How can you avoid such a mistake? The fact is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It is not perfect, but it is probably your best shot at learning about an individual’s abilities. Hence, here are some tips that I highly recommend:

1) Get “360” input; which means assembling input from people who have: a) worked for the person; b) been the boss of the person; and c) been a peer of the person . Ideally, get this kind of data for several past positions the person has held.

2) For as many prior positions as possible, evaluate the results and the person’s role in those results.

3) Take particular care in thoroughly probing any piece of information that suggests a weakness.

In the case of Time Inc., the new CEO had a good track record of strong financial results, but clearly personality played a crucial role. Time Inc. even commented that his management style “didn’t mesh well with Time Inc.” Sadly, a few phone calls to previous employers may have avoided this fiasco.

What are your favorite approaches in judging the potential of a candidate?

When I was at Procter & Gamble in marketing, we were just as willing to hire a religion major from a small liberal arts college as a marketing MBA from the Ivy League’s finest. Why? Strong performers quickly spot what they need to learn and learn it. The key criteria we used were strong grades and a variety of leadership oriented activities.

Experience is good news and bad news. Experience causes patterns to get set in our mind, and for most people those patterns become stubborn rules of behavior. On the other hand, experience can also greatly accelerate a learning curve and help avoid subtle industry “potholes.”

Net, I think experience is overrated! What do you think?

Here are characteristics I think you should look for:

1) a consistent track record of always meeting goals
2) a consistent track record of seizing bright ideas and making them happen
3) a very fast learner with good group and one-on-one communication skills.

It sounds easy, but managers tend to fog this up. They overestimate the value of experience. They worry too much about what others will think. Friendships get in the way. They put off the decision and leave the current players in place…hoping for the best.

Nokia is a good example of doing this well. This leading global cell phone maker has missed the smartphone rage, causing their business to suffer. Realizing that smartphones require deep software expertise, a few months ago the Nokia board hired Stephen Elop, the president of Microsoft’s Business Division, as CEO. He is young, only 47, but deep in software and hardware experience, having served as president of Adobe Systems and COO of Juniper Networks prior to joining Microsoft in January, 2008. Elop is off to a fast start, having recently indicated to employees the core problem via his “burning platform” letter you may have seen in the press. A week later he announced a joint effort with Microsoft to do battle with Apple and Google in the smartphone arena.

So… what characteristics do YOU, the readers of this blog, look for?

Which of the above do you not agree with?

Fiat is a classic example of one of the most common mistakes that managers make; putting or leaving people in the job who you know are not going to provide the kind of exceptional performance you need. Sometimes it’s convenience, sometimes friendship, sometimes fear of losing the experience the person has, and sometimes it is just pure procrastination. Putting strong talent into the key jobs should be the number one priority when you are pursuing change.

Another big mistake that gets made over and over is to assign the task of implementing a new strategy to your current staff in the current organizational form. I can almost guarantee that you will get less than optimal results. Why? Because the status quo, the current responsibilities and current way things are done, will typically get first priority. That’s human nature.

The lesson is very clear: staff to win!