Things in life are not correlated. Many elite operators with exceptional skills don’t produce elite results. Some lack interest in reaching the peak. Some lack passion. Some blame luck and circumstance. What’s clear is that skill alone doesn’t create greatness—and fortunately so. Otherwise, we’d be living in a stratified hellscape, struggling to survive with our limited skill sets.

Talent ≠ Skill. Talent indicates potential—a ceiling and learning pace. Raw talent, when sculpted carefully, hints at possible futures. It represents a capacity to absorb knowledge and convert it to practical ability. Once spotted, though does not promise any gains, talent always grabs attention. With right methods and perspective, over time, if talent is devoted, it turns into a specific set of skills. Solving problems at a certain speed in a specific way. That brings livelihood. And makes many content. Yet, with passion and ambition that creates the drive, skills can be sharpened to laser focus on things over an extended shelf-life. When this combination finds soil to sprout, disruption occurs one way or another. Much talent can go to waste when trained inadequately or half-heartedly. Lesser talent may become a great skill set if one puts its head to it. Limited skillset can achieve extraordinary results with such devotion. There is no direct correlation among those, and this is what makes us hopeful about the future.

We can mention somewhat similar dynamics observable in specific fields, like sports or product development. Solving a problem is not about the bits that constitute a solution. Most can do that with some skill. Novel solutions, on the other hand, come from individuals committed to deeply understanding the problems and ferociously obsessed with their vision. In a sweet intersection of domain expertise, the ability to emphasise, and commitment, great products arise.

Owning a problem and committing to a solution comes from being obsessed with the dynamics behind needs. Passion and ambition channel skill set toward a certain direction. A UX designer or an engineer could only come up with the best solution if they seek after the problems—better if experienced and frustrated themselves— with which users are faced.

Skill does not necessitate results. Though these points are fairly obvious, many of the tests and case studies that are being employed today in recruitment processes miss much of these points and are not structured to elicit one’s ability and appetite to understand problems at a fundamental level. We mostly look for operators with a great skill set or talent and a portfolio, regardless of their relationship with the problems they’ve interacted with before. Especially in a hiring spree, things get out of hand faster, so we default to go for skill set and skill set only.

As an alternative, we should put more emphasis on assessing how curious one is, and their ability to turn curiosity into fuel for skill set. Our radars should focus on spotting drive rather than proof for skills. As operators become more capable each day, curiosity-density in an organisation will determine its future success.