All in all great article, but it seriously lost credibility with "Talents are innate and are the building blocks of great performance. Knowledge, experience, an

All in all great article, but it seriously lost credibility with "Talents are innate and are the building blocks of great performance. Knowledge, experience, and skills develop our talents, but unless we possess the right innate talents for our job, no amount of training or experience will matter." Until such a time as we can (a) define "innate talent" precisely, (b) measure it so that we know now much a person has, and (c) determine that none of our current methods of teaching the related skill result in enough of an improvement, statements like that are just excuses for people to look at each other and say "I just don't think he has the talent to do this. Great guy, hard worker, but no talent." Interestingly, if you dig into the links and studies provided, you find that "talent" is never defined and, where used, completely replaceable by "skills" or "interests". And once you replace it in the above sentence, it becomes either obviously false (of course skills can be increased with training) or patently absurd (of course training rarely changes your interests). Still a great article for the connection between management and employee satisfaction and productivity.