Raw Talent or Experience

A lot of it depends on what you are hiring for. Entry level is good for raw talent. If you have a project or an initiative that is going to affect the bottom line then I would go for experience.

Even Lewis & Clark hired guides who knew the area!

Maybe it's because I've IT industry analyst got much more experience as an industry analyst than as a hiring manager, but I'm tempted to answer the question with another. How do you evaluate raw talent in a way that's meaningful and comparable to experience in the first place? It seems to me that the more one looks for markers to evaluate "raw talent," such as internships or previous part-time jobs or volunteer engagements, the more those markers look like "experience," albeit indirectly relevant experience. So once you've assessed the corporate culture, as Ms. Brown astutely notes as necessary, how do you assess raw talent accurately, so you hire the mix of raw talent and experience best for your particular company? Is there any other way than relying solely on the "raw talent" and "experience" of hiring managers? I'm hoping to learn a lot more about this critical topic by following this discussion -- thanks for the question, Mr. Qureshi!

Just one other point. It is a kind of ethical issue. Whose side is the interviewer on. My own view is that I am a high class "dating agency". I need to do what is right for the candidate also. I can't afford to hire them into a position where they are likely to fail, because that may cripple their future career. The organisation can usually survive a mishire, but a failed employee may struggle for years to get back on their feet.

The question is to vague and needs qualifiers. It cannot be asked or answered as an absolute. Different circumstances and situations require different skills or attributes.

Hi Saleem,

Thanks for your contribution on Focus. What is your definition of Raw Talent? Are you referring to the younger generation? Or is Raw Talent your definition of an individual without a degree, but excels in the work force? Any additional information would be helpful.

Thanks,
Trevor

As a general rule, the answer is balance. More experienced mentors and leaders can help structure the great ideas and enthusiasm of the "raw talent" to produce actionabIe business initiatives. With that said it's highly dependent on the organization in question, the mission and values, and the leadership priorities.

Katy

To answer Trevor's question, a hiring exec learns about raw talent by asking situational questions and seeing how the candidate answers. These what-if questions demonstrate creativity and analytical thinking, and offer great insight into how a candidate would behave in a variety of situations. It's future-focused.

An interview that's centered around the candidate's past experience is usually focused on his/her resume. The interviewer asks the candidate questions about his role in the various projects and roles he's been in, how situations were handled, challenges that were faced. It assumes that past performance is indicative of future performance. This type of interview is falling more and more out of favor as employers learn, just like the stock market, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

Thank you for clearing that up for me Susan. I appreciate it.

With pleasure!

Balance, balance, balance. I look for talent and relevant experience and depending on the position -- select the one with the best interpersonal skills. Time and time again, I have noted that employees who excel can be talented and experienced, and still not do well in the workplace because of grating personality flaws.

oops! that would be "do not excel"

Some good pointers in here. Susan is "on the ball" about the interviewing approach. Behavioural interviewing skills take time to learn and develop through practice, but are essential for a successful hire. Such techniques can distinguish between "raw talent" with potential and "experience" that has gone stale.

Brenda is right about the role of personality. Too often I encounter situations where experienced people who have the track record in delivering. fail to fit in with their new colleagues or need a disproportionate amount of management time to keep them on track. It really is a matter of balance.

My own approach is to treat both categories as equivalent until I have assessed them using personality and ability tools to create an objective measure against which I can assess my own perception during the interview. I pay particular attention to the gaps between my own educated "gut feel" from my behavioural and situational questions and what the tests are telling me.

That way I can make sure that my own personal biases don't unduly influence my decision-making. I have a tendency to side with raw talent, so the objective measures make sure I can justify my decision and haven't just glossed over the candidate's weaknesses.

Getting it right ain't easy, but if you get it right first time by doing it right, then you can save yourself a lot of hardship later.

As Michael says, Corporate Culture is a critical factor, conservative cultures tend to make life difficult for raw talent. Raw talent will usually make many more mistakes as they settle in and learn the ropes. These people need more support and guidance in the early days if they are to achieve their potential. So unless you have a learning and supportive culture, you may need to focus on current ability rather than potential.

I try to avoid working with conservative organisations, unless they are trying to change their culture. Then I jump right in and deal with the challenges face-to-face. I love it.

Cormac's point is a good one, the wrong job can hurt someone's career for a long while afterwards.

For me, I'm looking for the best person for the job, that's it. So if raw talent offers the better avenue then I'll go raw talent, if experience is the better option I'll go with experience.

In most instances in the last few years where I've been hiring for my teams, I've gone the raw talent route, simply because experience brought people who had been moulded badly into roles and it would have taken them longer to unlearn their bad habits than it would take me to train the right habits into someone with no previous prejudices.