Or, in other words, does it boil down to:
The Talent Profile vs. The Talent Myth?
The ‘Talent’ buzzword is beyond overused in the HR world nowadays (although not quite as stupidly as ‘HR should have a seat at the table blah blah…’). There’s an idea that some people are capable of ‘more’ than others, and that said talented people will be your ideal employees.
It reminds me of ‘talent’ programs for high IQ kids in elementary schools. But is that what it’s really about? Smart people are the best employees and therefore should be paid the most? If you got the highest GPA you win the job with a bonus?
I guess that leads to another question: Are there certain people who are really capable of more – or is it about willingness to do more? And what does this have to do with the talent profile?
I think the key thing to take into account is whether or not brains make the best employees. I’m not going to say brain power, aka, ‘talent’, isn’t important – especially for more senior level decision makers – it’s essential. It’s what I look for when I recruit for senior positions – but it’s more than just brains or a high GPA. Plenty of people have those with little ability for application of logic in the workplace.
Now for entry through average-level jobs – I personally think the best workers will be those who are doers, who play nicely with others, with good hearts who help others out. People with disabilities will generally be a better coworker/performer than the smart, lazy ‘talented’ jerk.
So what do you all think? Is ‘talent’ about brains, flexibility, a willingness to go beyond status quo – or something else entirely? Should ‘talent’ be directly linked to compensation?
Shortlink to this post: http://wp.me/pWfpN-dp