Response to "The Talent Myth"

I primarily agree with what Gladwell is trying to communicate to the reader in this argument of talent vs. centralized management. The idea of creating a controlling head which guides the rest of the company in a coherent manner seems to be the more logical and financially stable way to go in running a company. I also agree with the correlation between I.Q. and occupational success. Though some might not succeed in the typical activities that schools test individuals on they are able to put forth a lot of effort towards accomplishing a great deal in areas of business such as sales and marketing which are mainly based on intrinsic skill sets.

On the other hand I feel as though in order for a company to reach its maximum potential there needs to be a fair mix of these two types of running a company. There obviously need to be a strong central body overlooking and guiding the company in the right direction. Skilling described the need for a "fluid movement" in order for the company to move forward, which was Enron primary way of moving forward into the future. At the same time in order to keep up with the market at hand there needs to be a certain level of ingenuity and and talent to make the company and its product exceptional.