Discussion on:

Hire talent and passion over skill and experience

Raw Talent with passion is GOLD

aushtosh@yahoo.co.uk

At first I was irritated. Oh brother just another method of exclusionary tactics. Yeah lets ignore all the credentials someone has accumulated over time as invalid and create something totally absurd for the hireing process that results in invalidating the purpose.

But it pays to investigate the other side of the preceived coin. In this case I found it to be benificial and illuminating to my own personal attributes. The process is one of essentials and makes perfect sense. It is knowledge Ican put forth and seek in the employment game.

Thanks Joe Santana.

As to Ricks' "Voice..." post I can't see where you are anything but in the control, having both hireing issues covered. Your fear/anger must be from not knowing which element a potential employer is useing in qualifying the canidate. Drive (talent/passion) or knowledge/expierience. Might be one or both issues. Trick is to listen to where they're leading in the questioning and be confident within yourself to handle both asthey arrise. To me haveing the credentials (K/E)just amplifies ability in the drive (T/P) arena.

I hire Hour availability, naturally talented, and passionate people. When you hire some with experience that have worked in other places, they seem to have a hard time grasping doing what your company wants or needs. Good suggestions are ok, but, sometimes the experienced want to do it their way or not at all and disrupt what you have taken so long to accomplish.
Our job entails being flexible, compassionate, and able to handle animals with the utmost respect. Our Vet Clinic needs good, hard workers that can deal with just about any situation that arises. Having some talent and passion definitely over rides experience in the Care taking of pets, it requires lots of patience, and endurance, long stressful hours. And, the talented and passionate are open minded and willing to learn what they can to help take care of the pets, cleaning, bathing, exercising, and helping them to have a home away from home until the pets are able to return safely and happily to their own home.
The experienced I hired in the past, either quit, or had to be released, they were really did not want to work, or they created trouble, and did not want to be part of the team. (sorry) Not all experienced are bad, it depends on the type work that is required.
Thanks, Jo 9:40pm Nov.11.11.02

Raw Talent with passion is GOLD is rare indeed.




Amar

This only leads to companies hiring least experience people creating the unemployment we have today. I agree in some situations that you may want to do that. But most manager dont read between the lines they apply across the board

I use different words, but the thought is the same. I've always said that if I can hire someone who has brains (talent) and is willing to work hard (passion) I will be quite satisfied. Experience has borne this out over and over. I've seen lots of technically qualified people just exist in a job, whereas new and excited individuals progress by leaps and bounds. I'll take enthusiasm over pure experience any day.

I got into IT because I have a natural talent and a love for programming and database design. My passion for coding and development drove me to finish a degree nights and weekends while working full time.

Now that I also have education credentials and experience in my chosen field through hard work and self-sacrifice, the assumption is that I have no talent or passion?

No, now that you have the experience AND the passion, management wants to hire the cheapest employee.

Remember when you couldn't get that first break because you had no experience?

Now they are saying that experience matters naught - they want'passion'. Bull! What they want is an excuse to pay the least amount. If they hired you with both passion and experience, they might have to pay for the experience part. By hiring someone who is 'passionate' but without experience, they can pay themhalf what they might have to pay you.

Just another management ploy to save a buck.

You sound like you're in a toxic situation. You should get out of it. ITs clouding your vision. Of course there are idiots out there in management who only look to the bottom line and not to effectivity. (Hell look at Enron). "If I'm below budget I get a prize. Yippee!" But don't criticize someone who has an honest approach to hiring people. The practice of selection is absurd these days and I can only believe its by people who don't have the family jewels on the line.

I first got into this business they wanted certs, experience the hell with talent and passion. I have had talent and passion, I have a masters and certs and now you want the cheapest you can get. Remember this well you get what you pay for and when your system comes down because of a hacker or terrorist you got what you paid for and certainly I don't want to hear no crying then. Cause you went the cheap route and cheap is not always the best.

Anyone who would make that assumption would be someone who's missed the point of this article completely. There are two types of experienced professionals, there are the ones with talent and passion AND experience, and there are those without talent and passion but with lots of experience.

Unfortunately, the problem with people who have a lot of experience is that they sometime lose their passion for their work..it gets boring after time. I talk to people who've been in IT 20 years...and they act like they know it all, but in reality, their lack of passion for their work has caused them to be less detail-oriented, a bit more careless, and generally mediocre as a result. I work as a support agent at HP (formerly Compaq) in the enterprise (server) support division. I speak with IT pro's all day, everyday, and see this frequently.

Hirnig someone who has passion initially, is one thing. Finding someone who has kept their passion after a certain number of years is another, more rare thing.

