The common dictionary definition of ‘talent’ is that it refers to an individual’s natural aptitude or skill at something particular. The word has its etymological origins as the Greek word ‘talanton’ before translating to the Latin word ‘talenta’, and then in old English ‘talente’. Accordingly, as a term of historical significance, it was used by the Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans to refer to either a unit of weight measurement or a sum of money. Talent endures today as a common term in popular culture, and whenever it is brought up we typically acknowledge that we understand what it means in that particular context.
Therefore, in popular culture, we understand that a talent equates a gift or a skill that somebody employs to achieve a particular task very well despite its apparent difficulty. In light of this, the average person believes it is an ability an individual is born with, thus the term of endearment ‘talented’ is accorded to those who perform seemingly impossible feats. However, it is arguable that a lot of hard work and practice also goes into maintaining the performance levels of the evidently ‘talented’ individual. This should explain why an apparently “less talented” individual might develop a very good aptitude for a task through practice.
Evidently then, talent is an abstract concept. For example, what would different business leaders or decision makers understand by the term ‘talent’ and how would they classify someone as talented? Some would define talent as the ability to learn and adapt to evolving situations, since the ability to thrive with changes or having the insight to seize opportunities is not inherent with everyone, but is crucial to comprehending complex business environments. Others would consider talent to be creativity and innovation beyond one’s training. This argument posits that true talent shines through when individuals break the commonly accepted boundaries of their area of expertise.
Another lot, while recognizing that talent may not involve having special abilities or skills, would equate it with high performance. That is, the delivery of effective outcomes, probably outdoing peers. However, there may also be an argument to be had about the constitutionality of high performance. For example, changes to a company’s business operations might see a formerly high-performing employee with useful abilities downgrade to a low-performer due to no fault of their own (McCord, 2014). Additionally, this serves to foster the perspective that current performance has to be accompanied by the potential for growth for it to be defined as talent. Evidently, performance and potential are intrinsically synced but for a slight differentiation. High-performers are denoted by their efficiency in the present, while high-potentials are defined by their high probability for future success (Amabile and Pillemer, 2012).
My personal definition of talent borrows from that of a University of Pennsylvania professor who posits that talent means “the rate at which one gets better with effort” (Duckworth, 2016). This definition of talent provides room for talent to be viewed as a combined product of innate ability and hard work. Consequently, with effort, comes improvement, despite the differences in the rate of improvement between individuals.
When we consider this definition of talent, it lends truth to the idea of persistence since it is very difficult for individuals to maintain the “consistency in the motivation” when trying to improve in some area of expertise. The challenge of seeking improvement is that we constantly reach the limits of our abilities despite the aspirations we hold. When this is juxtaposed with individuals who have improved faster, we may view the situation as proof of limited talent on our part or just evidence of a lower rate of improvement. This ideological position serves to motivate us to persist while still acknowledging the differences in abilities. Moreover, psychologist Anders Ericsson affirmed this position by researching experts in different fields and arguing that regardless of innateness, those who persistently practiced their craft eventually climbed to the top of their area of expertise (Ericsson, 2016). In essence, we are more equal than we might readily presume and in the grand scheme of things, it’s the people who practice more who succeed rather than those who appeared to have an initial advantage.
In his book, Peak, Ericsson observes that since there is a shortage of explanations in most fields regarding “innate differences” between individuals, there can be no arguing its secondary role to practice. If innate differences do exist, they probably “manifest themselves through the necessary practice and efforts that go into developing a skill” (Ericsson and Pool, 109). In conclusion, it is clear that both innateness and effort are vital when defining talent, so, there is no obligation to base the definition on only one or the other. Besides, most professionals will attest to the critical value of hard work in attaining their potentials.
Works Cited
- Amabile, T.M. & Pillemer, J. “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity.” Journal of Creative Behavior, 17 April 2012.
- Duckworth, A. “Angela Duckworth on grit.” EconTalk [Audio Podcast], Jul. 2016. http://www.econtalk.org/angela-duckworth-on-grit/. Accessed, 24 Feb. 2019.
- Ericsson, A. & Pool, R. Peak: Secret from the new science of expertise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2016.
- McCord, P. “How Netflix reinvented HR.” Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb. 2014. https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr. Accessed, 24 Feb. 2019.
- Silzer, R. & Church, A. “The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16 November 2009.
