‘Talent’. The importance of language.

There was a time when the word ‘talent’ was pretty much the exclusive property of the entertainment industry. You would go to the theatre to see a ‘talented’ young actor, or read about the incredible ‘talent’ of a protégé pianist. But now, ‘talent’ seems to be everywhere. Are you part of an organisation that doesn’t have a ‘talent’ programme? Literally everyone is at it, but is the label doing more harm than good?

Let’s start by taking a credible definition. The Cambridge Dictionary tells us that it means;

“(someone who has) a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught:”

To me, personally, that is actually more akin to being gifted. Footballers may be an example where a natural gift is present, and their talent, in modern parlance, might well develop from being coached and trained to become a team player. They have to become more aware of their place as part of a wider team if they are going to enjoy the success that comes with rattling the back of the net. You’ll doubtless have heard of the ‘10,000 hour rule’, popularised by Malcolm Gladwell. Although widely criticised for its generalisation, there is no doubt that practice has a large part to play in developing skill.

So tell me please, what is a ‘Talent Pipeline’? I saw this recently in an advert for a public service job. It was aimed at identifying base level recruits to fill forthcoming vacancies. The title might have been more suited to a quest to find the next head of the service. But either way, it wasn’t for a job that you would be ‘naturally good at.’ Maybe there was a way of measuring aptitude for the position, but talent for it? It just doesn’t fit the definition.

Now that was at the recruitment point. But what if you have an internal ‘talent’ programme? There will be people who are good at their job at the level they are working at – maybe ‘talented’ even. But if they are selected for the organisation’s talent scheme, all that can really be done is a baseline assessment of their potential. Are they really ‘talented’ at that point? Furthermore, consider the risks posed by cognitive dissonance of the assessment team. Once they have selected such individuals, is there any likelihood of them being seen to have been wrong? The ‘talent’ will be developed regardless in most instances. Some will indeed go on to be really good, but others will have been given the support and mandate to be mediocre, all due to a rather inappropriate label, handed out without much thought.

And spare a thought for the rest of the team. How do we label them? ‘Ordinary’, ‘run-of-the-mill’, ‘average’? We don’t, of course, but I wonder how many are left to feel that way? And spare a thought for those that were called, but not chosen for the ‘talent’ pathway. I have known good, solid people recoil, and retract their commitment on the back of such rejection, some retiring early, or choosing a different organisation to progress with.

We also mustn’t forget ‘Disruptive Talent’ – those that are indeed really good at what they do, but because the interact with the world a bit differently, might not even get a look in to the benefits of a development programme.  They may even be side-lined or passed over unless their organisation has the insight to extract the maximum benefit from their unique perspective.

 The point is that language is important. The more we dress things up as what they aren’t, the higher the potential is to turn off the engagement switch. If we are looking for potential in new recruits, lets call it that! And as for seeking out future leaders and managers, how well do we embrace inclusion and equality if we are seen to promote a system that only favours the few?

Everyone has the potential to demonstrate talent if they are allowed to. The level to which they attain is very much up to starting from that position of equality of opportunity, rather than labelling being applied at an inappropriate point.

Derek Flint Cert. Ed, MCIPR