It feels to me like the article just sets up a bunch of straw men to knock down. To start with, when most companies say "we only hire top 1% talent" in the con

It feels to me like the article just sets up a bunch of straw men to knock down. To start with, when most companies say "we only hire top 1% talent" in the context of software development, they don't really mean talent as some sort innate potential, they mostly just mean skill (combined with a bit of potential to become even more skilled). Further, the idea that most people think talent is one dimensional, static and linear is just mystifying to me. Does anyone actually thinks this? He takes a literal view of "the 1%" and extrapolates that to derive these assumptions. But no one means that literally, it's just a phrase meant to invoke the idea that they are are highly selective how they hire. That this has to be explained is... odd. The author then repeatedly carps on about how "talent" cannot be quantified and then, somehow, thinks this means that the interview process is meaningless. Um, that skill cannot be quantified is WHY we have the (admittedly flawed) interview process. If all of these prevalent assumptions about talent are wrong, what does it say about our hiring and management practices? It doesn't say anything because assumptions are false. And even if talent can be "developed" (here I think he means ability to learn how to improve skills faster), everyone knows the hiring process is flawed. Because, you know, both people and roles are complex and multi-facetted. So hiring is hard. Hopefully practices will improve to become better, but I'm not holding my breath.