I just realized something very important: self-actualization is actually a barrier to employment. How do you explain to someone that you really like what their company is doing, but your own work is too important to work a 12-hour day unless they’ll allot work time for you to pursue it? (Think “20% time” at Google… that, by the way, is the secret to their success). It comes off sounding very elitist, even though it’s merely an expression of a hierarchical value system at work.

I wonder if there are “self-actualized job listings” or something. If not, maybe I should start such a site.

I’ve been scouring the web for the past few hours, looking specifically for high achievers that feel they do not fit into any of society’s preconceived groups. Originally an attempt to elucidate the source of my own differences, what I found soon drove me to a hypothesis about the nature of talent: it isn’t an objective measure of ability in a specific area of endeavor so much as a matter of natural affinity for a particular cognitive style. When the style employed and the preference match up, skill is gained very rapidly and the depth of the individual’s intuition becomes quite a marvel to watch (because you’re speaking the individual’s “native language”!) However, this only happens on the talent’s own terms. Music lends a nice analogy: Mozart is widely considered among the best composers of all time, but chances are that he would be rather helpless if asked to write a piece in the style of Rachmaninoff, just as someone talented in logical manipulation, no matter to what extent, would likely quail before a geometric problem (unless also talented in spatial reasoning, which is indeed possible).

When the style and the preference do not match, talented people seem to be well-aware of – and quite discomforted by – the mismatch. This clash is most evident in authoritative social interactions, such as those typically found in the office or the classroom, as talented people may be forced into a foreign cognitive paradigm… and held there for potentially long spans of time. This creates friction of necessity. If it occurs frequently or consistently, as it often does, it will eventually permeate the talented individual’s worldview, creating the drive towards individual autonomy and the feeling of detachment from society that seem to be so common among the gifted. The following remedies are likely, in the order in which they are likely to be tried:

1. Try to leverage overlaps between the foreign paradigm and the talented/native one while continuing to work primarily in the foreign paradigm (work within the system).
2. Try to personally shift one’s immediate personal environment to utilize the native paradigm (make a local change).
3. Try to alter one’s natural way of thinking to acomodate the organization’s (make a personal change – this almost inevitably fails).
4. Try to find a better match among existing organizations (find a new system).
5. Create a better match (change the system altogether).
6. Cease the struggle and become increasingly bitter at such resistance to improvement (learned hopelessness).

The key to leveraging talent, then, is to allow the talented individual to make what adaptations are necessary for him to express his talent to the fullest. The desire for missing flexibility is the root cause, the very reason, for the drive towards individual autonomy so frequently expressed in high achievers. However, this drive is not for complete autonomy, per se, but simple operation on one’s own terms. There can be no way for a talented individual to excel, if not on his own terms!

The key for any sort of organization that wishes to cultivate or leverage talent, then, is to first (a) find the talent, and then (b) adapt to the talent, because talent can’t adapt to you.