Is there a better way to rate experience rather than through duration? What is a better way to judge someone's proficiency and skill on a subject?
The reason she gave for being so commanding was 'I'm in the industry for ____ years, I know what I'm doing'. However her work is subpar and she claims credit for things that she doesn't do (or does half of it). As she's highly argumentative, she picked arguments with everyone including the client, causing a lot of dissatisfaction among everyone including the client. On top of that, she requested for extra "credits" so that she can add to her portfolio, but everyone was so tired of dealing with her, we gave in to certain extent.
So the point is, she might claim and keep emphasising that she has however many years of experience, but she def. didn't pick up the necessary skills through the years and might have even "tire" people into giving her the "credits" that she puts in her portfolio.
I've given an example of how time is a horrible indicator to look at one's proficiency and skill level in something. It goes the same for other skills, for example, I could say I've been playing piano for 3 years, but I only play maybe once a month which would result in minimal improvements.
How then should we "screen" someone before working with them? or would it just come down to luck and whether the person is telling the truth?
One thing I've learnt for sure though, is if someone keeps "highlighting" their achievements, they're probably nothing but fluff because --
Maybe we should take a step back and realise that these "barking dogs" are making so much noise for a reason.
