Want to promote or hire the best candidate? Follow the rule of skill over talent

Years ago, I facilitated a promotion committee of shop floor employees who used performance appraisal data to rank all employees eligible for a job opening. machine operator.

Even though Mike (not his real name) was the best candidate, many in the room still had doubts.

"It looks good on paper," one person said, "but I don't think it has what it takes."

Others agreed. At first, Mike had struggled in his current position. He was not quick to learn. He sometimes needed to be shown several times. It was not "natural".

I pushed back. It wasn't fair to circumvent it based on feelings rather than objective reasoning.

For a moment it seemed like I was wrong. Once promoted, he took a long time to acquire the basic skills. Worryingly, he made the same mistakes several times.

But once he knew how to do something? He really knew how to do it. Within a few years, he was an exceptional machine operator whose skills exceeded those of his skeptics. He even earned several different machinist licenses and later opened his own machine shop.

Mike was unnatural. He had no talent either.

But it didn't matter.

Because Mike was exceptionally talented.

The difference between talent and skill

Talent and skill are often used interchangeably since the result - performing a particular task, hopefully at a high level - is the same. The difference is how you acquired this ability and how quickly.

Treat talent as a natural ability. My best friend growing up was a natural athlete; he could, to an irritating degree for me less talented, learn any new sport in no time. (In the first ten minutes of play, he was already hitting topspin forehands.)

Simply put, talents are things you have.

Skills, on the other hand, are things you learn. I had to learn how to topspin a ball. I had to practice. I had to acquire this skill. It didn't come quickly.

Again, this is where the line between talent and skill can blur. We both ended up pretty much in the same place skill-wise, but the talent got my friend there much faster.

Acquisition rate is a way to distinguish talent from skill. Mike took longer to learn; he wasn't as talented as most.

But that didn't stop him from acquiring exceptional skills.

And why it matters

Even so, for years most people couldn't see past Mike's initial lack of talent. As he had started slowly, they underestimated him. The first impressions remained. He was rarely asked to help repair other operators' equipment. He was not chosen to train new employees, although he would have been an excellent trainer. (The last person you want to teach anything to is someone who came to this skill easily.)

In the eyes of most, he was forever tarred by a "lack of talent" brush.

The reverse also happens. People who pick things up quickly are often assumed to score highly for that skill, even if others end up eclipsing their skill. "Natives" were usually chosen to train new employees, with predictably lackluster results. They couldn't understand why the trainees were slow to learn. They couldn't explain the steps they were performing instinctively.

And they were usually the ones people assumed "had what it takes...