…Sometimes it’s the simple things that really differentiate who we are and what we can add to the world.

What our hero, Bicycle Repair Man, shows is that it doesn’t matter if we’re surrounded by awesomely powerful individuals. Our job is to dig down and discover what truly makes each of us unique and what skills we have that we can use in our own distinct way.

So what about you…how do you relate to our hero here?

This week’s Python Thursday introduces some Interesting People.

Okay, so some of us might not be able to put bricks to sleep or are more interesting than a wet pussycat. But hopefully, you’re not invisible like Mr. Walters (3:00).

Thinking about hidden talents (or as Rosa Say calls them, sleeping talents), what makes you interesting and how do you use it to your advantage in jobhunting or in your work?

Recently, I’ve come across some interesting thoughts on the nature and necessity of talent.

This morning, Zig Ziglar at Great Management asked Does talent always prevail? And the answer is, “No.” In his article, Zig tells the story of Peter Vidmar, Olympic gold medalist, and why he succeeded when other athletes were more talented. Here’s a quote from Vidmar’s coach:

Peter is not particularly talented. I’ve had boys who were more gifted physically, with more kinetic awareness, strength and flexibility. But Peter surpassed them all because of his singular determination.

Geoff Colvin wrote a book called Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else and argues a similar point. Here are a couple of quotes that underscore Zig’s thoughts on talent:

Deliberate practice is above all an effort of focus and concentration. This is what makes it “deliberate,” as distinct from the mindless playing of scales or hitting of tennis balls that most people engage in. Continually seeking exactly those elements of performance that are unsatisfactory and then trying one’s hardest to make them better places enormous strains on anyone’s mental abilities. (p. 70)

If you believe that your performance is forever limited by your lack of a specific innate gift…, then there’s no chance at all that you will do the work. (But) If you believe that doing the right kind of work an overcome the problems, then you have at least a chance of moving on to ever better performance. What you really believe about the source of great performance thus becomes the foundation of all you will ever achieve. (p. 205)

What Zig and Geoff remind us to do is to not buy fully into the “Cult of Talent” that has taken root in our culture, the idea that if you weren’t born with a gift you’re out of luck. It actually doesn’t work like that. The reality is more liberating…and more challenging. It means that if we develop a habit of deliberate practice where we continually push ourselves, we can achieve more than we might otherwise believe. It doesn’t mean that innate talent is meaningless, it just means that it’s not everything.

Personally, where I struggle most is in trying to determine where to fully dedicate myself. My Renaissance Soulseems to rebel against the notion of selecting just one thing to dedicate my mental focus. I can’t claim to have a lot of answers to this question. How do you navigate the task of deciding where to place your dedication and create a deliberate practice plan? Love to hear your thoughts.

I’m starting to set aside some time to peruse some of the magazines that have been piling up on my desk. As it turns out, I’m three issues behind in my reading of Harvard Business Review so it’s fairly likely you’ll see a few blogposts in the near future related to HBR articles.

Going back to the May 2008 issue, Michel Anteby wrote a brief article in the Forethoughts section called Working in the Gray Zone. In the article, he brings an interesting perspective to one of my favorite topics – hidden talents. (I define a hidden talent as a unique skill or ability that an employee brings with them to an organization that is not part of their job description.) For Anteby the “gray zone” of the article title refers to using one’ s hidden talents for what may be considered non-essential work activities. He points out the example of a competent, productive newspaper editor who spends time at work writing her novel. I’ve personally experienced managers in the past who would verbally flay this individual if they ever caught wind of this behavior. Yet, other managers might be incredibly supportive knowing that the editor could always be counted on to deliver official work when it needed to be done.

Anteby asks why individuals might be attracted to using company time and resources for personal projects. I like his answer and it adds a nuance to my thinking about hidden talents. While most workers are supplied with a job description, that’s often not enough. Many of us feel a strong pull toward fulfilling our own sense of “occupational identity” that is much more robust and unique to our own particular talents. And more often than not, they are tied to our current work in some way which is why smart managers don’t just tolerate trips to the gray zone, they encourage them.

Anteby writes:

It’s worth thinking about bringing gray zones out into the open by finding official ways for employees to engage their occupational identities…Finding a perfect official match might not always be possible, but employees will be more engaged and productive when their true skills are recognized by their employers.

Next week, I’ll be writing a long-planned series on how to uncover and utilize the hidden talents of your employees. So plan to come on back…I promise you’ll find some answers to how to better engage your people and help them bring more of themselves to their work.

Over at Mission Minded Management, Michelle Malay Carter asks whether hiring star performers can be a mistake. At the heart of the question is the danger of hiring someone who is overqualified per the job role (as well as underqualified):

Our data shows one in five people is in a role that does not tap their full capacity, i.e. they’ve been overhired in a role. In contrast, only 15% are slotted in roles that they simply do not have the mental bandwidth to handle. So our data shows that overhiring is a larger problem than underhiring. Either shoots engagement in the foot.

When I was a hiring manager, the notion of job fit was important. The last thing I wanted to do was bring in someone who had a more advanced skillset than was necessary for the work defined by the carefully crafted job description. Isn’t that how we’re all trained by HR when we interview candidates? You find square pegs for square holes. Well, what if that approach, that system is what’s broken?

A square hole may turn out to be a teeny tiny box.
If you craft a job description too tightly, how can you possibly hope for an employee to be able to move freely about? I’ve seen job descriptions that honestly ought to be called job “prescriptions.” No need to worry about a manager micromanaging an employee – the job role has it’s own built-in mechanisms to do it for them.

What you can do as a manager…Focus on setting the position’s big picture. Start with wide boundaries and let your employees co-create the work details along with you.

A square hole may need to be a round hole at times.
Be careful what you wish for. You might want an employee who meets the specific criteria laid out in the job description. Ahhh…but then the job needs to shift to meet new organizational goals. You now have a potential misfit to contend with.

What you can do as a manager…Think broadly and openly when weighing your candidates. Consider their aptitude for being flexible when work needs to shift. Consider altering the job description to better fit a candidate who offers some intriguing upsides to the organization or brings new strengths to your team.

Square pegs can become round pegs over time.
What? People learn and change? Yes, Mr. Organization it’s true. That individual who you hired last year and was perfect for the role has now exceeded the expectations and competencies of the job description. So, now what do you do? Ignore it and hope they won’t notice? Promote him or her? Start making subtle hints about how exciting working at that new business down the street might be?

What you can do as a manager…Learn about what other talents your employees bring to the party. Could be the individual sitting right outside your office has a skillset that could lead to a breakthrough in how your team does things. Ask what types of things your folks like to learn. Just don’t assume that your square pegs are always going to be square.

Regardless of what this all may sound like, I’m not knocking the ‘concept’ behind work roles. Each employee must know what their core work is and what’s expected of them. Boundaries are essential to engagement. But the art of employee engagement is knowing how to build constructive boundaries that tap into each person’s unique qualities and help them bring them into their work. A round peg in a square hole may be complaining because he or she wants the freedom to bring more of themselves to the organization. And it’s to the organization’s detriment not to find out how to meet this desire.

(And if you’re interested in learning more behind Michelle’s post which inspired this one, head over to Mission Minded Management…the thought and care she uses in thinking about these issues never fails to amaze me.)