Unfulfilled / Wasted Talents – in Sports and Business

The parallels and differences in “talent management” in sports and business, and the implications for the development of soft skills.

In sports, there are talents who never reached their full potential, who never really succeeded, even though they received extensive support. Mario Balotelli is one such example, or Joe Cole or Robinho. What does this look like in the business world? Are there unfulfilled or wasted talents too and if so, why do they exist, and what needs to be done differently to prevent this?

“Talent is never enough” is a typical statement regarding the unfulfilled talents in sports. Even though they train and play a lot, it doesn't work out in the end, despite personal support from coaches and sports psychologists. Why?

According to studies, such as the one from the University of Bern, there are various factors like injuries and drawbacks, lack of support from the personal environment and the not sufficient motivation. However, there seems to be a real crux, which is also confirmed by other sources.

It is the attitude. In this case, it is the success orientation; the constant desire to win and not being afraid of losing. This unconditional attitude of doing everything you can to be successful.

In football, for example, sports coaches/psychologists or trainers speak of up to 70% of top talents not making it in the end, even though the talent is there, and the support and coaching is tremendous, but something is missing.

What does this look like in business?

In most companies, there is talent management, which I don't want to compare with the often very intensive support in world-class sports. Many firms do a lot to recruit talented people, and then develop and retain them, just as they do in sports. And yet, if it doesn't work that well in sports, what does it look like in the business world? Do we have to expect that 70% of the talents in business will not make it either and will never be able to develop their full potential?

The numbers are probably not as relevant here, and we need to look more at the causes. Thus, let's analyze the entire situation from the same success factors as they have been investigated in sports.

Whether a person has talent is partly determined in the hiring process or, at the latest, in the trail and onboarding period. The latter is usually the time when it is determined whether the attitude is truly accurate. Here, we should take the necessary precaution of distinguishing between talents in sports, who do “everything” for success, and talents in business. Doing “everything” for success could easily clash with regulatory and ethical issues. Nevertheless, a sound ambition and motivation are needed! Injuries tend to be a minor factor in business and after tearing the ligaments, one can still become or be successful in business. Pregnancy and parental leave are a different matter, but in many organizations, they are on a good track to become better and better. The support from the personal environment probably has great analogies with pregnancy and parental leave, because it could lead to part-time work or not being able to work at all.

Let's look at the topic of training and playing.

Many companies offer training, seminars, and so on to talents, but is this enough?

A football player trains and plays football almost every day, i.e., what s/he is supposed to do in the game. Free kicks are trained until it finally works, and many balls end up out of the field. It doesn't matter, keep trying until you get it right. In other words, there is a culture of making mistakes and learning.

How does this look when it comes to acquiring soft skills, which, for example, make up the majority of the practical activities of leaders and are therefore a clear success factor?

Many companies offer their potential or experienced leaders further training in the field of leadership. Significantly, like playing football or cooking, one learns to lead by leading others. This happens for the major part in practice.

It seems to be the crux of the matter in business because what is discussed in seminars is usually rarely (if ever) put into practice. This has been proven by studies, such as those by Harvard (Why Leadership Training Fails) or McKinsey (Why leadership development programs fail).

The “70-20-10 model”, known for almost 30 years, describes this reality. The origin was the study of 191 leaders regarding where and how they acquired their competencies for their professional success. The result indicates that the leaders do this:

• 70% through their professional activity and practical experience while working,
• 20% through communication and exchange in their professional environment, and
• 10% through traditional training measures such as seminars, lectures, or training courses.

In activities aimed at developing soft skills, e.g., in the development of leaders, the lack of a failure and learning culture is noticeable. Meanwhile, there is an awareness that trainings/seminars do not turn out to be as sustainable when it comes to developing talents, among other things. One of the main reasons is the knowledge transfer, the part where information becomes knowledge.

Reading a cooking book, reflecting on it with others, is and remains pure theory. You learn to cook in the kitchen when you cook, and practice is known to be the best teacher. In other words, apply the information from the cooking book, taste how the result is and at the beginning, usually improve or repeat until it tastes good. The people who taste the food will hopefully be lenient whether it is overcooked or not enough, spiced, and/or full of praise if it tastes delicious!

How is it with leaders after a training, seminar, and so forth, when they are supposed to apply the content? Are all colleagues always so forgiving if the feedback was not really well received, if the tasks were not delegated according to the skills or ideas, if the management of a conflict escalates or if the change process was not sufficiently supported, e.g., because people were not involved enough? Having the courage to do something different or try something new is essential. Unfortunately, this is often suffocated in the beginning.

Furthermore, as described by bankinghub.de, for example, “unfulfilled talents have to wait far too long for vacancies and talent programs are thus perceived as waiting rooms rather than career development opportunities”.

How are leaders supposed to learn if they can't try things out and are under pressure to deliver numbers or mainly economic results?

Sure, while they're doing their job, but how does making failures fit in when there's no time to practice because everything has to be done faster and more efficiently?

A learning culture in which failures are anchored as an integral and important part of the learning process is an important step towards success in any organization, but until this is achieved, solutions are needed with which, for example, leaders can try out new things in practice and make failures without experiencing negative consequences, as well as receive objective feedback on their behavior and performance.

Don’t Let Others Waste Your Talent

Gamified simulation training is ideal here and is already very widespread, for example in medicine (professional training). The more realistic it is, the greater the acceptance and the learning success.