Qualified for the job?

The other day, my wife and I were talking about the vast and fluid subject of professional qualifications. I then remembered that, when I took my first “real job,” my own qualifications were far from stellar. In fact, I was hired for an international job, on the sole basis of my multilingual abilities, and with very little consideration for the specific qualities the position would require.

So what happened next was a long slug of on-the-job-learning, with no counseling or mentoring whatsoever, and as you might imagine, an avalanche of bad decisions, strategic errors and the like. That scenario almost kept on reproducing itself for a good decade until I began to amass some legitimate skills.

People thought I could do the job well, but I seemed to be chronically unprepared to produce the real performance my employer was entitled to receive from me. Now, how did I stand in terms of peer review? As unbelievable as it may sound, I looked pretty good and always managed to remain at the top, which doesn't speak too well for the overall quality of the entire field!

Can situations like this still happen today? I'd say, most likely if there is no strong mentoring and intelligent training programs for new company recruits. Some firms will do a stellar job while too many will still apply the “sink-or-swim” formula to vet their new hires. What's your opinion?