Talent - a common excuse

In the continuation of the series on factors that influence success, today we will look at talent. If you haven't read the article on luck, I recommend it. Many factors are similar, and I won't explain them again.

However, unlike luck, talent has a practical impact on success (it can be worked with). But what is talent? In my opinion, many people misunderstand talent.

Many people interpret talent as something that gives a person an advantage, and that is not true.

What is talent?

I don't have a universal, generally accepted, and universally agreed-upon definition, of course. However, talent is not a "head start." Top sprinters weren't born with the ability to run. Great managers weren't born with the ability to lead people.

Talent does not mean a head start; talent means the ability to learn faster and absorb practice more quickly. Talent only manifests itself when actively used; otherwise, it is useless. Talent does not mean that you are born a top programmer or that you will become one in a year. Talent means that if you educate yourself and work on yourself day after day, you will reach the top in 15 years instead of 20. Talent also means that if you don't work on yourself, you won't reach the top.

And there are other questions... How much influence does it have on success? We don't know... How long does it influence success? We don't know... When does talent cease to be important and discipline become the dominant factor? We don't know.

Talent can be a compass, showing us which path is more effective for us, but it does not determine the outcome. Talent undoubtedly influences the magnitude of success, but the speed at which success is achieved is determined only by hard work.

A common excuse

"Well, it comes naturally to him, he's talented, I have to work hard."

In the vast majority of cases, someone else's talent has no bearing on your success. Perhaps it does if you operate in an environment where medals are handed out. How many of us are in such an environment? If a colleague at work is a more talented manager, it doesn't mean anything to you. If a colleague at work is a more talented programmer, it has no impact. Yes, they may get promoted sooner, but how does that affect your growth? How does it affect your progress in the field? What if they reach the limits of their talent and can't get any further because they don't work on themselves? What if they change careers? Or employers? The talent of such a person will cease to be relevant to you, and your work, or lack thereof, will become apparent.

What is valuable to you? Having a position? Or continuously improving regardless of where you are. To beat everyone else? Or to be better today than yesterday, and better tomorrow than today?

Your growth is not about someone else's talent.

What if you don't have a talent for something? I firmly believe that if a person really works on themselves, if they devote themselves to improving in a given field, they can be above average even without talent. Why? Because most people stop somewhere, satisfied, comfortable.

And if you really, really want to be the best at something that you're really, really bad at? It's like getting upset that it's raining when you want sunshine: it has absolutely no effect on reality, it's just raining, there's nothing you can do about it, either you let it ruin your day, or it's an opportunity for something other than what you originally planned.

"She's successful because she's talented, I'm not successful because I'm not" is simply not true.

A simple equation

You can have all the talent in the world, but without hard work, you won't achieve success.

You can be perfectly average at the beginning and achieve success through hard work.