The lowest quality of talent, knows not what it cares for, and cannot negotiate it's own trade.
The lowly (yet not lowliest) talent cares for itself, but not for its work. This talent is selfish, but responds predictably to incentive structures designed for self-interested actors.
A mediocre talent cares for its work, and interacts considerably well with arguments about the work. However since the definition of work is fluid, the definition required by the client and the definition required by the talent may differ, and this may lead to conflicts.
A higher talent cares for the definitions of work, and is able to interact with these definitions, thereby pleasing clients in form first, and then in function.
The highest talent cares for nothing, and is keenly aware of this mode of work. It is thereby able to manage the logistics of talent, in accordance with the balances of power which must be maintained for the pursuits of an organisation. It does not concern itself with failures, or successes, but only pursues order. Nature works therein to demonstrate opportunities to be exploited, and to demonstrate false opportunities which were never there.
Stating the obvious then, this is how I view our world. But this remains a model - and we must consider very many models in any discourse. In this model, the leaders of our society are mediocre talents: the activists, the artists, the businessmen, the caregivers. This model exemplifies the rewriting of history according to a certain variety of nerdery. It is antisocial.