The talent exists. Each individual has some talent. At an early age, we experience diverse stimuli, some we find attractive and lean toward while others never seem to connect with us. Some children are naturals in sports, academics, building, crafts, music, or the arts. A few may show some proficiency and talent in multiple disciplines. As they develop, the focus of their attention is evident as they naturally gravitate to what they are good at and enjoy.
Individuals with talent arrive at organizations that state they develop their people, who then assess and review through annual evaluations, recognize their strengths, and focus on weaknesses. Typically the organizations will invest in them to be better in the areas they are deficient or less interested in. For example, we want the analytical person to be a better communicator, and the individual who performs a function well to then sell or manage people. To what avail? Is this not a model for developing mediocrity?
Let’s focus on strengths and develop the talent that already exists. Then, imagine what that organization may look like if we assemble a team of all-stars for their proficiency and desired areas of interest and further develop those skills. Compared to the one filled with uninspired and unmotivated individuals who are fostering skills they hope they will never have to use.
The notion does not advocate for not working on crucial behavioral skills, but why advance specific expertise that is not important to the role an individual performs?
Suppose we want talent, and we want to keep them. Shouldn’t our focus then be on developing individuals’ inherent and natural capabilities, making that shine, and seeking to help them build their proficiency even further?
