Take The Mindset Test

A simple test designed to detect your unconscious mindset... When your ready click Take The Test Now

Take The Test Now

What’s on your mind? (Enter a thought/status/tweet)

Your Results

Temporal Attention

  • Past
  • Current
  • Future

+/- Attention

  • Negative
  • Positive

Latest Updates Direct To Your Inbox

Please enter your email address in the form below and click the subscribe button.


Creative Business


April 30, 2013 — by Daryll Scott2

There is currently one concept in organisational language that concerns me more than any other… It’s almost impossible to screw up a nine-box competency framework and throw it at the waste paper bin in an HR department without bouncing off a conversation about ‘the talent agenda’ or a person with ‘talent’ in their job description.

My understanding is that the word ‘talent’ is typically used for the individuals considered as talented; those who shine more brightly than the rest; the most likely leaders of tomorrow, so they are a handy bunch of people to identify and nurture, but I’m not sure that ‘talent’ is a helpful label.

The meaning associated with talent is often one of ‘god-given ability’. They are just better. It’s easier for them. It’s in their DNA. The dictionary installed on my computer defines talent as ‘natural aptitude or skill’.

I’m lucky to have several friends who are elite performers in their fields – Olympic athletes, fighter pilots and entrepreneurs. Every one of them, if asked, will dismiss the idea of talent. They will all tell you of competitors who seemed to have more natural talent but squandered it. They universally attribute their success to mindset and bloody hard work.

So – here are 6 reasons why the consequence of the concept of ‘talent’ may not be helpful:

1. ‘Talent’ is a myth

Malcolm Gladwell, in his insightful book ‘Outliers’, suggests that extraordinary performance is a result of 10,000 hours of road-time. Matthew Sayd, in his excellent book, ‘bounce’ suggests that the difference is hours and hours of purposeful practice.

2. Even of it wasn’t a myth – HR systems are the least effective at identifying it.

Over the past few years I have spent a lot of time learning about performance management systems in large organisations. For the most part they reward conformity and consistency over genius and insight. A large organisation I worked with recently recognized their lack of entrepreneurial flair, so they recruited twenty real, proven, successful entrepreneurs; shakers and movers who can make things happen. None of the twenty highly paid recruits lasted a whole year. Once inside the organization they would have needed to behave in line with the culture to stay – which completely defeats the object.

3. Talent creates confirmation bias

Check out ‘The Pygmalion Effect’ or ‘The Rosenthal Effect’ for compelling evidence of how deeply our judgement is corrupted by identifying individuals as high potential – great news for those who make the cut and severely limiting for those who don’t.

4. Talent creates identity prison.

Once identified as talent you have an identity-based label that may corrupt your behaviour in several ways. You may avoid any activity within which you will not shine, so step out of activities that do not reinforce the label (like successful sports people who duck competitions if they think they will not finish on top, or successful entrepreneurs who become paralysed by protecting their success and lose their entrepreneurial ability) or they may being to ‘rest on laurels’ and apply themselves less if they are not adequately challenged.

5. Talent provokes developmental laziness

One of my friends is a schoolteacher. Within the first month of the term he identifies the top 20% of kids in the class so that he can help them to achieve excellent test results, and the bottom 20% of kids so that he can make sure they keep up and ‘get them over the line’ at the end of the year.  The middle 60% are essentially ignored and left to their own devices. He’s gaming-it to meet the governmental measures upon which he is performance managed, recognized and rewarded.

6. ‘Talent’ can become a ‘club’

I was recently working with an L&D professional who explained that their organization had spent that past 5 years asking, “What do we need to do for our talent?” “What do our talent need from us?” They have recently started asking, “Hang on a minute, what are these talented individuals doing for us? What do we get back from this investment? What are they signing up for?”


I’m probably a lone voice here (again). It would be great if you could click through to the blog and leave a comment.

In the meantime, here are a couple of ‘What if’ questions to chew over:

What if we did away with the word ‘talent’ – replaced with ‘current high-performers’? Make it less permanent – more changeable – more linked to performance than god-given abilities.

What if development activities were strictly related to what needed to be achieved in the current role (to get better at it and achieve a commercial objective) and the future role (to grow into it) and made available to everyone?

Although available to everyone, what if individuals had to self-nominate and justify or earn their involvement each development activity – so that development activities are seen as a valuable privilege not a passive ‘joy ride’?

Just a thought…


  • Steve Chapman

    April 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    I’m with you there Daryll. The word ‘Talent’ may be a helpful navigation aid to the complexities of corporate life but it is in danger of taking on a life of its own and become a ‘thing’ that drives conformity with the status quo and leads to an unhelpful splitting between talent and non-talent. Sadly, the original intent of fostering diverse human potential seems to have turned into a field that is more focussed on tools, models and processes rather than real talent.

    Not saying the word talent is overall bad, I’m simply agreeing with you that taking a step back and seeing where the field has become the ‘near enemy’ of itself is a worthwhile exercise.

    I recently wrote a blog about a corporate talent show I hosted for an HR function – folk who are well versed in the talent agenda. The audience were amazed at the hidden talents the people in their office displayed – folk who they had just regarded as ‘normal’ corporate citizens just a few hours before but would never have featured on a traditional 9 box grid.

    I’m reminded of Einstein….”I have no special talents, I am only passionately curious.”


  • Arton Baleci

    May 1, 2013 at 9:59 am

    When you show me an Olympian with no training, a concert pianist with no previous on the piano or a Red Arrow who got in the cockpit and knew how to fly immediately with no tuition, you will have showed me ‘natural talent’.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *