"Talent for Extra-Ordinary Performance" debate

“Talent” is a subject which brings forth contrasting and strong emotions from different groups of people.

Some specific topics which causes heated debate and result in people (including so called experts) to take starkly polar positions include:

• Nature v/s Nurture debate - whether talent is inborn or can be acquired?
• Debate on the definition of “Talent” - You would hear about the requirement for intelligence quotient, emotional quotient, general mental ability, etc.
• Is talent really required for outstanding performance of a team?

Of these, the third question has particularly intrigued me for sometime. I term it “Extra-ordinary performance from ordinary people”.

Team performance (success or failure) is usually easier to define in competitive sports. There are 4 questions which are relevant:

• Can you think of high performing teams which had a significant number of stars (exceptional talents)?
• West Indies cricket team of the 1980s, Australian cricket team of the 1990s and early 2000s.
• Hungary football team of the 1950s – led by Ferenc Puskas: in case you are okay with ignoring their loss in the 1954 World Cup Final.
• Indian cricket team during the 2011 World Cup.
• Chennai Super Kings during the IPLs – 2 semi final appearances and 2 wins.
• Can you think of high performing teams which didn’t have a plethora of stars (exceptional talents)?
• Holland soccer team of the 1970s – Total football approach, et al.
• New Zealand cricket team during the World Cups – they have made it to the semi finals a number of times.
• Barcelona (what I hear from my football crazy friends)
• Rajasthan Royals during IPL1
• Can you think of “filled with high performers” teams which have not performed well?
• Real Madrid (again, what I gather from my football crazy friends)
• Indian cricket team of the early 2000s.
• Brazilian football team in the 1990 World Cup – a 2^nd round exit.
• Mumbai Indians during IPL 1 and IPL 2.
• Can you think of a team without stars which has not performed well – you would find a lot of examples here.

The evidences lead to a split verdict.

It seems extra-ordinary performance can be inspired from teams which are filled with stars as well as from teams without stars. At the same time, a team full of/devoid of stars can also perform ordinarily.

But one conclusion which can be drawn is that having stars in your team is not a necessary condition for extra-ordinary performance.

-

Sourav

P.S. – There is a heated debate on the “talent for extra-ordinary performance” topic happening in the HBR blog circuit. Mark Zuterberg had made a comment a few weeks ago in the New York Times. He had said “ Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good. They are 100 times better”. Bill Taylor has retorted to this statement in a blog posted in the HBR blog circuit. A storm seems to have brewed up with positions being taken and heated exchanges flying around. Check out these links:

http://blogs.hbr.org/taylor/2011/06/great_people_are_overrated.html

http://blogs.hbr.org/taylor/2011/06/great_people_are_overrated_par.html

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/06/why_a_great_individual_is_bett.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date