[apaitch]

I didn't mean to get into the debate between natural talent and skills acquired by work - probably should've cut the "natural" part out of the definition to make that clear. I was thinking of the "potentiality" aspect of talent. I agree that employers want capable employees - preferably able to contribute from day one. I think investing in employees who have the potential to be great contributors but are not quite there yet is worthwhile, and is something that's under-emphasized in most recruitment strategies. To me, "talent" is when a master finds an apprentice he knows could be great with the right guidance. The job market demands masters (dubbed "talent"), but few are willing to help create masters by actualizing the potential of those who are less experienced.

Note: I'm not talking about on-the-job training from someone who doesn't know what a computer is to a master programmer. I'm talking about allowing people who are less immediately capable into the workplace and mentoring/growing them into strong contributors.

[snowwindwaves]

Growing talent at a company seems to be a bit of a lost concept. I think it went out the door when the company man disappeared: layoffs and lack of raises reducing loyalty.

[dspeyer]

Ah, I see.

I'll admit I haven't seen a lot of explicit on-the-job training (besides that dealing with internal technologies), but I have seen a lot of people who's first job is less challenging than their later ones, who use it as a growing experience and a stepstone.

The real question is whether a large number of programmers don't reach their full potential or do so significantly later than they would have with proper mentoring. A difficult thing to find evidence for either way.