

Gladwell : Most likely to succeed : How do we hire when we can't tell who's right for the job? - kqr2
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

======
danielhodgins
This article was brilliantly written and right on the money. Superstar
teachers are VASTLY underpaid, and it bothers me that dreadful teachers who
$*&% the dog are paid the same as highly talented teachers who dedicate their
life and talents to their profession.

The CEO of the investment advising company states that he is willing to
interview thousands of people to get a handful of potential advisors. He noted
that 70 out of the top 125 elite investment advisors are from his firm.
Perhaps individuals interested in starting a company could apply similarly
stringent techniques in evaluating potential co-founders.

------
bdfh42
This was posted yesterday - but not to worry - it deserves a bit more
attention although it might be a bit long for some folks.

~~~
bootload
_"... it deserves a bit more attention although ..."_

Agreed it is worth the read. Evaluating who is best for particular tasks seems
to revolve around simulated stress and rigorously tested 'competency'. Not an
easy thing to simulate in Startups.

~~~
bdfh42
Agreed. The suggestion is (and this does not differ widely from my all too
long experience in such matters) that the only valid evaluation is "How does
someone perform in the job?"

Is it therefore implied that we should hire on criteria that is not task
specific (like will someone's personality fit in with the team) and then be
prepared to fire them quickly if they don't work out?

The problem is that hiring is a lengthy process - we are all adverse to the
idea of it becoming a continual process.

