Learning Doesn’t Just Happen
It’s like saying 90% of meals can be home-delivered. That sounds great, but someone still has to cook the food and drive it to you. Dinner doesn’t just magically fall from the sky onto your table.
The same goes for jobs. If someone is hired, it’s usually to free up someone else’s time, not to create extra work by adding training into their daily routine.
That’s where the clash happens. On paper, it looks like an easy win: hire for attitude and let skills come later. In practice, you’re asking someone else to stop their own work, train the newcomer, and then some unknown amount of time passes and the new comer is up to scratch.
The Jobseeker’s Perspective
I get it from the jobseeker’s side. Truly, I do.
They know deep down they’re perfect for the job. They think, “If you just show me which buttons to press, I’ll press them, and I’ll be great at this.” And honestly, I’ve thought that plenty of times in my own career. I’ve read so many job ads and thought “This has me written all over it.”
But from the outside, what feels like a quick lesson is actually hours of structured training, coaching, and correcting. The “just show me” mindset underestimates the effort it takes for someone else to stop, explain, and make sure you’ve really got it. How long does it take to actually train someone?
The Manager’s Perspective
From a manager’s point of view, it’s different. I need to plan my team so that each role is effective. That means asking:
- Do I have time to train someone?
- Does someone on my team have the capacity to train them?
- Do I need to pay a trainer allowance or higher duties?
- If one person is training and another is learning, am I effectively down two people?
- Should I actually hire two people to make up for the lost time?
Sometimes the answer is yes. I might have built training into my team structure. Maybe I have an internship program, an apprenticeship scheme, or even a leadership development pathway. I might have designated roles where part of the responsibility is training new people.
But not every team has that.
And here’s the kicker: if training isn’t accounted for in the plan, the quality of both the training and the work suffers. The new person doesn’t get the support they really need, and the experienced staff member struggles to keep up with their own workload.
Hiring for potential is a great idea but only if the business has the systems to back it up.
The Real Takeaway
Not every job needs to have training built into it. Some roles genuinely require people to step in with ready-made skills, while others can allow space for learning and development.
The key is clarity. Businesses need to know whether they actually have the capacity to train and then promote roles in line with that reality. If you can support someone to grow into the job, say so and structure for it. If you need someone who can hit the ground running, be upfront about that too.
Because even if 90% of jobs can be taught on the job, not every business has the setup or desire to make that happen. The real question is whether you’re being honest about what you want and what you can realistically provide.
Desk Lite 
Thoughts?