"Hire-Train-Deploy” vs. “Recruit-Train-Deploy"
Updated: Oct 25
Why do we insist on calling our business model “Hire-Train-Deploy” instead of “Recruit-Train-Deploy” or even generic “Staffing” as it’s been referred to in some circles? Why bother to be so specific with our words anyway?
You may have never stopped to think about it, but there is an intent and purpose behind the words “Hire-Train-Deploy”.
“Hire” represents the fact that we invest in talent upfront. When a traditional employer hires talent of any sort, doing so comes with the upfront cost of hiring someone and the risk of it not working out long term. That cost and risk is an investment into that employee.
We insist on using the word “Hire” because we take the same approach with our employees. It is our investment (and cost and risk) into the talent who joins our programs. Words like ‘staffing’ or ‘recruit-train-deploy’ don’t even come close to capturing what it means to invest in talent upfront.
We don’t try to cover that cost/risk by using forced contracts, or buyout models, or payback models, or any other sort of “fee to the trainee” model. We believe talent coming out of university today needs someone to invest them, to give them what’s needed for today’s complex technical environments, and to attach all of that to an actual outcome of launching their careers. We see this as a responsibility, and we take that very seriously – even down to the words we choose.