I had a disagreement the other day with my husband about talent. We were discussing a new company Hunsicker’s purpose-driven company creation process is focused on, in an industry where I’ve got lots of experience. As a reference, Hunsicker’s model of generating startups begins by our team seeding the business concept and then marrying it with the right co-founder(s) who will guide the heavy lift of daily operations and execution. Essentially, we set the initial trajectory of the enterprise and then lean on other capable individuals to produce and follow the momentum. 

‍

As we discussed the importance of these “leader types”, I expressed my belief that the best co-founders for this company would be those passionate about the sector and natural operators with a proven ability to execute. But my husband insisted that a founder needed specific traits- an extroverted, confident, outspoken leader who could attract investment from outsiders. Furthermore, my stance was that a known individual would be better - someone with whom I’ve already had a chance to work alongside and, therefore, had a sense of their work style and personality. Meanwhile, my husband argued that that was an unnecessary limitation. Instead, he insisted, a broad talent search and job posting would yield a better result. Both of us felt strongly about our approach, and it got me thinking about the many pathways and inherent complexities that exist in the race to find and keep the best talent.  

‍

I’m not sure when we started referring to humans as “talent.” I suppose it’s meant to be a more affirming and inclusive title in contrast to worker or employee? But its vagueness also touches on the ambiguity between potential and experience. Is talent something hardcoded from inception (akin to nature) or something cultivated and honed over time (akin to nurture)? Is there a quantifiable talent scale, and if not, who’s the impartial judge of this competency? 

‍

In this time, when employers are laudably trying to widen their appeal and reach a more diverse set of applicants, there’s been a noticeable trend away from reliance on “resume” qualifications and instead relying on headhunters or recruiters. More and more, individuals are seen as a compilation of their hard and soft skills, collectively needing to be mined. At some point, these attributes are labeled as “talents.” And yet, in the quest to shed the limitations of elite college diplomas and accumulated experiences, we’ve replaced one label with another. In short, we’re no better off labeling someone as a list of talents than when we labeled them according to their pedigree. In fact, by parsing folks into their talents, we’re just seeking a shortcut to quantifying the immeasurable. 

Furthermore, the categorizing of skills has rippling consequences for those categorized as such. To be sure, the twin promises and limitations implied within the talent label cause a lot of self-afflicted angst in life. As with any identification, it brings the comfort of a prescriptive identity. It’s nice to self-identify as a “programmer,” “soccer player,” or “artist” because it connotes an immediate understanding of your abilities and, in theory, your interests. It’s rare that one's talent isn’t at least a partial source of happiness (let’s face it, we like doing things we’re good at and that come easier to us). Shared talents make for easy friend groups. And categories of expertise lead to pathways for employment.  

‍

But talent can also be a yoke. If you are naturally talented in language, does that mean you’re obligated to leverage that skill in life? And because talent isn’t fixed, where does the motivation come from to grow that talent if you are already deemed gifted? What if you “lose” that talent because you don’t exercise it? Is it even a talent if you don’t express it for others to witness, or must it include some sort of performance? Furthermore, what if you intentionally are trying to grow a talent that you’re not innately gifted with? So much lip service is given to the importance of practice, but talent is often used to imply some natural bestowment as opposed to grit and perseverance. 

‍

The paradox of talent becomes even more unwieldy when you’re trying to identify and attract it proactively. Do you take someone’s word for their talent, or do you need to sleuth it out for yourself? If it’s the latter, how do you accomplish that? Through provided references, social media stalking, a resume of accomplishments, personal interviews, or personality assessments? On the one hand, there’s the allure of a “diamond in the rough” whose talents are largely unrealized and might need many more resources to blossom. On the other hand is the “tested expert” who commands a high compensation, and brings an established track record but might be less flexible in a new workplace. Are you looking for talent you can wield for your purposes (and that can follow directions!) or do you seek talent that can operate without management and is already driven to a shared marker of success? In short, there are nearly as many ways to determine and weigh talent as there are ways to possess it.

‍

Going back to the original argument and this wider understanding of the complexities of talent matching, the regrettable conclusion is the lack of a perfect answer. As with so many pieces of successful business creation, it isn’t a prescriptive recipe. People aren’t quantifiable commodities, just like talent isn’t binary. We’re deluding ourselves if we think this hiring method is more comprehensive than traditional resumes and personality tests. We’re still trying to evaluate complex individuals but measuring just a few of their parts. 

‍

For our purposes at Hunsicker, a critical part of how talent is expressed comes from the environment it's planted in. What kind of co-workers are already in place? What kind of management styles already exist? What talents are missing, both with hard and soft skills? And what sort of talents will promote action when the road inevitably gets gritty? I find these questions more robust in considering the people I want to work with versus the more nebulous ascription of talent. This path of thinking helps to remove some of the pressure to craft the exact job description or create a viral social media post to reach the proverbial talent sequestered in their tower on high. The skills we seek are all around us. But they come in complex individuals. Reducing people to just their talent is a trap that benefits no one.