I believe that talent is everything in achieving organizational excellence. Single or simple-minded talent approaches will not work in the competitive world of the 21st Century. The world is a more inter-related place. The global integration of the world’s marketplaces has brought new opportunities, and new challenges and threats. The impact of technology has shortened time cycles and decreased the impact of distance. A society’s ability to nurture and effectively align talent with appropriate opportunity is its ultimate and only source of competitive advantage.
Unfortunately, many of the social myths about talent that were developed and proved effective in the 20th century world, and earlier, still hamper our ability to do this. Some of these myths cripple our ability to provide a sustainable standard of living for all. They need to be replaced with new ones. Five of the key ones follow.
1. Psychological “employment” contract
Old
The psychological contract between employer and employee works best if it includes the idea of long-time employment and employer responsibility for such things as benefits and pensions. A part of an employee’s wage must be held back by the employer to provide such “employment” benefits.
New
Adults, if educated and provided with appropriately structured and regulated service providers, can take responsibility for their short and long-term benefits and long-term pensions. Employees (full time and contract) should receive all of the payment achieved through their use of talent.
Note:
Employers must focus on the short-term (this year) and long-term (over the next 5 to 50 years) social and economic survival of their enterprises. They do not have the energy to also “provide” for the life-long benefit needs of their employees (permanent or contract).
Governments need to provide “enabling legislation” which facilitates and regulates the specialized service providers who do so as part of the social contract, just as employers used to do this as part of the employment contract.
2. Capital and its management
Old
The individuals in society who have access to,and who manage, capital do so because of some innate or acquired superiority of talent. They, therefore, have the right to expect a substantial premium payment for their use of capital
New
In the 21st Century, the lottery of birth and the market place has as much to do with access to capital as individual talent. All individuals have the right to be reasonably compensated for their productive use of talent, in whatever way they use it.
Notes:
Although the market place must recognize the contribution of capital (resulting from the past deployment of human talent), capital does not have some inherent right to be compensated at rates markedly higher than talent. Society can and must set these limits in ways, which reflect the underlying fact that talent is the source of all value in human society.
Financial capital cannot exist without society. It requires the common acceptance of financial exchange and social contract mechanisms (money, credit, contract law, and contract enforcement. Even slavery is ultimately a form of social contract). Without these, the only form in which capital can exist is in the products which an individual or cooperating group of individuals can produce or utilize by their use of their own talent, (largely personal tools, personally-harvested land and nurtured livestock), or through what they can “take = steal or inherit” from others.
3. Talent and its compensation
Old
Some forms of talent are inherently more valuable than others. The market place is a “fair adjudicator” of these differences. Therefore, some forms of talent desire to be compensated at rates that exceed others in large multiples (in the hundreds and thousands).
New
The market value of talent reflects “current” and “local” conditions, as well as social myths and stereotypes, not the innate nature of talent itself.
Note
Just like many other things in the market are “regulated” for the greater good, the range of compensation of talent can also be regulated for the greater good. This regulation will never be perfect, and must be subject to continual social dialogue about its nature and form.
4. Some talent is innately exceptional
Old
Some individuals have exceptional talents compared to the rest of us. They deserve to be compensated for their use of this talent at rates that far exceed the rest of us.
New
The exceptional value assigned to some levels of talent reflects social myths, trends, and stereotypes, not anything in the inherent nature of the talent itself.
Note
The folks with “exceptional” talent reflect what a society values at some point in time. They are not innately “worth more” than people who have their talents at average or less than average levels. (I hope that all college-educated individuals will have been exposed to the idea of the normal distribution by now, even if they reject it.) Some people have exceptional levels of talent in some areas that do not receive exceptional compensation, simply because “society” does not value their talent at that point in time.
5. An adult’s talent
Old
Some people simply do not have talent they need to be socially productive.
New
Every person who is capable of functioning on an adult basis on a day-to-day level in a society possesses the talent needed to contribute in some way to that society. The fact that some are not “valued” reflects the limitations of the society, not of the individual.
Note
It is clear to all of us that some people who are physically adults (i.e. they are older than 16 ,or 18, or 21 or whatever age is defined as the age of the onset of adulthood by the society in question) are not capable of functioning as adults in that society. They should be treated and cared for as if they were children.
Adults who function on a day-to-day basis in a society deserve to be treated as adults. Some societies are still strongly impacted by pre-21st century myths about talent. In such societies, people treat the inability of some of these adults to “use their talent” to earn sufficient compensation to support themselves as something for which to blame the individual.
Other societies (well, maybe only in the world of “Star Trek”) recognize that the choices that we make collectively through our political and enterprise processes have a great deal to do with the differential valuing of human talent. These societies provide appropriate social safety nets, which provide the basic dignity of survival (food, clothing, shelter, and health care) for all adults. Whether or not to do so is a choice we make through our social and political dialogue, not a “natural fact”. Such societies also recognize that all human adults have the capacity to make a useful contribution in some way.
People will argue that the existence of “criminals” invalidates this. However, it is both historically and sociologically clear that most forms of crime are socially defined. Most criminals only exist as a reflection of the current status of what they do in their society. (The best example that I can think of in this area is the lottery. In the 1920’s, the numbers game was criminal in North America. By the end of the 20th century, when in the hands of the government, this form of crime has become “non-crime”.)
Interpersonal violence may be the result of the fact that a person with the physical form of an adult cannot function as an adult. A society needs to cope with these folks in some humane, restraining way. We generally treat such folks as if they were violent criminals. Sometimes, individuals functioning as adults lose control and behave violently towards others in ways that we do not accept as “reasonable” in society. All societies set such limits and create social mechanisms to deal with it. But none of this invalidates the fact that all individuals functioning as adults have the potential to contribute to society in some way.
Concluding Note:
A social myth serves an important function in our society.I labeled it a myth because it is not about the physical or material world, and therefore cannot be true or false. You can observe and count and make statistical statements about a social myth’s adherence and relevance. These are facts – “x percent of the people in group y say they believe this myth”. You can evaluate whether or not this statistical fact about the social myth is true or false. But, you cannot state that the myth itself is true or false. You may believe it to be, treat it as an important value, but in doing so you are implying that social myths are the same category of thing as a fact. They are not.
I label them social because they serves an intensely important integrating function in society. People believe these myths. These beliefs impact the way that they structure their own lives and interact with others. Durkheim, the French sociologist, termed such integrating themes as being part of the “collective social consciousness”. I prefer to think of them as high integrative social myths or stories that shape our society.
