More Competency Nonsense
by Lorne Armstrong
I’m a little late in reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, but he presents some disturbing evidence about the serious risks involved in developing soft skills competencies.
Gladwell cites an example of Vic Braden, one of the world’s top tennis coaches. Braden, he says, hasn’t found a single pro tennis player in the world who is consistent in “knowing and explaining exactly what he does.” All the pros say that they use their wrist to roll their racquet over the ball when they hit it. Amazingly, when you slow down the high speed action and examine it in minute detail – that is not what they do. A digitized analysis of Andre Agassi’s swing, for example, shows that he doesn’t move his wrist until long after he has hit the ball.
Now this is significant for a couple of reasons. First, a tennis swing can be recorded, slowed down and analyzed – and the analysis shows the pros don’t actually know what they are doing physically. They do however make up an inaccurate explanation that they believe to be true.
Now take leadership; it doesn’t happen on the outside, it happens on the inside. When we are observing leadership in action, we don’t know what the leader is thinking about; how they are thinking about it; why are they thinking about these things and not others? We can’t see how they determine who to talk with, who to talk with first, next, next? And how often – once certainly won’t be enough. How do they determine who to encourage and who to disrupt? When to take a hard line or when to take some more time? And all these considerations – plus many more – are just a thin slice in time and most of their choices occur on an unconscious level. Not only is there no evidence available to the external observer; we do not even have reliable access to our own thinking.
While the evidence of leadership shows up in what gets accomplished there is scant evidence available about how the leader orients to the world inside her and the world outside her. What is really going on – the myriad choices and decisions is completely invisible to the high speed cameras that could actually tell us whether she is rolling her wrist before or after the shot.
So now we have an interesting situation. The experts we would want to rely on as our best examples to emulate are unreliable for describing what they do or how they do it. However, we seem to be compelled to offer explanations. It’s just that those explanations cannot be relied on as true!
So here’s the short version of the story. We find people who are very good at what they do but don’t worry that they won’t know what they actually do, how they do it or why they do it and we ask them to describe it anyway. They do their best to provide a plausible explanation. We then use this description and explanation – which may in fact be the opposite of what they actually do – as the basis for training others and in some cases paying others. Amazing!
It’s no wonder that despite all the latest and greatest ideas of the month, fads and apparent short cuts to success that things don’t reliably improve. It really does pay to get at what’s fundamental: fundamental strengths; the first principles of communication and what really fuels accomplishment. You just need to look in a different place.
Full Article...
|