Let’s Address the Elephant in the Room
Calling a person a “minimum viable product” could,
understandably, raise a few eyebrows. Bear with me here.
I think reframing it actually shows something important about
how we should think about early talent, and about why the MVP
concept is so much more powerful than the name suggests.
In product development, an MVP is a deliberate, strategic
choice. You’re releasing something with genuine value,
that you intend to grow.
The whole point of an MVP is that it’s the foundation with
potential. That’s what a graduate is: someone with real
potential.
The Truth About Hiring Graduates
When organisations bring in early talent, we know that a
graduate is unlikely to match the output of someone with five
or ten years of deliberate, intentional experience in the
role.
That’s not a criticism; we should all be aiming to continuously
develop and be better than we were when we first joined the
workforce. Expertise takes time to build. Judgement is often
earned through trial, error, and repetition.
So why hire graduates at all, when you could hire someone who’s
already further along that curve? Or, as we’re increasingly
hearing, why not use AI instead of an individual in their
early career?
Because the question isn’t only who can add the most value
right now. It’s who will be shaping this organisation in
ten years?
The answer to that question is why it’s so important to invest
today.
Graduate hiring is a commitment to building your own talent
rather than perpetually buying it in. And organisations that
do it well; that don’t just hire early talent but genuinely
develop it, create something that you simply can’t easily
acquire from a competitor: institutional knowledge, cultural
alignment, and leaders who grew up understanding how you work.
But the investment only pays off if you actually invest.
Bringing in graduates and leaving them to figure it out,
under-resourcing their onboarding, giving them no mentorship
or structured development, and then being quietly disappointed
when they don’t perform like veterans?
That’s not a talent strategy.
That’s a missed opportunity dressed up as one.
The MVP only becomes something great if you keep
building it.
On the Other End: The “Most Valued Player”
The other MVP; this term borrowed from sport, tends to conjure
a very specific image. The standout superstar. The one who
carries the team. The singular, irreplaceable person whose
brilliance lifts everyone around them.
I want to gently push back on that framing, too.
In my experience, organisations don’t succeed because of one
Most Valued Player. They succeed because of teams of
complementary people and styles.
The way people combine, collaborate, challenge each other’s
thinking, and catch each other’s blind spots.
MVP #1
Minimum Viable Product
Someone with genuine potential, ready to learn, grow,
contribute and develop into something much bigger.
MVP #2
Most Valued Player
Someone who has developed the confidence, capability,
relationships and perspective to create distinctive
value.
The superstar who can’t collaborate, can’t develop others, and
can’t share credit is unable to make the kind of sustained
value that a cohesive, high-functioning team does.
So when I use the term here, I’m not talking about crowning
anyone. I’m talking about a stage of professional development;
the point at which someone moves from being capable and
supported to being autonomous and genuinely additive.
When they’re not just completing tasks but shaping strategy.
The Journey Between the Two MVPs
What does the road actually look like? It’s rarely linear,
could be a bit messy, and it looks different in every
organisation and for every person.
Broadly speaking, it tends to move through a few phases:
01
Learning to operate
In the early stages, it’s about building
foundations; understanding the business, developing
core skills, learning how things actually work
(as opposed to how they work in theory).
02
Building confidence and credibility
This is where early talent starts to find their
voice. They’re contributing ideas, not just
executing instructions. They’re developing a
reputation for reliability, curiosity, and
accountability.
03
Working with increasing autonomy
They need less scaffolding. They’re proactively
identifying problems, rather than just solving the
ones placed in front of them. Their managers start
thinking increasingly of them as a resource.
04
Adding value that only they can add
This is where people have developed a distinctive
combination of knowledge, relationships, and
perspective that makes them genuinely hard to
replace.
The gap between stage one and stage four is bridged by
time, yes, but more importantly, by quality of support,
quality of challenge, and of course the quality of
opportunity.
Which means there’s a real dual responsibility between the
individual and the organisation in development.
What Does This Mean for Leaders?
If you influence how early talent is brought in and developed,
I’d encourage you to hold both MVPs in mind at once.
When you hire a graduate, you’re not hiring what they are
today. You’re making an educated, informed bet on what they’ll
become; and need to make a commitment to play an active role in
making that come to life.
The minimum viable product needs a dedicated team behind
it. It needs investment, iteration, and people who really
believe in what it can grow into.
The return on that investment, when it’s done well, is a
workforce full of people who chose to grow with you, who
understand your organisation from the inside out, and who will
one day be the ones making the same bet on the next generation.
