2 ms·
I like your analogy. I may have an insight into why the theory of hiring just talented people does not lead to guaranteed success (regardless of whether they co
by koliber 10y ago
I like your analogy. I may have an insight into why the theory of hiring just talented people does not lead to guaranteed success (regardless of whether they come from a disenfranchised group or not).
The problem is that the skills of an individual are only part of the formula for success. In team sports and in companies, people need to work as a group to achieve a common goal. This involves leadership, management, teamwork, and individual contribution.
Super talented people, by definition, are great at individual contribution. They may be good team players, or they may not. Their individual talent is not a barometer of how good of a team player they are.
Add to that the management skills of the coach or team leader. If they're lacking, even skilled team players will have much lower chances at success.
Finally, there is leadership. If inadequate, there are no clear goals, there is no culture, and no guiding principles. Progress will be made haphazardly, at best. Long term success will be severely compromised without good leadership.
The marketplace is not failing. The ingredients to success involve more than superior individual talent.
- hackuser 10y agoI agree that it depends on much more than talent, but that hypothesis wouldn't explain discrimination against older workers: There's no reason older workers would be less capable in the non-talent aspects of what you describe, and there are strong reasons that they would be more capable: Experience, acquired skills, and maturity. On the other hand, part of creating a team is fitting in, and many organizations take the easy way out and avoid diversity on their teams - even though research shows that more diverse teams produce better results (what good is the 8th team member with the same experience and frame of reference?).