With any luck, you won't lose your passion for your work and that my friend is the way to live.

Well I have to agree that some people do lose their passion with their experience.

The way I would suggest to solve this when you need to hire people for a project. Try to find an equal number of persons who have passion and talent and the same number who have the experience. In best events the passionate and talented will, because of their drive, want to learn as much as possible. The experienced will then be lifted because they can share their knowledge this most of the time will bring their passion back.

Very well put...despite the inferred generalizations. I don't understand how anyone can stay in this field without that passion. They must have been able to hide away deep in some monolithic organization.

Very well put...despite the inferred generalizations. I don't understand how anyone can stay in this field without that passion. They must have been able to hide away deep in some monolithic organization.

The trick is to show people that you have that passion as it is not always readily visible to others. Interviewers will pick up on those traits through your conversions; the gleam in your eye when you talk about what you love to do, your body language, etc. It does make a big difference.

Finally - a well written article on the dirty truth- we have been working on a true culture change in our organization and I seem to stand alone in this belief!- It is similar to the SouthWest Airlines culture- and they have proven that it works! - give me someone with drive and passion and I can teach them what they need to know.The 90s resulted in a avalanche of 'personality and leadership' training courses because the job market was so tight that companies hired people with no passion or badattitudes and than had to figure out how to make it work- it ended up effecting everyone. Hire for passions and attitude-it works every time- great article-thanks

A fantastically successful US company in the airline business back in the 80's was built by such people. People who were passionate and skilled were hired and trained more or less on the job. This culture was ultimately distructive as their inability to train new recruits (and provide adaquate services) was hampered by a sheer volume of customers, of which many were showing loyalty to the successful brand. If they had changed to experienced people at the right time the business probably would still exist today.

Pretty much describes myself exactly.

I was hired by my ex-CIO because of attention to detail, perseverance, and desire to learn.
(This really sprang from my previous military technical background.)

The fact that I had no certifications (except A+) at the time at little bearing.

I spent three years building the company's infrastructure to support from 30 up to 400+ users over multiple locations.

Voice over wireless T1's and data over 802.11b? Been there, done that.

Nontheless, my previous CIO was fired and replaced by management.

My current CIO is a Borg who's buzzword is "What have you done for me lately?".

Now I'm at the Help Desk watching my career go down the tubes since I'm not allowed to touch the very servers and network I created.

Does the network work better with "qualified" help? Don't make me laugh.

So anybody got an opening for another talented, passionate network guy?

Sounds like your borg views you as a warily. Having helped generate what he/she has domain over you seem to be viewed as a threat.

Welcome to the club - I don't think it is the fact that you did this, or didn't do that or if you grew the network from a baby. Or even if you have passion, drive, education and experence...

You may of been hit buy the old boys network... The newCIO had a friend that needed a job - Oh my I have a network and need someone - oh my network guy has no certs - no formal education in networking. Hum makes it easy to hire my friend in and give them that job.

That you can never stop - The Good Old Boys Network.

But if you do have that Drive, Passion, Ability to learn, skills and talent... it shouldn't be hard to find another job. Best of Luck in these trying economic times...

I totally understand where you are coming from. Very much like you - I have enthusiasm and a burning desire to learn. However, I am surrounded by various others who seem to be "wet blankets" - guarding the information that they have like feudal lords...
At the current point of my career, my direct management is not aware, or does not recognize these qualities. My user community however is completely "in love" with me.
The "Thank You" notes and "looks of appreacitation" are what I work towards.
Best of luck to you though....

I know that it may sound like a pat answer to your problem, but basically if you don't like your situation, change it. If there's one thing I learned as a temp, it's the fearlessness of being dependent on any single job. If you have the talent andpassion and self-discipline, you WILL find a company that will appreciate you. See my other response on this thread. Granted, it may not be immediate and you may not get 5 weeks vacation straight off the bat, gobs of money, etc. but that is something you have to judge for yourself. It sounds to me like you just might trade a few perks in for a better workplace situation in which you can grow. A jerk boss is truly stifling. Good luck.

The type of employee needed for a specific role should determine the weight of the hiring requisites. If you need an EAGLE (i.e. - someone who you expect to soar, bringing vision to the project / operation), then I agree whole-heartedly to the need for passion and talent over skill set.

However, if you need a TURKEY (i.e. - someone who stays below the radar but gets things done as the need arises), then you're better off getting someone with the skill set. I do not use the term "Turkey" withany degree of ridicule... it's good to have someone on a team with their feet planted firmly on the ground.

