RENOR & Partners è una società di consulenza d'impresa con alti standard qualitativi e con i prezzi più bassi del mercato.
RENOR & Partners S.r.l.
Via Cicerone, 15 - Ariccia (RM)
info@renor.it
CeliachIA - No Gluten App
- The Hybrid SocialItaly – Country that does not reward those who can do but those who stand out
Italy – Country that does not reward those who can do but those who stand out
This post is also available in:
Italiano (Italian)
Over the years I have had the opportunity to meet extraordinary professionals: engineers who write elegant code, entrepreneurs who create scalable solutions, musicians who have played in the most important concert halls and theaters around the world; brilliant minds that no one in Italy seems to know.
Why don’t we find them on the front pages of newspapers? Why aren’t they invited to speak at TEDx, go on TV, fill feeds on LinkedIn?
I am not writing this article to express complaints but to analyze an all-Italian paradox: the best talents are often invisible. And through no fault of their own!
If we don’t learn to recognize, value and support truly competent profiles, we will never have a robust tech ecosystem. We will continue to reward those who talk instead of those who build. Mine is not a matter of envy or personal exclusion. It is a cultural, structural and media problem. And as such, it needs to be addressed with the right clarity.
The paradox of invisible talent
The case of interdisciplinary profiles
The first major Italian paradox concerns interdisciplinary profiles: people who possess high-level skills in multiple fields, often considered distant from each other, and who manage not only to integrate them, but to create new value precisely from their contamination.
In an ideal world, these figures should be highly sought after. To some extent they are but not here in Italy. Here, those who master both semiotics and artificial intelligence are looked upon with distrust.
As if knowing “too much” is a fault, a sign of dissipation or, even worse, presumption.
The typical statement when looking at a multidisciplinary profile is always the same: “Those who do too many things do neither well!”
I wonder whether such drivel finds motivation in envy or in the deep though unconscious consciousness of mediocrity of the person uttering it? What do you know about how much time that person has taken away from amusements, outings, social life to devote himself professionally to more cultural spheres? What do you know about his abilities, his natural talent, his intelligence? How can you assume that he “failed” if you never even talked to him?
In fact, the interdisciplinary profile is often the only one that can deal with complex contemporary problems. Because the real world is not zoned. A health application requires knowledge of medicine, psychology, engineering, UX, and law. An AI system may have to integrate semantics, cloud computing, language models, data management, and GDPR regulations. And who better to design truly effective solutions than a professional who has crossed multiple domains?
The problem is that Italy continues to think in watertight compartments, as if we were still in the culture of the professional register, the “title,” the single specialization. The university system itself tends to build vertical, hyper-specialized figures in one language, one branch, one tool.
Companies, for their part, look for “hybridized figures” only after the problem has exploded, but know neither how to recognize nor value them when they knock on the door. And the media, unable to categorize them, ignore them altogether.
The result? Those who excel in multiple areas remain on the margins, crushed by a system that prefers labeling to intelligence, the reassuring specialist to the cross-cutting innovator. He or she is considered “atypical,” “difficult to place,” and thus, at worst, not placed at all.
Yet in the history of innovation, real change has always come from hybrid minds: Leonardo da Vinci was engineer and painter, Alan Turing was mathematician and philosopher, Steve Jobs was technician and humanist, Jaron Lanier is computer scientist and musician. None of them would have a place in Italy today, in a context that demands “to be something alone,” and to make them within a LinkedIn box.
Interdisciplinary talent is not only rare: it is systematically excluded from Italian public discourse. Not because it does not count, but because it does not fit into any known pattern, and the pattern here is worth more than the substance.
For this reason, many of these talents act in silence, build extraordinary things without publicity, create innovative products without fanfare. Some emigrate to countries that can value them for what they are and what they deserve to represent in a meritocratic and healthy society. Others shut down. Still others, the most tenacious, build their own ecosystem around them. But all, inevitably, pay the price of a system that cannot see beyond its own nose.
If we want Italy to truly become an innovative country, we must start here: stop being afraid of complexities, and learn to value those who inhabit it naturally.
Strong technically, humble communicatively
Another category of invisible talent, perhaps the most numerous and silent, is that of professionals who are strong technically but humble in communication. People who know how to do impeccably but do not say so. They don’t do personal branding, they don’t have time or desire to record two YouTube videos every day or chase LinkedIn trends with motivational phrases or Master Coach pseudo-inspirations, and you want to know why? Because they would rather spend their time producing and creating something useful for the world instead of spending that time producing bar chatter.
These profiles don’t sell themselves, they don’t showcase themselves, and because of this they are often bypassed by less competent but better at telling their stories. It is a well-known but still too little discussed phenomenon: in public perception, those who communicate well are worth more, even if they produce less real value.
The equation is really a form of mental perversion: “If you don’t expose yourself, maybe you have nothing to say.”
