[mikepmalai]

Recruiting is a very interesting process. Unless you happen to be pre-IPO Google/Facebook/Hot Start-up, you are typically constrained by the following:

1) The kind of person you want to hire is either too expensive or unattainable. Let's assume this person's output equals 100%.

2) The person you can afford to hire probably grades out at 50% to 75% output of the ideal hire.

3) The minimum output you need to justify paying another person is 40%.

I'm just throwing numbers out there but this is directionally the situation you're dealing with (especially in a hot market). Some would say #1 is a '10x' player and the actual gap between #1 (what you want) and #2 (what you can afford)is much much greater than what I lay out above.

If that's the case, you can begin to see why hiring mangers aren't opposed to hiring #3's (or training someone up to #3 output) who have #1 potential over proven #2's with (perceived) limited upside. Of course the process of identifying candidates with #1 potential is a separate matter.

Ideally you can hire #2's with #1 upside but it's hard to get people like that since more often than not their current employer makes a big counter-offer and/or promotion to keep them. Consequently, you end up in a situation where you can hire someone who is 1) unproven with upside or 2) proven with limited upside.