Have you ever tried to define, objectively, what “talent” truly means? The problem is that everyone has their own definition, and finding a common framework that everyone can agree on seems like an elusive quest. Organizational performance reviews can turn into football post-match debates, in which pundits offer subjective opinions (masked as objective facts) to promote the talent in their teams. Identifying talent is critical for organizations, so that they make a focused investment on their future leadership and avoid regretful turnover. This essay will discuss the pitfalls of the quest for a common definition and offer a reasonable framework to improve fairness and balance to talent assessment.

#talent #performance #management #humanresources #careers #personaldevelopment #culture #leadership #bestadvice #jobs #meritocracy

The general definition of talent is easy to understand: a natural aptitude or skill for a certain activity. But this is too static an assessment because talent is intimately linked with the concept of potential. So, talent is also a predisposition to improve the ability to perform that activity.

Young football players are considered talents not only because they play better than their peers, but mostly because they show an ability to evolve their ability to play the game. When faced with better opponents, they adapt and improve their skillset, increasing their chances to shine in the big leagues.

The first common fallacy is confusing talent for experience. Talent is forward-looking, while experience is not. While experience is an important factor to consider when filling a job, companies and recruiters tend to overemphasize it over talent, or use it as a proxy for talent. The assumption is that the longer someone has been doing a particular job, the more talented they must be.

It's easy to see how that can be a flawed approach. While experience contributes to skill development, people can acquire it without necessarily excelling or innovating in their roles. If someone has been in a role for more than 5 or 10 years, that probably is a better indicator of lack of talent*. Less experienced but talented people can learn quickly, bring fresh perspectives and innovative solutions, and quickly adapt to new challenges.

* It’s interesting how many job descriptions require long experiences in specific roles. Recruiters should ask themselves if they are looking for someone to keep the boat afloat or to take the company forward?

The second fallacy is narrowing the definition of talent to a single skill, technical proficiency, or expertise. While technical skills are essential, they are not a proxy for talent. Being very competent at using your “toolbox” of skills doesn’t mean you are able to keep adding tools to that “toolbox”.

Excellent “accountants” or “sales reps” or “marketeers” are not necessarily good candidates to lead their respective departments. While they can perform their current jobs well, they need more, likely unrelated, skills to take more senior jobs involving higher scale, scope, and complexity. A high scoring forward in football is not necessarily captain material.

Narrowing the understanding of talent on hard, technical skills neglects the importance of soft skills such as communication, leadership, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. Talented individuals not only possess technical prowess but also exhibit strong interpersonal abilities, enabling them to collaborate effectively, lead teams, and navigate complex workplace dynamics.

The third fallacy is neglecting Cultural Fit. A talented individual can thrive in one organization and struggle in another. The alignment of the individuals’ values, work style, and personality with the organization’s culture is critical to ensure their potential is ultimately realized.  Otherwise, talents can become misfits, resulting in unnecessary conflict and wasted career investment. Think Cristiano Ronaldo in his last stint at Manchester United, bringing in a superstar doesn’t mean the team will be better.

The prevalence of these fallacies is why I focus so much in pursuing an alignment on the definition of talent when I implement performance reviews in corporate transformations.

The framework I have come to appreciate the most is one proposed by Korn Ferry, which is based on the concept of “agilities” (listed below). Each manager is required to answer a questionnaire in which their employees are rated according to their proficiency in each of the skillsets that drive these agilities.

Even though the approach doesn’t eliminate subjectiveness, it forces leaders to evaluate talent in a standard and comparable way, so it is easier to ensure assessments are comprehensive and to calibrate these assessments across the organization.

1. Mental Agility. Talents who are highly curious and oriented towards continuous learning. They have strong critical thinking skills to penetrate complex problems and are highly creative in making fresh connections.

Skillset: Critical Thinking, Creativity, Learning Orientation, Emotional Intelligence.

2. People Agility. Talents who are open-minded towards others to understand and relate to them, enjoy interactions with diverse groups, and bring out the best in others.

Skillset: Empathy, Communication Mastery, Conflict Resolution, Team Building.

3. Change Agility. Talents who embrace change, are willing to take leadership in transformation efforts, are highly adaptable, enjoy experimentation, and continuously explore options. They are comfortable stepping outside their comfort zone and taking calculated risks.

Skillset: Adaptability, Innovation, Resilience, Risk-Taking.

4. Results Agility. Talents who deliver results in difficult, challenging situations. They remain mission-focused and inspire confidence in others to achieve more than they thought was possible. They are disciplined and always seek to deliver more with less.

Skillset: Goal Orientation, Data-Driven Decision Making, Accountability, Efficiency.

5. Self-Awareness Agility. Talents who are highly self-aware by being able to introspect. They understand and act on their strengths and weaknesses, they seek feedback and personal insight. They remain calm and collected under pressure and adapt their communication to the needs of particular situations.

Skillset: Reflective Practice, Emotional Regulation, Feedback Receptivity, Adaptation.

By identifying, recognizing, and fostering the further development of these agilities, organizations can harness the full potential of their professional talent, and help build a corporate culture of adaptability, collaboration, innovation, self-awareness, and excellence. This becomes an even more critical element of strategically managing the human resources of the organization in light of today's accelerating and ever-evolving business landscape.