And Kevin, yes, ths issue of risk is complicated. Ya know, it’s important enough that I’ll write a separate blog post on it. Stay tuned.

When looking closer though, these two perspectives are not that far from each other.

1. Talent Management vs. Employee Management

Talent Management Vendors (TMV) initial aim was at managing internal talent (or in the process of becoming internal – or already internal but in the process of becoming talent). But as the market evolves (as Don describes in his blog and book), so does talent management. Few (if any?) TMV have already developed features for supporting external talent, but that will still fit their model at manging talent. It’s just that talent management will have a broader definition then.

2. Talent management vs. non-Talent

One aspect of the “Don’t just hire talent” that Don did not developed in his post but that he mentions in his book is that you don’t need only talent to generate innovation. Innovation comes with collaboration. In his book, Don mentions a case where the GeekSquad at BestBuy won a prestigious design award. Did they win because of a talented designer? Nope. They won because they all collaborated to this piece of hardware. Were they all talented? With all due respect, I suspect the team was similar to most teams: 20% so-called A players, 60% so-called B players, and 20% disengaged players. OK. Let’s say that Best Buy is very good at hiring and developing talent and let’s put this at 30-60-10. That still makes a majority of non-talented employees.

SystematicHR also had a post recently on that topic (with my comment here) [emphasis mine]:

While it’s possible that a small number of individuals might generate the largest amount of innovations within an organization, those innovations are usually going to be the result of many conversations and minute refinements over a long period of time.

Many conversations with many people. Including non-talented people (whatever that means)

Let me get things straight: Talent does matter!! I am not suggesting that all the hype around talent is only hype.

Just: Don’t just hire talent

I agree with your position and take some of the “middle” ground approach Marko speaks of.

All in all, I think companies cannot afford recognizing that risk is part of the DNA in our competitive marketplace. This would be managed by taking some form of intelligent risks, which involves getting up to speed on the market place and how things are being achieved on the web. The rate in which innovation occurs, and the fact that it can be achieved by anyone who is connected to the web, automatically involves a degree of risk for firms.

Therefore, it’s in companies’ best interest to understand what risk they will be facing and obtain the best information to mitigate negative impact as best as possible, which may, from time to time, require doing things in an open fashion as your book suggest.

Thank you, again, it was a great and compelling read.

I’d like to comment on your angle of view on this subject. You contradict “the well known author and pundit”, lets not reveal the name, by basically saying that open your eyes every thing is changing.

I agree with you, but I also agree with the “emotional” way of looking at the F.U.T.U.R.E and the changes it brings, like the “well known person” presented in his opening speech for the seminar.

So someware in the middle could be

‘Avoid risk’, if you don’t have a good understanding of the factors involved (web 2.0)

‘Hire the best people’, to give you insight on the risk and manage your “talent out side”

‘Focus on Customers’ as R&D managers and sales force – advocates.

Since every lecture has a strong opinion and point of view on the future. Our tough task as managers is to pick the signals and trends and just live it.

PS. Being able to comment the seminar directly to a speaker from the “back row” after one weekend, that’s web 2.0!