Qualification versus quality

I'm editing a Q&A response for the Professional Development section of the Internal Comms Hub about the difference between strategic internal communications experience, and a professional qualification, and the difficulty concerning choosing between the two.

I'm intrigued as to what really counts as having the best level of knowledge to fill a comms position. Would/should you go for the person with the formal, recent, high-scoring qualification to fill a suitable post, or would you be better off hiring the person with a wealth of comms experience but no formal qualification – and potentially with 'past-it/traditional' comms leanings? – as they know the ropes? I'm inclined to opt for the latter, but I guess both options have their pros and cons. Anyone feel strongly either way?

Soundtrack for the posting: School's Out - Alice Cooper

Comments

[Mark Darby]

I agree with you on this one Annie. The quality of the qualifications out there don't guarantee you a decent candidate. Experience (which they can back up with examples) is much prefered in my eyes.

[Sandra Fransen]

I would go for the former journalist...but I'm biased. :)

And if you can't have one of those...I'd chose the person with the experience over a formal degree. Degrees are great. Experience is better.