Problem
The TED Talk focusing upon how the "best" person to hire might not necessarily have the best resume, and as the speaker (Regina Hartley) notes, hiring the "scrapper" who has those hard-to-measure qualities of determination and grit may be better than hiring a "silver spoon" candidate with a perfect background. Given that so much of assessment these days is scientific, and based on various measures of cognitive ability, personality, and work sampling, how exactly do you think one could assess a "scrappy" candidate? Are there certain types of measures or certain types of interview techniques that could assess this quality? Do you agree with Ms. Hartley that this "underdog" candidate is likely to be a good hire, despite the fact that their background may not be particularly ideal and their progress may not have been smooth? What's your opinion on this - is a company that hires a "scrapper" likely to be making a costly mistake or likely to be taking a reasonable chance on a potentially valuable but not obviously "perfect" candidate?