Most projects / operations require a combination of Turkeys and Eagles to provide the right mix of vision and stability. My perspective is that the better understood the processes and technology, the more a Turkey will benefit the team. Conversely, the more unknowns associated with the processes and technology, the more an Eagle will carry the team through to a successful outcome. By their very natures, Turkeys and Eagles will feel most comfortable in those roles.

Skills and experience are great, but true true - passion and drive are even more...you can teach someone to be good...but you can't teach to be great.

It sounds like another BS way of getting around paying for talent and experence. Hum how do reject a highly talented and experenced canidate? Oh I will say they didn't have the passion. But this less experenced and less talented person has Passion and I will hire them - at a lesser salary.

OK - what did you pay your Project Assistant vir the one you rejected that had all that spreadsheet experence.

You may have passion - and you may have the talent - but I believe it doesn't out weigh experence and education.

It sounds like another way of justifing and hireing unqualified staff over qualified trained staff members - at lower cost per unit.

I have taken part in the hiring of two junior techs, one with no experience or education but eager to help, one out of college with 12 months of co-op work term experience. The tech with no experience initially didn't make as much be makes more now,he has all kinds of drive to learn more and take more responsibility. The other tech only does what he is told and never takes any inititive.

When it comes to junior technicians it doesn't cost that much to hire someone with the personality you are looking for and train them internally. The tech who was formally trained and had experience constantly asks the other tech for help.

I've seen it in many other professions. Passionless, possibly untalented people taking positions and pay for jobs that someone else would do better. I'm sorry but I don't believe experience and education are evidence of anything but experience andeducation. A dead-ender could spend years, safe in a position, and build up a tremendous amount of experience and be of little or no use. The same with education. Load up on the credits so you can earn top bucks but approach the job impersonally and without interest. Of course I'm not saying that education and experience are bad. A good education can be a great facilitator and refiner of passion if it helps you do your job better. But experience can always go either way in value.

This has been one of my bones of contention with the current hiring market. Job Descriptions and Requirements have a level of specificity that is absurd and sometimes impossible. I call the talent you mention, core competencies and look for those. I also look for good work ethic and habits. I find passion a tough item to discern and that it can easily be projected falsely, though if you truly see that passion it would tend to point to an excellent work ethic. Another attribute of a good help desk person, fo rexample, is patience and a thick-skin. Rather than a talent or passion that would come under core traits.

Refreshing to here someone thinking similarly and laying it out so well.

Please let me add two comments that can help make "hiring talent and passion over skill and experience" practical. 1. Hiring managers must make HR stop screening out candidates who lack buzzwords or alphabet soup on their resumes. Otherwise, you will never get to interview candidates that might fit the descriptions in this article. 2. Managers need to create and maintain a working environment that supports and nurtures workers who are willing to put their souls into their jobs. These peopleneed mentoring, company paid training and encouragement. Otherwise, their flame will go out because they feel that their efforts are unappreciated and that they are merely underpaid suckers in the job.

Now you have hit the nail on the head!

I have 24 years of experience in IT (mostly mainframes). In addition, I have tremendous energy and passion for my work and the ability to learn new skills quickly. Unfortunately, I have had a very difficult time in the current job market because, even though I have the experience, and the passion, I don't have a degree! I am now only two classes away from my Bachelor of Science in IT degree but my resume never gets seen by the decision makers because HR screens out everyone without a degree.

Until we can change the habits of the HR people who screen the technical resumes, how will my resume ever be seen by the people who will appreciate what I have to offer in the way of experience, talent and passion?

Just want to echo wholehearted agreement with your management aspects sentiments. Most responses to this issue that I have read so far are failry in line with one of two general schools of thoughts. This is the first one that I have encountered that succintly registers an aire of the critical role that management plays in the scheme of things.

Have all of the managers that we work for be in conspiracy to create a negatively motivated experienced employee! Maybe more managers need to register in on this issue to provide a perspective that many non mid to high level managers may have. I don't believe the answer is simply intuitive to those not in such decision making position.

Its as wrong to say "hiring talent and passion over skill and experience" is practical.

As we humans seem to do these days, we swing to extremes. Talent and passion is no more a total indicator of the right candidate than skills and experience.
You handicap yourself in either case.

Look for the best combination of those traits, even if it means having it in different individuals but on the same team. They both have somethign to bring to the table, provided there is enough of the other traits in each.

The opposites are totally undesirable. Period.

There is an old saying that goes something like this:

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Is the tech meltdown so far back that everyone has already forgotten what contributed to it? I seem to recall a whole bunch of talented and passionate (dare I say cocky?) young individuals starting up a bunch of new companies with no business experience and no business plan, confident that the world would beat a path to their door and hand them piles of money. It worked for a while and then the whole house of cards fell in on itself.

