It certainly is a nice way of thinking about hiring. The "problem" is that each one of those slices (whatever they are) is deeply and intrinsically subjective both in width and length. For instance, how can you determine how important "vision" really is in any particular position, how can you hope to evaluate "vision" on a scale of 1 to 10? How do you know that someone with stellar skills on one area isn't capable of transferring those skills to a new area that they have no experience in?
Moreover, I am convinced that employers often really don't know what they want out of a potential hire. In other words, there may be pieces of pie that they're not bringing into consideration or pieces of pie that should not even be on the table.
I think that employers would do best to look for what is known as "T-shaped" people: folks who have broad experience and a few areas of very deep expertise. These are people who have demonstrated that they CAN develop expertise and if they've done it before they can do it again in new areas. This makes sense because, except for the most humdrum operations jobs, you never really know what your employees will have to work on in the future.
Moreover, I am convinced that employers often really don't know what they want out of a potential hire. In other words, there may be pieces of pie that they're not bringing into consideration or pieces of pie that should not even be on the table.
I think that employers would do best to look for what is known as "T-shaped" people: folks who have broad experience and a few areas of very deep expertise. These are people who have demonstrated that they CAN develop expertise and if they've done it before they can do it again in new areas. This makes sense because, except for the most humdrum operations jobs, you never really know what your employees will have to work on in the future.