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.