dispatches from the new world of work

A Few "Talent Lessons" from the Arts

Been meaning to publish this for a while. If we are in an Age of Talent, then we can turn to guidance from arenas where the Big Idea of Talent has been standard fare for eons. Namely, the likes of the arts. I put together a single PPT slide called "A Few 'Talent Lessons' from the Arts." You'll find the content (pretty self-explanatory) below—and then another tiny Special Presentation. To wit:

Each person hired and developed and inspired and evaluated in unique ways (23 contributors = 23 unique contributions = 23 pathways = 23 distinct personalities = 23 sets of motivators)
Attitude/Enthusiasm/Energy paramount!
Re-lent-less!!!!!!!!!!!
"Peculiar" = Requisite (Each expected to make unique/"peculiar" contribution)
"Practice is cool" (Practice stars = Performance stars. See George Leonard's Mastery; Twyla Tharp's The Creative Habit)
Team and Individual "performance" equally cherished
Aspire to EXCELLENCE = Obvious (Excellence = Cool)
Ex-e-cu-tion
Talent = Brand = Duh
"The Project" rules
Emotional language Okay
"Bit players"? No! (All = Vital)
Standard = B.I.W. (Best. In. World.)
Different events = Different rosters (Duh.)

Needless (??) to say, the above is quite a few miles from standard HR practice.

Tom Peters posted this on 10/06/06.

Comments

Tom,

Your focus on talent is likt the general focu on knowledge capital. it misses the point. Talent is only meaningfull when it is developed into a useful skill. Knowledge capital is only usful when it can be applied.

THere are two kinds of talented people . Those who have talent and believe that is enough to get by. Those who have talent and work thier butts off to get better.

The first group will resist attempts to be developed. the second group will already be developinging and looking for opportunities to get better .

Tiger Woods has talent, But he Works Real real hard to get better.

Micheal Jordan had talent, He got cut from his highschool basketball team. Then worked his butt off to earn his place on the team.

so hireing talen might not be the end all be all. but hiring people with talent who are working to get better will never hurt . But hiring premaddona's has a lot of trouble.. look at all the companier who have been destroyed by ."talented Ceo's"

Ken

Posted by Ken oneill at October 6, 2006 12:41 PM

Tom:

The problem with this argument is that the arts rely upon a massive pyramid of talent to get those rare individuals that are 6+ degrees away from the norm. And by the time these people appear at Twyla Tharp's door, or at the Berlin Phil, or Broadway, they represent hundreds or thousands of others who didn't quite measure up.

For most business leaders today, their perceived #1 problem is not in finding amazing talent, it is in finding anyone at all that is somewhat close to the talent mark.

Reality, not individual perception, is that these leaders themseleves are largeley clueless to what their people want & need. So, when one of them actually illustrates that they have talent, everyone wants to work for them.

My suggestion: Keep knocking these idiots around so at least a few of them glow a bit brighter. And oh yeah, keep the focus on Execution (getting rid of the idiots).

Posted by Dave Hardwick at October 6, 2006 3:41 PM

My 18 year old wants to major in photography, from an artistic perspective, when he goes to college next fall. Although some people worry about our investment in tuition when they hear that, I think it's awesome.

I was a music compostion major in college (along with a philosophy minor), and I am 100% convinced that I use that training everyday in my marketing career as much, if not more, than I use my Kellogg MBA.

The point is that the perspectives, skills, diligence, thought, etc. that are wrapped up in artistic inspiration are also wrapped up in a person's overall talent. Hiring decision between an undergrad business major and a dance major? All other things being equal, I'm leaning toward the dancer.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at October 7, 2006 8:53 AM