Fred Nickols writes:
"'Competent' and 'incompetent' are labels, attributions, judgments we make
about others. The basis of these judgments might range from up close,
sustained observation to repeated instances of hearsay. In any event,
those are labels deriving from judgments we make."
Competent and incompetent are not merely labels. They are words used to
describe moral concepts.
"Now I've always thought that such labels were actually pretty useless.
People aren't competent or incompetent in general, they are instead
competent or incompetent AT something."
Given my comment abovbe, I'm sure you can understand why I'd say I don't
find moral concepts useless. In our society we've come to be so tolerant
that our words have become quite vague, which, I'm afraid, has impeded our
moral and intellectual development. We don't call a bum a bum, we call
him/her a homeless person; we don't call lazy, unemployed people
indolents, we call them less fortunate. This shift in language has
profound moral implications, as it represents much more than a nicer way
to say something rude. It represents a shift of responsibility from the
person to society. It changes the emphasis from the moral implications of
behavior, to a view that compels each of us to feel sorry for those who
deserve no compassion.
This is exactly what I have sensed throughout this thread. We're often
afraid to identify something as it really is. In this instance, we're
afraid to make moral judgments about those who work for us (or with us),
which is a natural outgrowth of employee ranking. I'll gladly admit that
making a moral judgment is not the purpose of employee ranking, but it is
a corrolary. A person who is non-productive and who is not competent, but
who remains employed is an immoral person.
"At first blush, Ben's posting reads as though he's making some pretty
broad-brush general judgments about people. Personally, I take a slightly
more fine-grained approach (e.g., Person A might be competent at X but
incompetent at Y)."
If I hear what you're saying, it is that a person may be competent at
*something* but unmotivated to demonstrate that competence in certain
situations. Is that correct? If so then I'd say there is an example of
competency without character, especially if the person is being paid as if
they are competent. (I can't imagine paying someone for incompetence, so
I'm assuming that competency is at least one of the reasons a person is
paid for their work.) I would not make a distinction between an
incompetent person, who lacks the ability to do anything well and someone
who does somethings well except that which they are paid for. I would not
work with either type of person.
Now admittedly there are things I'm not competent at. I do not know the
first thing about auto mechanics or plumbing. So when my car has trouble
or I have plumbing problems in my house I pay someone to come fix it. My
incompetence in these areas is a personal choice I've made, because it is
cheaper for me to pay someone than it is for me to spend the time to learn
to become competent. I'm willing to pay for the necessary services, so
it's no big deal. But I refused to learn to become a competent plumber,
and had a job as a plumber, then I'd be incompetent and immoral.
"So, I'd like to ask Ben to expound a little more on his general notion of
competent and incompetent people. More specifically, might he be willing
to work with Person A on Task X, but not Person B and, conversely, work
with Person B on Task Y, but not Person A? "
In the context that I'm using the terms, I define competency as the
ability to learn to do what is needed to produce the results that support
the survival of the organization, and then do it effectively, thoroughly,
and efficiently. Incompetence is either the inability or unwillingness to
become competent.
Of course there will be varying degrees of competency within an
organization, hence the fundamental need to rank employees. How else can
you help preserve the long-term surival of the organization?
I hope that answers your questions. . .
-- Benjamin Compton DWS -- "The GroupWise Integration Experts" (617) 267-0044 ext. 16 E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>