Totally wrong! Because those who really have something to say often do not need to say it. He just does it. He builds it. He lets it work. Those with a passion for engineering, mathematics, physics, computer science, live in an ecosystem of debugging, precision, effort, attention to detail. His priority is not to build a narrative, but to build systems. His voice is his code. His contribution is in the GitHub repository, in the cloud infrastructure, in the script that automated a process for 30000 users and that no one sees… But that so many are using.
Yet these people do not emerge, are not rewarded, and often are not even sought out. In selection processes, those with 30,000 followers are seen as “influential,” those who publish daily are perceived as “active,” those who are present everywhere as “dynamic.” But the programmer who quietly optimized a semantic search engine, or who containerized an entire infrastructure with surgical precision, receives no public recognition. Because he has not sold out.
Italian culture, in this, is still deeply tied to the idea that visibility coincides with value. In such a calibrated context, those who are humble are read as weak, while those who are loud are mistaken for authoritative.
But authority, the real thing, is something else. It is the ability to solve problems without theatrics. It is the consistency between what is said and what is delivered. It is respect for complexity, for data, for work ethic.
Paradoxically, in many Italian corporate environments, hard skills are taken for granted. One looks for the “spark,” the “feeling,” the “good presentation.” And so one ends up discarding extraordinary engineers simply because they do not tell the story well. Or worse, you force these same professionals to simulate storytelling that does not belong to their character, turning them into a caricature.
This has two devastating consequences:
- On the one hand, companies lose real talent by hiring those who appear instead of those who know.
- On the other, the most valuable technicians are retiring, challenged by a world that demands them perform in form but not in substance.
If we really want to evolve as an economic and cultural system, we need to totally rethink the relationship between expertise and communication. This is not to demonize personal marketing, which indeed can be useful and legitimate, but to stop using it as the only yardstick when it is the thing that should matter least. We need to start giving a voice to those who can do, even if they do not have a voice, because behind every product that works, every service that does not break down, every algorithm that improves the lives of thousands of people, there is almost always someone working in silence who deserves to be heard instead.
The 7 reasons why real talent in Italy remains invisible
After describing the types of invisible talent, it comes naturally to ask: why do these figures not emerge in Italy?
It is not a matter of chance or bad luck. It is a whole system: social, economic and cultural, which tends to neutralize genuine merit, especially when it does not conform to dominant models.
I have identified 7 main reasons…
1. The culture of appearance has replaced that of content
In Italy, form too often matters more than substance. We reward those who communicate best, not those who have the most expertise. A catchy pitch, a well-written profile, a CV written by a copywriter can be worth more than years of experience in the field. The result? Those who work hard and communicate little are systematically outperformed by those who “know how to sell themselves” but then in the field are unable to get anything done.
If you don’t talk about yourself, no one will talk about you. But those who do well often have more to do than waste time self-promoting.
2. Hyperspecialization is rewarded, cross-sectional view is suspect
Our educational and professional system trains vertical specialists, to be pigeonholed into specific roles, and those who are more gifted cannot be seen as someone who has succeeded on more fronts. Those who can multi-task are viewed with distrust: “but so what are you really?”
In other countries around the world, someone who integrates different skills is called an innovator or system thinker. In Italy he is a “confuso.”
Hybrid talent is not valued because it cannot be labeled. But therein lies its strength, and those who have to evaluate it often lack skills to seize the opportunity.
3. Meritocracy? Just a system for filling one’s mouth and throwing populist phrases around
Many selections (of personnel, calls for applications, awards) are driven by personal relationships, seniority or membership in circles. Those who really have value, but know no one, stay out of the dynamics that matter.
The skill itself is never enough. You need the contact, the push, the recommendation. And those who do not seek shortcuts often remain in the shadows.
Talent that is not connected risks not even being seen.
4. The media system is culturally unprepared for monto tech
Generalist journalists can’t tell the difference between an open source library and a token strartup. They invite those who “speak well,” not those who implement complex solutions.
The stories that make headlines are not those of the engineer who has made something that impacts the well-being of the world, but those of the 20-year-old who says he “founded a startup on blockchain” but does not even have a working draft product in hand yet.
Technical language is filtered through the media as “boring” or “difficult,” then ignored.
5. Innovation is still seen as the exception, not the rule
In many Italian contexts, real innovation is scary. Automating processes, making efficiency transparent, eliminating bureaucracy means threatening privileges, reducing margins, breaking balances. Those who propose effective solutions are perceived as “dangerous,” and often boycotted by those who live off rents or inefficiencies.
Talent simplifying complexity, in a system built on complexity, is a political problem.
6. Silent success does not make headlines
Those who make careers without being noticed, without sponsorship, without media exposure, are not told. He is not interested. Italy loves extreme narratives: either the “false self-portrayed genius” to be covered or the “loser” to be pitied. The figure of the serious, competent, ethical and reserved professional does not fit the public narrative.
