Is years of experience a good measure of someone's talent?

Experience refines and disciplines talent. Given experience v. degree, I would take the experience. The best scenario is someone with the knowledge that comes from education and then has experience built on top of that foundation, because experience brings wisdom. Knowledge is a different issue.

As a part time design professor, I deal with students who have tons of talent, are gaining knowledge (they're in my classes), but have no discipline. Talent without discipline is pretty much worthless to me, both in the classroom and professionally. I've encountered incredibly gifted students who I would never hire or recommend to anyone because they have no wisdom and demonstrate little potential for it. (These tend to be the younger students, early 20s.)

I would look at what a person has accomplished with what they know, and how they've dealt with people along the way. I don't see much wrong with the current mode of assessing accomplishment and checking references. In any case, I'd look at what Zuckerman has accomplished and how he deals with people just as I would with an MBA grad.

By the way, I don't think that age equates to lack of risk-taking. Older individuals often take greater risks because they have experienced risk before and are usually in better positions to mitigate obstacles. One of my clients is a pioneer in his field, yet is taking enormous risks right now in growing his business and taking it in new directions. He's doing it wisely.

No.

Neither of those criteria are inherently accurate, yet what else do you have? They have to be considered.

I had eight years of tai chi training "experience" before I found a teacher who taught me how to do it correctly. From then on with little experience I made great progress.

Scholarly achievement can likewise be a disappointment. Much talent is based on forgetting what we "know." And degrees are often more a testament to endurance than anything else.

I am a firm believer in education, but I have found, in management positions, that the person with the advanced degrees and straight A record does not always prove to be the best person for the job. I think in today's workplace, particularly in the tech jobs, the skills of flexibility, creative thinking and problem solving are much more important than content/subject matter knowledge. (Shown by your great examples of Bill Gates and the Facebook founder.)

As far as experience goes, it's never been the driver for me. Sure, it matters, but some people have just plodded along, collecting the years, but not keeping up with new trends and strategies in their field. (I always look for that "lifelong learner!) Also, it would depend, as I think Avalyn was saying, on to what degree the person has used their experience to build on their foundation of education/knowledge.

Interesting question, Joel.

I agree with Judy - experience does matter, education helps - but a lifelong-learner, someone who shows that they have built upon their credentials, rather than simply racking up the years with no real big improvements.

I am a lifelong-learner myself, so I see that as plus. In my profession there have been several successful people who went into it without the education - but their success and portfolio prove that not having a degree isn't a total deal breaker.

Great question. I would have to ask how we want to define "talent". I believe that there's no substitution for experience and, more importantly, results. But, have they actually done anything and done it well? It's important, I believe, to establish and define these parameters so that you can get a better sense of whether someone is more "talented" than another.

I like the lifelong learner idea and do believe that one will achieve better results if they keep up on the latest trends and best practices. They will also be seen as more credible and potentially, more talented.

I don't think it's really measurable.

There are valid reasons why you can't even get a straight and honest answer from someone listed as a "reference" yet a "referral" should be a high quality element.

It's an index of loosely arranged variables, an impression and a gamble. When you attribute that process to why it works when it works, it's probably equally true that it the process just improved the odds.

Running a programmed analysis of a person's horoscope would likely produce as good or better results.

Here's what I look at especially in hiring a new person (Profit Concepts hires about 4 people a year):

1. Attitude. Attitude will determine their actions and actions will determine their accomplishments. I want a positive attitude.

2. Goal Oriented. Do they have goals and are they compatible with the goals of my firm?

3. Self Discipline. Are they a self starter? Do they take the incentive to get it done?

4. Integrity. This is really the most important and maybe the hardest to measue. Nobody is going to tell you that they don't have integrity.

I am looking for FAT people. That is faithful, accountable and teachable.

I once read that some ridiculously large percentage of people who get fired, don't get fired for incompetence; they get fired for not getting along.

So while it's important that the prospect has some of the relative experience and education, think of some of the qualitative characteristics. Most importantly, would you be comfortable working with this person?

Hard to measure, I completely agree. I like what Richard said above and it's my key to hiring (and keeping) the best people. Hire for attitude and train for skill. What happens most often is that companies look to find the best in their industry (many times measured by number of years, degrees, certifications, other employers, etc.). Certainly, this is easier to measure than whether someone has integrity or is goal-oriented. However, I firmly believe that you can come up with reasonable ways to identify these traits and competencies (as opposed to skills). Behavioral interviewing, personality testing, and referrals are two great ways to try and predict future performance and getting along with others. Of course, one can never tell with 100% certainty whether someone has these things. Many companies shy away from this philosophy because, in my opinion, they find it to be too "squishy" and "touchy-feely".

So, I would rather take someone with tons of integrity and is a lifelong learner than someone with ten years of experience and multiple degrees who may just cause others in your organization (and your customers) heartache.

Well...you can have 10 years of experience or you can have 1 year of experience, 10 times!

Years of experience in itself isn't that great of a thing. My great grandfather was a pretty useless individual. By the time he passed away, he had 45 years experience at the same steel mill, in the same Union. Those 45 years of experience in the union gave him the right to any union position due to seniority.. Apparently he always took jobs that were dangerous for competent young men, let alone incompetent frail old men... But hey, he had experience!

I'd measure based on results. I don't care how long someone has been doing something or what hoity toity degree they got.

What have they accomplished? What have they done with their talents or skills or education?

