Sometimes work doesn't get completed because it wasn't clear to the person who needed to do the work that they were responsible for the task at hand. Sometimes work is completed late because due dates were not communicated clearly. Other times, work isn't completed because something else suddenly took higher priority. In these instances, a new process may help prevent similar issues from occurring in the future. Keep in mind, a "process" in these examples may amount to nothing more than a simple list of priorities or it may be something more complex. None the less, they are issues that can be solved by providing greater clarity on priority, responsibility, and delivery dates.

Sometimes however, tasks aren't completed or priorities are mixed up because the person responsible for doing the work is simply not good at their job. No amount of process will turn a poor performer into a good performer. I could follow the same workout routine, eat the same food and wear the same shoes as Kobe Bryant. Guess what - I'm still going to be a crappy basketball player. I simply don't have the talent that he has.

To take the sports analogy a bit further, look at how often teams change their players. Even dynasties that keep the same core athletes still identify ways to make their teams stronger, and this often involves getting rid of athletes that aren't performing.

Now, I'm not suggesting that companies should be going around looking for people to fire. What I am saying though is that before implementing new processes and procedures, you should make sure that you're not trying to address a talent problem.

If you truly have issues with clarity, prioritization and ownership then a little more process may be exactly what you need - no matter how lightweight it may be. If however you're trying to correct someone's performance by adding more process, don't do it because it won't work.

It absolutely amazes me that so many organizations focus on how much experience a person has when considering who to hire. Look at any job posting, and you can be assured it will clearly call out how much experience the job poster thinks a person should have for a particular role. What won't you see? Anything mentioned about talent.

In the most absurd cases, talented people are passed up for internal promotions in favor of less talented people with more experience. Why does this happen? Who knows for sure, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with a hiring manager being unable or unwilling to do battle with their superiors, or possibly the HR department, over who they can hire. It's too bad too, because these are exactly the people that can a great company.

Let's say you're hiring a Customer Service Manager, or an Operations Manager or a Project Manager. Does it really matter if they have 10 years of experience instead of 5? Sure, it would be ideal to get an extremely talented person who also had a ton of experience. But why put experience up front? Why make it a litmus test for whether someone gets past whatever your initial screening process is? Experience is great, but it's by no means a substitute for talent.

When someone says: "I want a person with at least 10 to 15 years worth of experience for this role", what they really mean is, "I'm assuming that someone with 10 to 15 years of experience is going to have the skill and talent required to be successful." That may be the case; but it might also be that they're nothing more than good corporate politicians.

Businesses need to operate like sports teams in this regard. Sports teams scout based on talent first, and experience second. They look at past performance, speed, agility, and whatever else they're interested in. The experience that a player brings to the table is certainly beneficial, but it's talent the gets the player through the door. Let's say it another way; How many 60 year olds have been playing golf longer than Tiger Woods? That may be an extreme example, but you get the point.

When you're looking to hire someone, talent comes first.