I’ve taken a breather from this conversation for a bit to try to gain perspective. Talent is such an important topic for both individuals and organizations. As I read your last post and then our friend Ben Stone’s call out, I recognized that we weren’t really making progress. He was right to call us out on having a battle of semantics rather than getting to the real work of talent, which is what should we actually be DOING about talent?
So, let’s turn to a more practical discussion about two questions:
- What actions are required to be considered as fully unleashing “talent” within an organization? In other words, what would you look for within an organization to know that they “get” talent?
- What things do you see being done within organizations under the banner of “talent” that you think are most harmful or offensive to your model of talent?
And maybe one more thing for us to consider. It seems to me that you are suggesting that talent should be defined situationally rather than globally. And, since you don’t seem to be all that concerned with a specific definition of talent but rather each organization have a definition of their own, I’d ask this question of you:
- What should be included in an organization’s definition of talent (i.e. what are the components of a good definition of talent?)?
For this conversation to get some teeth, it needs to move from semantics into “what should we do?” Are you up for that challenge?