This is the classic problem facing startups looking for talent. Do you hire someone who’s been around the block, been knee-deep in the industry for years, or do you look for someone who’s smart, hungry and can figure things out?

There’s no question that experience can be valuable, but there are times when it can work against you. As Andy Monfried writes:

Frequently, people with experience would say, “Media planners won’t do that.” “Agencies wont commit budgets without a site list…” Turns out the media planners did. Because we were not afraid to change the language — we did not know any better, we sold it - and it worked. Had there been someone internally, beating us over the head, with all their previous media experience, telling us NOT TO DO IT - we probably would not have.

The trick is to find people who have had enough experience that they can avoid common pitfalls but who are receptive to learning from the environment and who are willing to challenge the status quo. The market today isn’t the same as it was 15 years ago; not all of the experience gained may be applicable. Someone who can take in today’s input with an open mind and process it in light of prior experience is invaluable. This sort of person is also extremely rare.

When you’re setting out to do something different, sometimes people without experience are the ones who find a way. There’s a great post on Ask the Wizard in which Dick Costolo talks about hiring the ‘Best Available Athlete’ which is right in line with my thinking.

As with all people-related decisions, there’s no right answer, but I would pick someone I enjoyed working with who got stuff done and could adapt over the ‘perfect on paper’ candidate every time.

P.S. I’m reserving the right to change my mind about this in about 15 years or so.