I worked for Wilson Learning Corporation many years ago where we
popularized the four-step "conscious competence" model in sales training
programs written in the early 1960's.
Just to cut through some of the flak:
The intention was to make a point that "a pro (i.e., conscious competent)
is good, and knows why." And this can eventually make such a person
better at what they do.
Are "conscious competents" better than "unconscious competents?" Not
necessarily -- when both are at their best. But, should an unconscious
competent get into a slump (to borrow a word from sports), they have no
way to get out -- because they don't know what made them so good when they
were good. While a conscious competent can analyze the critical aspects
of their own performance and make corrections.
Also, conscious competents should be better at learning new ways to be
good; they should be more efficient in improving from practice (because
they know what to practice and what the results should be from each
aspect); and they should be much, much better teachers of others. Why do
you suppose that so many great baseball hitters make lousy batting
coaches? Because they are unconscious competents! How can they pass on
to anyone else what is, to them, instinct?
Jack Nicklaus was once asked, "What do you think about when you stand over
the ball about to hit a drive?" He thought about it, then replied, "I
think, 'Swing.'"
Does this mean he was an unconscious competent? Not necessarily. It
simply means that, at the moment of performance, peak performance comes
from automaticity (unconscious competence.) That's why the Wilson
Learning model required that someone first be an unconscious competent
before they could be consciously competent. Consciousness was added to
peak, automatic performance to get "conscious competence."
--"John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>