"Rather than measuring proxies for talent, we just decided to try to measure talent directly."
The problem with this is that the technical side of things is much less important than how people work together. Google's Project Aristotle has shown that technical chops matter far less than people being empathetic, tolerant and good listeners.
I've worked for companies where the primary focus was put on "empathetic, tolerant, and good listeners" where everyone was afraid to rock the boat. These were the least favorite environments of my career as they attracted lets just say not A players - and the inability to get things done was astounding. Any talent that accidentally found it's way into the company never lasted beyond 6 months.
There is a balance. You need the raw tech talent to be there to get the project completed, but I agree you want those folks to play relatively nicely together.
The most functional teams I've been on have been relatively small, full of very opinionated but extremely talented people, and to an outsider it would have looked like organizational and social chaos. However we all loved that period of our lives, and speak about it fondly. When you're on a team that is rapidly getting things done, but is passionate enough about the work to scream and yell it's refreshing vs. the banality of the typical corporate dev/tech/IT job no one actually cares about.
So for me, I'd much rather work on a team of highly talented opinionated assholes than a team of untalented nice folks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learn...
"Imagine you have been invited to join one of two groups. Team A is composed of people who are all exceptionally smart and successful.... This team is efficient. There is no idle chitchat or long debates... Team B is different. It’s evenly divided between successful executives and middle managers with few professional accomplishments... At the end of the meeting, the meeting doesn’t actually end: Everyone sits around to gossip and talk about their lives. Which group would you rather join?"
I knew I'd want to join Team A: smart, efficient people who get stuff done without idle chit-chat.
If you believe the article, Team B will be less effective because they are too individualistic, and walk over other people. They didn't actually say "self-centered", but it was implied.
I don't see how you can't be both efficient, smart, and empathetic; I don't see why there has to a choice. I've worked with my fair share of a-holes, and it's no fun. But it's also not fun working with schmoes who spend more time gossiping over the watercooler than getting stuff done.
If they're afraid to rock the boat, then you don't have a team of "empathetic, tolerant, and good listeners"