I recently read a blog post on all the reasons not to hire “superstars” and I couldn’t have disagreed more with what I read. I’ve always subscribed to the philosophy that the quality of an organization’s talent will have a direct correlation with its success … In today’s blog post, I’ll discuss the benefits of hiring top-tier talent.
I disagreed with the blog post so much that I pointed out earlier that I decided to submit a point-by-point rebuttal below for your consideration in the hope that it doesn’t fall prey to faulty logic championed by who, for the sake of this post, will. . still a nameless blogger (I feel nice today):
Point: “Superstars = expensive. Look for a superstar and expect to pay a bundle. Financially, and other things: feelings of entitlement, benefits, environmental needs, yadda, yadda, yadda.”
Myatt Counterpoint: To put it bluntly, you get what you pay for … Real talent produces real results and is worth the investment. I will take a proven performer over a performer who wants to be eleven times out of ten.
Point: “You demotivate your current crop of talents. Jimmy has been working hard for your company. Instead of promoting him, you bring in a superstar: give him additional power, authority, resources and benefits. What does that tell Jimmy? Do you indicate that to your other employees? “
Myatt Counterpoint: I have absolutely nothing against promoting from within, however, if you have the ability to attract a “superstar” and you don’t, it’s your fault … Inserting a real superstar into your business is the statement that your company values talent and will raise the bar for all employees. There is an old saying: “Talent begets talent” and I sincerely believe this to be true. Also, my definition of superstar does not mean primadonna, rather it means team player. I hope our best talent will mentor our emerging superstars.
Point: “People became superstars elsewhere because they thrived in the right environment; they became superstars because they fit the mold, structure, and culture of their organization. Since your company will not have the same environment, superstars will probably they won “achieve the same results in your company.”
Myatt Counterpoint: The topic described above has nothing to do with talent, but rather describes a lack of discernment on the part of the leadership and / or management doing the hiring. A superstar, by definition, is a proven actor and it is up to the leadership and / or management conducting the recruiting to determine whether the company can create an environment that allows the proven actor to prosper before recruiting. If you properly support a great talent, you will receive great rewards … Also, the point mentioned above would also be valid for a junior employee, as anyone, regardless of talent, will fail if they are not supported. That being said, superstars are more likely to successfully navigate a challenging environment than someone less talented.
The following quote is taken from an article I wrote some time ago on the topic of talent and I think it accurately summarizes my feelings on the subject at hand: “Quality human capital is a catalyst asset that can be harnessed effectively. across the company to generate creativity, collaboration, momentum, speed, customer loyalty, a dynamic corporate culture, and virtually any other force of positive influence in the corporate universe. It is quality talent that designs best practices, understands value of innovation, overcome obstacles, break barriers, create growth and build a lasting brand. “
The bottom line is that if you follow the advice of the unknown blogger cited above regarding talent, you will have a mediocre company doomed to failure. My advice … Hire the best talent you can find!
