The problem is when we’re hiring there’s no such thing as same projects and same environments. Coming further I believe it’s almost impossible to judge which project was extraordinarily difficult and which was pretty easy basing only on interviews with people.

There’s no easy way to compare people yet somehow we have to make this kind of decisions every day. Then these are characteristics which we favor most which play the main role. And on this one we differ.

I believe that you can’t simply compare experience of two different people from two different environments.

Keeping your historical examples: do lost battles of Leipzig and of Waterloo make Napoleon poor (or average) military leader? Or maybe fact that his troops were outnumbered twice in the former or almost twice in the latter does change the judgement.

Or who is considered as a better general: Napoleon or von Blucher (who won at Waterloo)?

Success is a relative thing. Winning local competition (a success) can’t be easily compared with barely qualifying to Olympic Games and finishing on the last place (failure).

Maybe, just maybe, Jim did one particular thing right – he chose project easy enough to ensure he’ll manage without much sweat.

Unfortunately after a couple of hours of interview it’s hard to say so we don’t know this one.

If the project isn’t of high complexity, Jane has an opportunity to succeed and build that confidence.

Jim’s perceived a-holeness is nearly irrelevant. If you can be an a-hole but bring several projects in on time and under budget, you have to be doing something right. This scenario reminds me of the what Branford Marsalis said about his students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rz2jRHA9fo.

But assuming all details you did not specify are equal, there’s no no doubt I’d avoid Jim. There is no way to recover from the kind of damage he will cause.

Jane on the other hand, with the trust of her team, is an easier total package to manage. She will get more out of her team, has higher odds of being a long term member of my org, and might have more to prove to the world (and therefore more passion) than Jim.

- Scott Berkun

You bring a new perspective considering a consulting project and temporary team when team chemistry isn’t so important. Point taken.

The right answer is that it depends. Results matter and that makes Jim a good choice. However, team chemistry is crucial for long-term viability, so you have to consider:

- Is this a project that is being delivered on a short, or long, time frame. If it’s a long running project that you need to keep your eyes and ears open. With Jim you have to watch team morale, with Jane you have to watch project health.
- Is this a team that you plan on keeping together after the project. If it’s a consulting job or some other type of project where people come together for the project and then go their separate ways I would go with Jim.
- If this is a long running project with a team that you are hoping to keep together for some period of time following this project I would go with Jane and ensure she received enough mentoring and guidance to improve her success rate.

It’s a great question as there is no clear right or wrong answer.

John
http://twitter.com/JohnFMoore