Those who work well but quietly are not narrated in Italy. And what is not narrated, does not exist.
7. There is no structured supply chain to intercept and enhance authentic talent
In the absence of true technical incubators, serious cultural scouting, and disinterested mentorship, talents must create their own opportunity, visibility, and path.
Those who are brilliant but lack communication or networking tools stay out of the flow. In other countries there are accelerators, grants, bridging universities. In Italy, often only chance or personal resilience ultimately make the difference.
Talent unaccompanied by strategic relationships today has a very low survival rate.
In summary
The problem is not that Italy lacks talent; the problem is that we do not have a system capable of identifying them, listening to them, involving them, rewarding them and giving them the public space they deserve. The result is a paradox: we have extraordinary people who produce real value, but no one knows them ending up investing their time and extraordinary mental energy in other countries of the world producing wealth. Meanwhile, in Italy, visibility, recognition, funding and media attention end up in the hands of those who tell it best, not those who build wealth, because we are just a people of chattering charlatans.
If we continue like this, we will lose the best we have.
What happens in other countries: where quiet talent is recognized.
The invisibility of technical and interdisciplinary talent is not a universal condition, thank God! In many countries with more mature digital ecosystems, there are supply chains, tools, and a culture that allow even the quietest, most secretive or atypical profiles to emerge, be heard, funded, valued, and exposed in the media.
United States of America: systemic scouting and outcome culture
In the U.S., the entire innovation ecosystem-from universities to VC funds-is built to ferret out those who can do, even if they can’t talk.
Universities like MIT, Stanford, Berkley monitor ideas, not likes. If a student develops an interesting and scalable solution, they connect him or her with incubators, advisors, and potential investors.
Venture capital funds do not rely on how many videos the founder posted on YouTube and how many likes he or she received; they look at prototypes, metrics, and technical scalability. It is very common for an introverted CTO to become a co-founder of a successful startup because he or she is good at what it takes.
Grants and fellowships exist for innovators who work quietly: you don’t need a fanbase, you just need a well-constructed and documented idea.
Basically there where in Italy you would say “you have to know someone,” in the U.S. there is an active meritocratic principle: “if you build it and it works, someone will notice” (if you build something and it works, someone will notice).
Germany: enhancement of engineering expertise
In Germany, the concept of Fachkompetenz (specific technical competence) is culturally central. People are not judged by their visibility but by the quality of their work.
German companies reward medium- to long-term technical figures, even if they are not very visible, as long as they demonstrate methodological rigor and implementation skills.
Growth pathways are designed for those who deliver value, not for those who tell it well in meetings. The dual education system (university + corporate experience) also allows non-academic profiles to emerge, as long as they are competent.
A software engineer or embedded designer who writes little but designs well has a career in Germany. In Italy, often not.
The Netherlands and Northern Europe: culture of transparency and inclusion of merit
In the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland, transparency and meritocratic inclusion are central to talent selection and development.
Public and private incubation and startup support systems are often open-call, with technical and unbiased evaluation, not relational. Companies are structured to foster collaboration among atypical figures, not to force them within predefined roles.
Universities connect students and companies through hands-on projects, facilitating the emergence of those who really build. In such contexts, talent is not a communication issue: it is an objective fact to be intercepted and nurtured.
What about in Italy?
In Italy, on the contrary, universities seldom dialogue with the business world in a practical and profound way. Investment funds tend to look for “charismatic” figures, with a ready-made pitch and a good public image. Companies do not know how to integrate atypical profiles: those who do not fit the formats are excluded.
The problem is not that Italy does not have talent; it does. The problem is that it does not have cultural, structural and media tools to identify them, listen to them, help them grow.
In more advanced countries, quiet talent is a resource to be cultivated. In Italy, it is an anomaly to be ignored. And that is why it too often goes away.
The consequences of this silence
Ignoring real talent is not just an ethical failing. It is a SUICIDE STRATEGY, especially in an economy increasingly based on knowledge, ‘innovation and adaptability. When a country does not value those who can do, it not only loses human capital, it condemns itself to stagnation, to chasing instead of leading.
Those who have vision, method, competence and constructive spirit do not wait indefinitely. After years of frustration, he chooses to leave. And he does so quietly without proclamations.
The brain drain that we talk so much about is not only quantitative, but qualitative: the best, most pliant, most ethical, most determined profiles leave. The damage is twofold: we lose value and strengthen competition.
Every invisible talent that goes away is a startup that will not be born, a solution that will not be developed, um young person who will lose a mentor.
When selecting based on visibility or cultural alignment, companies end up surrounding themselves with reassuring but not transformative figures. The result is an organization that works “enough,” but does not grow, innovate, or change. And that remains vulnerable. Companies without real talent are companies that stay up only until a crisis comes along or a serious competitor that has talent and innovates.
