« Fan sites! For a bank? | Main | Proof that there's no such thing as bad publicity »
"The Talent Myth" myth
I'm usually a fan, but I must say, Malcolm Gladwell really got it wrong this time.
I have a few serious problems with his Change This manifesto, "The Talent Myth". My biggest concern is that he repeatedly confuses talent with certification. An MBA has nothing to do with talent, that's just learning. So sure, filling an organization with MBAs is no guarantee of success, however, fill it with people with raw talent and good things will happen. Oh, and I'm not saying systems aren't important, just that you need a balance of both.
He also seems to blame the downfall of Enron on their hiring strategy, no mention whatsoever of the corrupt management and creative accounting.
Don't kid yourself Malcolm, talent is damn important...!
Posted by Rich...! | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452464069e200d83423fd6953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The Talent Myth" myth:
» The Incentive to Lie on Your Resume from ForwardMarkets
I was just reading [Read More]
Tracked on 26 Nov 2004 22:56:36
Comments
The thing with MBAs (and I know, I've worked with them, taken some of their courses, and tried to understand how they think) is this: They always think they know. They're even sure they know. Thus they're less open to learning... Give me someone who knows that he doesn't know (I don't!), and he'll outsmart the complacent rest-on-his-laurels-type any day. Talent? Yes, very important. Attitude? Oh yeah.
Posted by: Martin | 24 Nov 2004 20:49:44
i don't believe in talent in it's traditional sense as a born ability.
i do think there are genetic differences between people, so some are born with better legs, others with better breasts, but all abilities can be enchanced tremendously especially in the early age. this is especially true for the brain. it's much more easy to develop for special tasks.
i think what traditionally called as talent is really a skill that has been learned in a very early age and since our body and our brain adapts to the environment basically the abilities further enchance the skills.
for example a kid playing piano from the age of 2 will not only learn music, but his fingers will grow stronger and ears will develop differently than another kid without such environmental situation.
and this kid will have better musical "talent" than a kide who is born with better fingers and ears. learned/developed skills can easily overcome born benefits.
Posted by: ivan raszl | 25 Nov 2004 20:29:13
So you're saying breast talent can be enhanced, and is not necessarily genetic?
Really?
Posted by: Martin | 25 Nov 2004 23:18:41
Martin: The problem withh the MBA is that it's just another benchmark that lazy HR depts use for hiring.
Ivan: Fair enough, lets say I buy your nurture vs. nature argument. Taking that into the context of Gladwell's manifesto, would you dispute the value of having someone with a skill developed through a lifetime of practice (i.e. talented) in your orginisation, a person that just understands design, has a knack for it?
I stress, Gladwell's errors are that he confuzes talent with certification, and thus when he uses pure "the certificatied" as a measure of a company's talent, he misses the point. I could not agree enough that hiring for certification is wrong, unbelievably wrong. But using your instinct and hiring talent is going to help your business.
I can sell stuff, I have no formal training, I lack higher education, but I have an ability to get people to buy things from me, I couldn't replace that with a good system...!
Posted by: Rich...! | 26 Nov 2004 09:55:08
Credentialism is a disease and HR departments are the infection vector. Check-box driven recruiting websites like recruitsoft.com are making the situation exponentially worse.
Nature vs nurture is an interesting debate. I have some affinity to techniques like myers-briggs. If you have 2 hours and $20 go to advisorteam.com and see how well its assessment of your predisposition jives with reality.
Posted by: MarkN | 26 Nov 2004 23:06:36
I don't fault myers-briggs, or any of the jung-based evaluation services out there, but again, they're often miss-applied.
My wife was recentley approached by her ex-boss to do a similar job for her at the large multi-national firm that she (the boss) now works at.
The myers-brigs style test she took showed that she was not right for the position, even though she had been approached directly by someone who had worked with her for years.
Needless to say, she didn't get the job.
People have forgotten how to think, they rely too heavily on rules, certificates, and cheat sheets...!
Posted by: Rich...! | 27 Nov 2004 15:50:36
I'd blame the scumbags in HR.
As far as myers-briggs goes, the most I would ever recommend it be used for is personal enlightenment. And even at that its a one time thing, its not a weekly personality horoscope.
The fact that HR departments are using M-B as a filter is as disgusting as it is unsurprising. Yet one more thing they can use to distance themselves from actually critically, objectively and proactively evaluating candidates.
Posted by: MarkN | 27 Nov 2004 22:01:28
If you ask me, people are just lazy...
Posted by: Martin | 29 Nov 2004 16:38:01
Do you think that using the term talent really makes that much of a difference in the message of the article? It seems that your idea of raw talent is what he is using as an example of a successful model ie)proctor and gamble.
You stated "fill it with people with raw talent and good things will happen" What happens when those people with raw talent turn out to be intolerable jackasses. Isn't there a reason why there is an interview process, to weed out those who don't fit in. It seems that Missing Link strives from being a cohesive unit of like-minded individuals. Doesn't that place more importance on personality than talent or credentials.
Posted by: aaron | 10 Dec 2004 01:39:08
Credentials yes, but talent not really. I have, as stated on out site, hired for attitudae and trained for aptitude, however I always saw something there at the beginning. That's not what MG is saying though, I took it that he was saying you would be better with average people and great systems than the other way around (basicaly, he could have called his paper "The people myth").
I also believe that wording is important, I agree, too many companies hire purely on credentials i.e. certification, however reffering to these people as the "talented" ones is a mistake. In this case quite a big one...!
Posted by: Rich...! | 12 Dec 2004 13:36:07