Natural talent and passion may be adequate criteria for entry-level positions, but when things get mission-critical, there is no substitute for years of training and experience. When the airplane you are on loses an engine on takeoff, who do you want at the controls, the brash young rookie pilot who just graduated from a hang-glider, or the grizzled ex-military pilot with 10,000 hours in the cockpit of the type of plane you are on?

I spentfour years teaching programming and database design at the college and university level and have seen many students who were long on talent and passion fail when they found out that working in IT also involves lots of long hours and hard work. Thosewilling to make the sacrifices required to get an education and then land a job and keep it ALREADY possess much more talent and passion for their chosen profession than the untried wannabe's and should be rewarded, not passed over.

I guess I don't agree with your idea of passion.
YOu equate it to "brash"ness and youth. You posit a situation that narrowly defines the broad capabilities needed to deal with it. Perhaps that grizzled veteran thought he knew enough about flying and wasn't open to new ideas about how to deal with the situation, whereas the passsionate pilot (not necessarily brash) would have sought out these new ideas and perhaps saved everyone.
I think you are mixing up passion for enthusiasm.

BTW if your students were passionate about their work they wouldn't have thought twice about long hours and hard work. They'd get their jollies form it. Well at least some of their jollies.

There is wisdom in Rick's words. Here is more. I would point to the military machine in this country for the best example I can think of for experience and training over passion and talent. Why does each branch of the DoD have well refined and carefully controlled, hands-on-training program for all new "passionate and talented recruits. All new recruits come under the well trained and experienced eye of a qualified trainer until they demonstrate the skill and knowledge to perform within their chosen specialty. I'm sure there are many reasons, but I'll give you a couple I know: Time and money. Time: Imagine how much time (time is money too don't forget) it would take if each recruit had to learn their jobs on their own through the school of hard knocks. Imagine the chaos and huge amounts of time and money spent on damaged or replacement equipment necessary enroute to finding the firing button on the launcher - which brings me to the second reason: Money. Military systems (substitute these for IS for the sake of the argument) cost untold dollars and cannot be replaced easily. To have Passion and Talent wade into those systems, learning on the fly, is to invite fiscal disaster. But most importantly, from a national defense standpoint, would be loss of life. Time and money wise,the corporate world is no different. Show me someone hired based on passion and talent over his/her training and experience and I'll show you someone hired into an either an entry level position or wherethe criticality and of the position exactly equals what management is willing to pay in terms of time and lost/inefficient production. As a final note, when a seasoned employee says it can't or shouldn't be done, its often for sound reasons borne out of previous training and experience.

Lymon Bryson said "The error of youth is to believe that intelligence is a substitute for experience, while the error of age is to believe that experience is a substitute for intelligence". Both are valid.

While the vet pilot might know how things have worked 1,000 times before, he also may restrict himself to the same solutions he always used, which might fail this time. The newbie may try tricks that he learned with improvements to tech or simply because he was never told it can't be done.

I've seen two types of techs: the lazy tech will say it can't be done because they don't want to deal with it or it's too much bother (I've met a number of sloths like that, and you know they abound) and the honest, who say it can't be done because it likely can't be, at least in their scope, or the users could severely fubar something if it is attempted so it shouldn't be done. That doesn't say it can't be done, it may mean that they are ignorant of a solution and a workaround may be available. Or yes, maybe there are software/hardware limits that can't be broached. Someone with passion/enthusiasm/determination will take the time to figure out which situation applies.

One of the things I love about my job is trying to get from point A to B and figuring out how to do the in-between. I think it's to my advantage that I've not been told stuff can't be done because I wind up making workarounds. They may be composed of bubblegum, spit and tape at times, but they get the users where they need to go.

There are advantages to old and new techs, but each person's assets are different and should be weighed before labeling them and assuming they are incapable/overly capable of solving problems. There are plenty of incompetent yet 'experienced' people that have managed to hang onto a job for years.

Bottom line is don't make assumptions about someone due to perceived experience.

If you don't get the example about the airline pilot, think about who you would want performing open heart surgery on yourself or a loved one: a rookie or a well-known surgeon who has performed the same operation a thousand times.

There is a verygood article on the Cooper Software website titled "Interface design as a life or death proposition" with more examples along the same line.

To all the hiring managers out there, go ahead and keep hiring talent and enthusiasm over experience and skill. I make a good living with my consulting business fixing the messes created by people that had no idea what they were doing.

