While I sympathize with several of the points Leo Minnigh trying to make,
your premises, Leo, are so off base that I find myself wanting to disagree
with everything.
You write, for example:
> - Competence is a characteristic which is NOT in yourself, but the world
>outside yourself is needed to know whether competence is in play. In
>other words, competence is a characteristic that is relative to other's
>competences. At least two parties are involved.
Okay, in principal "the world outside yourself is needed" but that doesn't
mean that some personal representative of that world must be present in
order to judge competence. The world can be represented by an agreed-upon
"standard" for judging competence -- that standard can then be used by one
person to judge their own competence. Robinson Crusoe didn't need another
person, nor another person's work, in order to judge the competence of his
home building. He only needed to know a set of criteria (a standard) by
which to judge that competence -- a set of criteria such as, 1. Keeps the
rain from falling in on my papers, 2. Retains enough heat during the night
to keep me comfortable, 3. Protects my stored food from theft by wild
animals, etc. In fact, couldn't one go even further and say that others'
("the world outside") criteria weren't particularly relevant to Crusoe's
judgment of his own competence? What does it matter if someone else's
criteria are met or not met, so long as his own criteria are?
I agree, however, that a third party could enter the picture and make
their own judgments of how well Crusoe's work met Crusoe's criteria, and
this person's judgment might differ from Crusoe's; and this person could
also question whether Crusoe's criteria were the most relevant to Crusoe's
condition. And all of this questioning could result in both better
criteria and better "measurement" of Crusoe's efforts.
You also write:
>But especially the conscious-competent combination is often arrogant,
>cocky and/or unwilling to learn (since he/she THINKS he/she is the
>best).
I don't understand where this dimension of conscious competence comes
from. We (at Wilson Learning Corp., who popularized this model in the
1960's) certainly did not have this in mind. A conscious competent is
conscious NOT of "being competent" (in an arrogant way), but simply of
"the reasons for their competence." This consciousness allows one to do
many things that an unconscious competent cannot -- e.g., judge how
competently one is performing (because one "is conscious of" the criteria
for competence), improve one's competence, and help teach others to be
competent. We did not believe that either a conscious nor an unconscious
competent was "unwilling to learn" just because of their category
[although individuals of ANY category can be unwilling to learn.] We only
believed that an unconscious competent was less able to learn because they
were unaware of precisely what made them competent, so they couldn't
easily focus on what to improve.
Finally, I think you're simply confusing two parts of the model when you
write:
>So in the 2x2 matrix, the con-com square must be avoided. BE AWARE OF YOUR
>INCOMPETENCE! And be conscious of your willing to learn.
Here your are, I believe, actually sending a warning to people who are
Unconscious Incompetent. Those are the people who need to become aware of
their incompetence (and, presumably, do something about it.) By
definition, Conscious Competents could not become aware of their
incompetence -- because they are NOT incompetent!
I would prefer to say that the Conscious Competent square is to be aspired
to -- if one wants to attain and maintain competence or be able to help
someone else attain it. The way to aspire to it, according to this model,
depends on where you are at the moment. If you are competent, but
unconscious of the reasons why, then the path leads through becoming are
(conscious.) If you are incompetent, then you need to improve your
competence. In any case, in order to improve you must be willing to
learn. And the same holds true for those who are fortunate enough to be
conscious competents: in order to maintain their competence, or get even
better, they, too, must be willing to learn.
I hope this helps you get a better handle on what we intended when we used
the model.
--"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>