I've tried to write this post three times, but I've been too distracted by the games to write something coherent. I'm glad I failed in my previous attempts as Charles Barkley provided the seed crystal to crash my thoughts into something that I can capture in a post. I was watching the halftime discussion during the Kentucky game, when Charles mentioned that he liked Kentucky to win (they were 5 or 6 points behind WVU at the time) because they had the superior talent. College basketball, well, pretty much all college athletics, is built around the ability of the coach to get the most talented players possible to come play for them. It's all about talent evaluation and recruiting.
Why can't other endeavors place a similar emphasis on talent? What if my manager spent as much time finding and attracting talent to our building as a college coach spends wooing a 17 year old high school senior? What if we went after the best rather than simply waiting to see who would like to come work for us? If Charles is right, and talent trumps effort, grit, and a system, why not go get the best people possible and see what they can create? Google, Microsoft, and other tech companies chase the hottest technical talent. Why can't we go after the best technical talent in our industry? Wouldn't that give us an advantage over our competition?
I get frustrated that the members of my group are treated like interchangeable parts. I would like to see more specialization. We could gain efficiencies and provide people with a means to differentiate their effort from other people at the same level. It would be a challenge to manage, but does that mean it's not worth trying? If our managers can't handle it, does that suggest that greater effort needs to put into selecting and training our management. Talent, talent, talent.
No comments:
Post a Comment