Personally, I hate the overuse of the word passion (with a passion). But the more interviews we do the more I realize everyone has a different perspective, and it’s pretty much a tie.
So I’m asking you, Foolish readers: Passion over talent, or vice versa? Post your thoughts below.
Not only do I think passion is more important, but I personally don't even like the amount of value placed on talent! Talent, even baseline talent, implies that a natural aptitude towards something is important, when what's really important is how you nurture that talent.
And nurturing works for someone without an innate ability too. Sure, maybe it'll take longer and more practice, but that lack of talent doesn't disqualify someone from being good at something. Placing an importance on talent tends to overshadow that hard work that someone has to put in to get good—and, in creative endeavours, hard work is almost always fuelled by passion.
When I hire, the baseline 'talent' is usually more or less there in most cases (if your recruiter has screened candidates properly)!
What always tips the balance for me when I have to decide between candidates, is always about passion. Or, in my parlance, I call it the fire in the belly. It's that hunger that will help them overcome obstacles, and it can't be taught.
I think talent is important but without the drive (or passion) to continuously improve, then a person will seldom excel. I strongly believe that it's the passion that will get you where you need to be — talent may help you get your foot in the door, but it's not enough on its own.
To kick this off: There needs to be a baseline level of talent for any creative endeavour. From there, passion will drive someone’s desire to do and learn and grow — especially during the boring parts of any creative work, and when things aren’t going your way.
Not only do I think passion is more important, but I personally don't even like the amount of value placed on talent! Talent, even baseline talent, implies that a natural aptitude towards something is important, when what's really important is how you nurture that talent.
And nurturing works for someone without an innate ability too. Sure, maybe it'll take longer and more practice, but that lack of talent doesn't disqualify someone from being good at something. Placing an importance on talent tends to overshadow that hard work that someone has to put in to get good—and, in creative endeavours, hard work is almost always fuelled by passion.
When I hire, the baseline 'talent' is usually more or less there in most cases (if your recruiter has screened candidates properly)!
What always tips the balance for me when I have to decide between candidates, is always about passion. Or, in my parlance, I call it the fire in the belly. It's that hunger that will help them overcome obstacles, and it can't be taught.
I think talent is important but without the drive (or passion) to continuously improve, then a person will seldom excel. I strongly believe that it's the passion that will get you where you need to be — talent may help you get your foot in the door, but it's not enough on its own.
To kick this off: There needs to be a baseline level of talent for any creative endeavour. From there, passion will drive someone’s desire to do and learn and grow — especially during the boring parts of any creative work, and when things aren’t going your way.