Talent: What is it?
| posted by YL CatinoIn my last post I closed with the thought about expanding hiring managers’ definition of talent. I’ve been thinking a lot about that…..here’s just a few quick thoughts.
First, I think talent is subjective. Just because someone is successful in one role at one company does not mean that the person will be successful elsewhere. I believe its about context; there are simply too many variables that play into “success.” Does talent contribute to success? Surely it does, but perhaps not to the degree that many business writers attribute.
Second, if talent remains subjective and we don’t evolve our definition of what talent could/would/should be, then how are we to remain competitive in the market? So how do you define talent? Merriam-Webster online says:
1 a: any of several ancient units of weight b: a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2 archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3: the natural endowments of a person (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/talent)
Interestingly, the definition most used is the second, archaic, version….hmmm, aptitude. What does Merriam mean by aptitude? Perhaps natural ability? And couldnt’t passion work within natural ability? Couldn’t passion be the underlying element that pushes people to succeed in their “talent” area? Couldn’t passion be an explanation for how some people can succeed in multiple situations as opposed to those who can’t?
Matching candidates to positions is more than matching basic skill requirements and personality. This is why I think its important to hire for passion. Passion brings dedication, self-motivation, and interest, all the qualities you want in an employee, especially one that will stick around.