Rick,
I'm sorry. It seems your answers smack more of ego than wisdom.
Why do you continually assume the experienced pilot or surgeon is up with the times?
Why do you continually assume the passionate rookie hasn't pursued new, more effective means?

Where is the logic in your assumptions? The current hiring market is placing overwhelming weight on experience, with particular tools, not necessarily experience of years. I?d be stupid to slight experience. I have 16 yrs. Not the most but not the least.
You can?t assume a candidate is 100% appropriate because he/she has experience or similarly for an enthusiastic rookie.

Some people place great fault on mainframe COBOL prgmrs for not keeping their skills current. Their cynicism is wrong but are they totally wrong?
I don't want a surgeon who's been operating for years with the same methods and tools and ignoring those newly developed.

Example:
In 1992, out of work, I popped my achilles playing basketball.
Went to a nearby doctor who said I needed an operation then a full leg cast for 6 months. Job searching would be almost impossible. Had an old friend who was/is a very highly regarded orthopedic surgeon in NYC whom I hadn't seen in a while. He told me the otherdoctor was behind the times and put my leg on tiptoe and casted, up to the knee, for 4 months. Afterwards, he said if I made it through 16 weeks of p.t. I would be home free. The reason for not operating was, at my age (30's), due to diminished blood flow, there was high incidence of infection. The ends of the achilles fused. 10 years later, no pains or infections, and lots of basketball.
Guess what? My friend is a veteran old south doctor with a drawl you could hang curtains on, but is also obviously passionate about his work.

Isn't that the best of situations?
A catch-22, if you insist on only experience, how will anyone get it?

Respectfully,
Geo

But lets look at it - from this view point..

I am a general - and have a very critial mission that needs to be flow. If the mission fails we lose hundreds of men and women on the front lines. Now do I take the Pilot with the most combat experence- or do I take that young rookie that hasn't flow but in school - and loads of simulaters ..

Hum - Which one would it be ... Hum - The experenced war vet - or the wet behind the ears - gungho rookie - all full of vip-vim-and vigar...

The Experenced Vet -

As this points out - each has its place - time - and need... if its not critical and you want to give the rookie the shot go for it... But in some cases - you need the war vet... with 1,000s of hours of experence...

But sir, the experienced pilot failed his last physical.

Didn't you see Top Gun!!?!?!?!

Just kidding?

Listen the one absolute is there are no absolutes.
You're comparing apples and oranges. No one, I hope, is saying not to hire someone because he has experience. Just like I hope, no one is saying, not to hire someone because they are a rookie(extreme) or less experienced(likely).

Know what I mean?

Same hope - that because someone doesn't have the experence - but has the passion and drive to do it - do over look that person.

And the same - because they are old and have years of experence - don't overlook them.

Depending on the job - the Passionate one once trained maybe the most loyal and hardest working employee you have on staff.. I hope everyone has the open mind and understanding that there is no absolute correct answer - absolutily ...

If you don't get the example about the airline pilot, think about who you would want performing open heart surgery on yourself or a loved one: a rookie or a well-known surgeon who has performed the same operation a thousand times.

There is a verygood article on the Cooper Software website titled "Interface design as a life or death proposition" with more examples along the same line.

To all the hiring managers out there, go ahead and keep hiring talent and enthusiasm over experience and skill. I make a good living with my consulting business fixing the messes created by people that had no idea what they were doing.

...and in your later example, I have to say I have happily had dental work done by students in a college of dentistry, supervised by more experienced people. The work was so good that I've not had to have it replaced... in over 2 decades. Someone has to be first, and someone has to take a chance. If the newly trained heart surgeons were THAT bad then we'd have epidemic deaths, which haven't happened. On top of that, many times a rookie is more acutely aware of what they are trying to do andare therefore more careful, versus an experienced person that tends to gloss over things because they've done them a thousand times before and they make a fatal error. Presumably rookies in any situation are mentored or are given training, not thrown in a situation to sink or swim.

I'm not saying inexperience will always trump a pro, and I'm not saying experience is a bad thing. I AM saying be willing to be open-minded, particularly if you think in your gut that it's the right thing to do in an individual situation. Yes, sometimes you will need the experienced person. Don't rule anything out until you've made a careful evaluation.

It's ironic that I'm arguing in favor of a "new" idea to people who are apparently used to doing something one way and one way only... not willing to think outside the box because something didn't work out in the past. Each situation has the potential for success or failure, regardless of past experience.

And I've driven a guy to the dental school where they injected the novocane into a vein and he passed out.

Seems like this is a "same old, same old" article. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, hire for talent and passion. The fact that an inexperienced person could pick up a spreadsheet program is more an argument for StarOffice over MS Office than a generalizable hiring principle.