I've been playing guitar for 15 years . . . but I suck as a guitar player (and always will.)

I'd probably ask what accomplishments your prospects are most proud of. What cred builders can they bring up?

I mean, sure, your prospects are going to BS you to a degree, but that's part of the game.

I have to say that both Gates and Facebook guy would probably be TERRIBLE employees. They would not mesh well with management, would possibly have trouble staying on task etc- it is hard for very creative people with egos (which they both are to have done what they did) to have a boss and a set of defined rules.

I know, I am the odd man out with this. It is why some people thrive at start ups where you get to make new rules every day and then break them (if you are senior, if you are junior then I am not sure but my guess is you just must go with the flow of your bosses doing the above). Corporate jobs where there are lots of rules and protocols are more difficult for the type of person who is so fabulous that they didnt even need to go to school to figure out what they want to do with their lives...

I think education does matter by the way- I think that it is difficult to learn to write a complete sentence in our secondary schools and that you basically need a college education (or be extremely self motivated and read Strunk and White at bedtime) in order to get ahead- people who are incoherent are boring. And, I think everyone needs to take at least one Art History course, period.

Joel, it sounds like you have some more immediate needs of finding a right candidate now and then some more aspirational goals of how to hire the right people moving forward. In teh short-term, it is difficult to implement the types of things we have been discussing as you are under a time constraint. However, before you hire anyone, you need to know what exactly you are looking for from the following "buckets": achievements/results, competencies, skills, experience, previous employers, etc. I also think that these should be weighted to how important each one is within the customer's/organization's environment. Do they value skills over competencies? Experience or number of years over results? In my experience, it's critical to be specific and explicit about what you are looking for. Then, find ways to measure whether someone has those things. Again, when you say you want to hire "great folks", what does "great mean? How are they great? Until you can answer this question, it'll be hit or miss.

I always ask for samples--essentially, some real-time evidence of ability. Because all those resume words about experience and education are abstract.

The advertisements I place when recruiting usually request writing samples--and this last crop of candidates included only one out of twenty-five that actually followed the directions and included such samples. Sad.

Leila's experience illustrates an important fact. There are plenty of signs in the resume, over the phone, in the way the person looks, how they act, how they speak and what they say. If half are excluded at the resume review, half of the rest after talking with them over the phone, half of the rest either because they can't dress themselves or talk, selecting from the rest on an intuitive or "guess" level ends up working out as well as anything else.

Education and experience are both important but isn't it also true that people hire people they like? I think that the "likeability factor" is huge!

There are many unconscious reasons why we like or dislike someone within 10 seconds of meeting them. The truth is most of us interact with the world through our own projections. We don't really know people, we just project good or bad qualities onto them and then relate.... All you're seeing around you is a mirror of your inner world, your own primal coding.

I read once that each organization is a miniature map of the leaders' family dysfunction. Here's a crazy idea: what if it's all a matter of picking people (probably unconsciously) that will play a "role" within that dysfunction and do their job while they’re at it! 

Here's a method that a colleague of mine has been using lately. He's been hiring programmers and support techs from Manilla.

Every quarter, his guy over there gives him about 10 pre-screened resumes, and my colleague usually hires 2-3 of them. First he cuts the pile of resumes roughly in half by browsing and maybe a phone conversation.

Once he's got his short list, he contacts each of the applicants, and tells them he wants to hire them $200 for a day of consulting to see if they'll be a fit for the company. He gives them a day's worth of tasks/problems to solve. The next day it's apparent which applicants are go-getters, and which ones are pikers.

He's hired 10 people this way so far. The point of my story? Follow what ever process you need to get your short-list together, then find a way to let them prove their work to you in a real-world manner. This is why contract to hire can be so effective.

I agree with a lot of what's been said above - there's obviously a ton of great brain trust here!

I agree with the general consensus of education and years of experience meaning "not all that much". And that actual experience coupled with results means a lot more. Any time working in the high tech sector generally proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have several friends who are wildly successful who either don't have a college degree, or don't have a degree in their field.

But there's also another option to consider - fit.

A person can look phenomenal on paper - however you're applying it to your hiring metrics. In fact, they could even have a list of results that are longer than your arm.

However, if this candidate doesn't fit your corporate culture, then everything else is moot. Someone above said, hire on attidude and train. I agree with that to a degree. Generally, you're trying to add to an existing team, or to replace someone on an existing team. The team dynamic is usually underlooked, yet is of paramount importance.

So bringing things back to the "how do you do it?" question, there are several personality surveys on the market that can help with team fit - and when you can combine that with "gut feel", you'll score more often than not.

"Fit" is hella important. In predicting fit, I go back to those days of selecting house-mates--and actually ask questions such as, "What's your favorite cookie" and "What do you like to do on weekends"--trying to get a flavor for WHO IS this person, really.

I also like to conduct final interviews with a group of my staff, and their favorite off-beat questions. This is not to torture the candidate, but to get more data about the nature of our future together.

And the thing you say, Joel, about hire those who are smarter than I--That is the best advice I picked up along the way, and after thirty years of that approach I still believe it is the number one filter for selecting The Right Person. (I do believe my husband might even be smarter than I ;-)

Again, well said Leila. One important lesson: how a relationship begins is how it will end. So everything you can do at the front end to stimulate the "nature of our future together" is time well spent.

"Smarter then I" has more than one dimension. Sometime's people smarter than you will use that smarts to play you; or just to get whatever they want. But knowing they might be smarter than you is very wise.