Choice Reviews Online, 2009

SUMMARIES.COM is a concentrated business information service. Every week, subscribers are e-mailed a concise summary of a different business book. Each summary is about 8 pages long and contains the stripped-down essential ideas from the entire book in a time-saving format. By investing less than one hour per week in these summaries, subscribers gain a working knowledge of the top business titles. Subscriptions are available on a monthly or yearly basis. Further information is available at www.summaries.com.

Human Resource Management Review, 2013

The ongoing confusion about the meaning of 'talent' within the world of work is hindering the establishment of widely accepted talent management theories and practices. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the literature on talent management by offering an indepth review of the talent concept within the specific context of the world of work, and proposing a framework for its conceptualization. We group different theoretical approaches to talent into 'object' (i.e., talent as natural ability; talent as mastery; talent as commitment; talent as fit) versus 'subject' approaches (i.e., talent as all people; talent as some people) and identify dynamics existing within and between them, as well as implications for talent management theory and practice. Finally, we discuss different avenues for further research aimed at developing the talent-and consequently, the talent management-construct further.

SpringerBriefs in Business

Giving direction to your life is only possible when you work towards high, authentic objectives with complete dedication. By doing those things where your unique talents and interests intersect. Live an engaged life and you will live a happy life, according to the Work Engagement Theory which I had studied all those years. I realized that after fifteen years of practical experience this is easier said than done. Keywords Talent • Work engagement theory • Sustainable performance 2.1 Introduction You cannot expect performance without talent. That seems obvious. The main question that had kept nagging at me all those years became the first research question for a three-year study: "To what extent is talent important and responsible for actual performance?" This was my first hypothesis: Hypothesis 1 Having talent leads to (better) performance (Fig. 2.1). 2.2 The Concept of "Talent" But what exactly is talent? No matter how many books on the talent you read, none provide a clear scientific definition of this ubiquitous concept. According to some, it is about the smartest people, or the ones with the best educations, or people with the Fig. 2.1 Hypothesis

We analyze the dynamic change process in chess skill acquisition across 7 years of 72,022 amateur and professional chess players from 170 countries. The findings show that age is negatively related with the change in performance over time, whereas practice is positively related, albeit with a lower impact as levels of expertise increase. During the considered time window (a) 96% (n = 68,974) of the analyzed players did not show any substantive change, (b) 4% (n = 2,683) experienced a meaningful qualitative change revealing larger and homogeneous quantifiable gains than those remaining at the same expert level, and (c) 0.4% of the players (n = 283) experienced the greatest expert jump, from amateur to high master levels. This elite group was the most homogenous regarding the quantitative change in expertise and, at the same time, showed the lowest influence of age and practice in their remarkable and fast process of top skill acquisition. The obtained evidence supports talent for und...

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

McKinsey & Company claim to have coined the term the war for talent in 1997. 2 The idea still resonates with managers because it reflects the fact that talented people are a critical driver of corporate success. For those involved in this "war", the search continues for fresh ideas about: (a) how to make the recruiting process more desirable, (b) what mix of organizational and job attributes will attract talented people, (c) how to develop more talented managers, and (d) how to design of an attractive workplace environment that retains such people.

There is a view that talent is something you are born with and it is in your genes; Lykken (1982, 1998) and Lykken et al. (1992) call this idea Emergenic and Simonton (1999) adds that this genetic inheritance of talent allows an individual to perform to a remarkably high level. To some extent this may be true, as talent does seem to have an innate element to it. However, to get ahead in competitive sports requires an athlete to have avid faith in themselves; self-belief. This could be why athletes with mediocre physical talent but with immense inner-drive can sometimes go much further than an athlete with superior talent; they may be naturally gifted but lack determination.

2017

Talents play a central role in the way that we live our lives, and it is widely assumed that identifying and developing one’s talents is valuable, both for oneself and for others. Despite this, the philosophical literature is seriously lacking in its discussion of the nature and value of talent; the objective goodness of talent and its development is often assumed without an analysis of what a talent is, and the value that we place on it. This dissertation aims to provide such an analysis, offering a philosophical account of the nature and value of talent, and an account of why we value its development. In doing so, I demonstrate how this can inform and help us assess the debates and arguments that are made in the existing philosophical literature on talent. I do not aim to provide an exhaustive overview of all the philosophical issues that could be raised in relation to the value of talent and talent development, but instead I focus on three central issues that arise when analysing...

Bridgewater Review, 2015

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2007

This paper examines the relationship between the development of talented young sports people and conceptions of social justice. It is set within the context of recent policy developments in the United Kingdom that place renewed emphasis on talent development (and wider issues of 'gifted and talented education'), and justifies this with explicit reference to social justice. After providing a summary of relevant policy initiatives and their often-unstated presumptions, the paper goes on to examine the different ways in which philosophers have conceptualised the role of luck in human affairs. Luck is a matter of particular interest to social justice theorists, who often frame their discussions in terms of the neutralisation of luck. This presents something of a problem for policy makers, as talent development seems destined to exaggerate the effects of luck, not neutralise them. In other words, it is suggested here that talent development cannot be justified in terms of social justice-at least the version of social justice advocated my many of the leading theorists-because it results in the opposite outcome than would be desired. None of this means that talent development is indefensible; it is just indefensible in the terms used in the UK talent development policy. Resumen El artículo examina la relación entre el desarrollo de jóvenes deportistas con talento y concepciones de justicia social. Se formula dentro del contexto de desarrollos recientes en el Reino Unido que ponen énfasis en el desarrollo del talento (y temas más amplios sobre la ''educación de niños dotados''), y justifica esto por medio de referencias directas a la justicia social. Después de resumir iniciativas políticas pertinentes y sus, a menudo, presunciones tácitas, el artículo examina las diferentes maneras en las que los filósofos han conceptualizado el papel de la suerte en los asuntos humanos. La suerte es una cuestión de interés particular para los teóricos de justicia social, quienes frecuentemente organizan sus discusiones en términos de la neutralización de la suerte. Esto presenta un ''ligero'' problema a los encargados de determinar la política, ya que el desarrollo del talento parece estar destinado a exagerar las consecuencias de la suerte, no a neutralizarlas. En otras palabras, se sugiere aquí que el desarrollo del talento no puede ser justificado en términos de justicia social-al menos la versión de justicia social advocada por muchos teóricos destacados-porque deviene en el resultado opuesto a lo que se hubiera deseado. Nada de esto quiere decir que el desarrollo del talento no se pueda defender; sino que es sólamente indefensible de acuerdo a los términos utilizados en la política de desarrolo de talento en el Reino Unido.