If capital follows visibility and not substance, the entire investment ecosystem gets drugged. Projects with great storytelling but little real impact are funded, and solid, useful, well-designed but “unsexy” solutions are ignored because they are poorly presented and undressed. The result is a distorted marketplace where those who can sell win, not those who can do.
Every euro wasted on a fluff startup is one euro less to a concrete project that could have changed things.
A system that exalts stage gurus, LinkedIn influencers who do nothing but post boorish phrases with a nice signature “silhouetted” with Illustrator tracing, serial trainers with no real track record, do not generate technical culture but only bar talk that serves no purpose.
Those who study, those who want to build something, those who dream of doing real business find no concrete references, and often give up or fall in line with the winning model: visibility before real skills.
In this way, excluded talent is not only injured, it becomes challenged, and those who lose confidence stop proposing, teaching and leading. A perverse spiral is created: the more silent talent is ignored, the less others will have the courage to emerge. You lower the general level and feed a system that first well-worn mediocrity.
We are a country with enormous intellectual capital: excellent universities, a strong technical culture, widespread creativity, digital artisans of the highest caliber. But we don’t know how to transform this heritage into a modern ecosystem, because those who can do are left on the sidelines. The result is an Italy that never innovates and always ends up chasing, and while others increase the pace we will always continue to lag behind.
The disappearing talent is a collective loss, it is a missed opportunity for everyone. For a business that could have grown, for a school that could have trained better, for the country that could have begun to reverse its withering trend. Losing talent today means having no future tomorrow. To whom do we leave the Italian productive fabric? To the TikToker that does live while playing Playstation?
What we can do: five ways to enhance real talent
So far we have denounced a system but it is not enough, viable alternatives must be proposed….
Anyone who works passionately in the world of innovation, whether an entrepreneur, developer, lecturer or manager, can help reverse this trend.
1. Create independent maps of silent talents
We need a public and meritocratic mapping tool that collects projects, open-source contributions, and real solutions developed by Italian professionals, even and especially if they are not famous. An Italian GitHub with filters for impact, originality, complexity. An archive that brings out those who really work, and not just those who communicate. In other words, a radar is needed!
2. Recognize those who build value, not those who make bar talk
The media, awards, incubators, and universities need to review the criteria by which they select stories to tell. We need to start rewarding those who have created something that works, field-tested algorithms, solid digital infrastructure. Personal branding is fine, but it can no longer be the main yardstick for selection. A working project is worth more than 1,000 videos with barroom chatter; let’s acknowledge it publicly and give Caesar his due.
3. Foster models of ethical mentorship, not co-optation
The best must become mentors. Those who have built real value must help other talent grow. But an ethical model is needed, where recognition is based on merit, not personal connection.
Incubators, foundations, cmaere of commerce, can start open and transparent technical mentorship networks. The light should be shone on real talent.
4. Incorporating ethics and multidisciplinarity into educational pathways
Schools and universities must start teaching not just notions, but bridges between disciplines. A designer of the future cannot fail to know the fundamentals of ethics, AI, and inclusive design. Doing so trains generations capable of hybridizing, innovating, choosing, and not just executing.
5. Changing the cultural narrative of excellence
Change must be narrative. We need to tell stories of quiet talent, not just financial climbs and million-dollar exits. We need a new imaginary where value does not coincide with exposure, but with competence, method and responsibility. It is time to say, publicly and forcefully, that Italy has talent, but no one is listening.
When silence is no longer a mistake but a condemnation
We talked about talent, invisibility, systems that don’t work. We proposed solutions, listed best practices, suggested possible directions…
But the stark truth is that in Italy, this will probably never happen.
Not for lack of ideas. Not because of a shortage of talent. But because of an even more entrenched fact: the majority does not want it.
Italy is a country where priorities are reversed, where mediocrity is passively accepted as the norm. Where careers are made not by what you know, but by who you know. Where competence is viewed with suspicion and fear, ethics as an obstacle, culture as a useless fad.
A country where people do not vote for change, but take to the streets for a game, where influencers who sell hooey are financed and technicians who solve real problems are ignored. Where corruption is not the exception, but the accepted operating model for entire production and institutional chains.
Italy today is not a system that has gone in the wrong direction; it is a system that does not want to change. And when a system does not want to change, change comes sooner or later anyway, but not from within; it comes a Collapse. From a crisis. From a radical destruction.
Perhaps then, only when there will be nothing left to protect, no privileges left to defend, no rents left to maintain, will someone start building again and we will start clinging to the talents, the only ones who have real skills to be able to measure up to such a complex reconstruction. And they will do so, as usual, not to be seen, but because there will be no one else left who is willing to do so, and perhaps, from that pile of ashes, a country will finally arise that recognizes its best talents. Not out of convenience, but out of necessity….
