The author has the right idea with the first item. Time, trust, and communication are essentials in hiring. But flying this under the banner of "talent" is bor

The author has the right idea with the first item. Time, trust, and communication are essentials in hiring. But flying this under the banner of "talent" is bordering on link-bait. Look at all the points he makes about hiring a "talented" individual: * "...we’re asking whether you have the mettle to be part of an elite team." * "A new hire won’t come up with something mind blowing if the team doesn’t bring the new hire up to speed quickly." * "I don’t necessarily expect a new hire to do something amazing while he or she works with us." * "A new hire won’t do something amazing, now or in the future, if the organization he or she works for doesn’t hold up its end of the bargain." None of this is about talent. It's about a supportive ecosystem and cohesive team. "Talent" is just a label that HR applies to people they think will succeed in an organization, and an after-the-fact definition when an individual has found success in his or her role. And it's been my experience that those two groups are far from congruent.