Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (59871)	8/12/2004 6:49:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

You missed the first sentence Didn't miss it. Just didn't interpret it as you apparently wanted me to. You said that both candidates could do the job now. The first candidate was overqualified for the current job but had the skills for the future. The second candidate was not overqualified now but had the education and the smarts to potentially help in the future. Some risk in the overqualification of the first candidate. Some risk in the second one not living up to his potential down the line. I treated that as a wash. Sorry about that. If what you're asking me is to choose between a overqualified but temperamental candidate and an underqualified and agreeable candidate, I'll take the first. Being able to do the job is the first priority. Temperament is secondary. If you're asking me to choose between a temperamental candidate who can do the job and has further known potential vs a candidate who can do the job, whose potential is promising but unknown, and who is agreeable, I take the latter. Easy to get along with is the tie breaker when both candidates can do the job.