13
13
0
A conscious-incompetent is a person who is aware of his or her own shortcomings. To those who think this can only be negative, pull up a chair, because conscious incompetence does not have to be a bad thing.
To qualify my observation, I have my experiences. First, I was prior enlisted (4 years) which doesn’t always equal better. However, I made mistakes and learned a lot, so it was a good thing. Second, I spent most of time as a LT (O1 and O2) filling CPT (O3) billets. Third, I pinned CPT in January of 2007 and then left Active Duty where I joined the National Guard. This prolonged my time as a CPT already, and then I transferred to another unit where promotion rates are slow. That said, I have been a CPT for 8 years and served in CPT billets for 10 years. Those years combined with experience as a SGI and service in 7 different brigades and 8 different divisions gives me a large depth of experience.
I began as an active critic of incompetence, but over time I have shifted to be a passive critic of arrogance. I will assume everyone understands that both (incompetence and arrogance) occur at different degrees. I have met great leaders who were incompetent, but what distinguished them from the not-so-great was their character and disposition towards others. There are ways that shortcomings in competence can be overcome.
First, I have seen some leaders find themselves in situations where they did not have sufficient understanding for whatever reason. The path to success came through admitting to the right audience that they didn’t know what that needed or should know. The way in which obstacles and barriers were overcome was by the leader seeking education through self-development and enlisting advisers.
Second, I have seen some leaders find themselves situations where they realized, due to limitations of time or intellectual capacity, they would never understand. The path to success came through the leader leveraging those who could understand to advise and inform his or her decisions. Despite these leaders’ “incompetence” they actually demonstrated their ability (competence) in leading an organization by leveraging the people they lead.
Learning (self and organizational development) and leading (influencing and leveraging others) are things we look for from all leaders. These basic skills paired with humility can help an incompetent leader attain competency through Mission Command. From these leaders, I learned the value of humility. Humility is one those things we discussed with students in the Captain’s Career Course. Great leaders may have great confidence but their confidence is only justified if it is obtained by starting a process with humility. The reason conscious-competent leaders sometimes fail is because they may be micromanaging and/or they have shut down the internal feedback and initiative desired in great organizations. If a conscious-competent leader misses the opportunity to learn from others due to arrogance, it can cause a leader to never realize his or her ignorance. Lack of insight can increase chances of a mistake, and lack of feedback can result in missing opportunities to make a course correction on the way to disaster.
A historical example: We can’t be sure about what occurred during conversations between General Lee and General Longstreet at Gettysburg. What we know is General Longstreet’s advice against General Lee’s plan to attack up the middle of the Union’s line. General Lee’s plan involved General Longstreet marching his men across a long, open field and up a hill to a well-defended Union line. Many theorized that the arrogance of the conscious and very competent General Lee caused him to disregard very good advice.
To qualify my observation, I have my experiences. First, I was prior enlisted (4 years) which doesn’t always equal better. However, I made mistakes and learned a lot, so it was a good thing. Second, I spent most of time as a LT (O1 and O2) filling CPT (O3) billets. Third, I pinned CPT in January of 2007 and then left Active Duty where I joined the National Guard. This prolonged my time as a CPT already, and then I transferred to another unit where promotion rates are slow. That said, I have been a CPT for 8 years and served in CPT billets for 10 years. Those years combined with experience as a SGI and service in 7 different brigades and 8 different divisions gives me a large depth of experience.
I began as an active critic of incompetence, but over time I have shifted to be a passive critic of arrogance. I will assume everyone understands that both (incompetence and arrogance) occur at different degrees. I have met great leaders who were incompetent, but what distinguished them from the not-so-great was their character and disposition towards others. There are ways that shortcomings in competence can be overcome.
First, I have seen some leaders find themselves in situations where they did not have sufficient understanding for whatever reason. The path to success came through admitting to the right audience that they didn’t know what that needed or should know. The way in which obstacles and barriers were overcome was by the leader seeking education through self-development and enlisting advisers.
Second, I have seen some leaders find themselves situations where they realized, due to limitations of time or intellectual capacity, they would never understand. The path to success came through the leader leveraging those who could understand to advise and inform his or her decisions. Despite these leaders’ “incompetence” they actually demonstrated their ability (competence) in leading an organization by leveraging the people they lead.
Learning (self and organizational development) and leading (influencing and leveraging others) are things we look for from all leaders. These basic skills paired with humility can help an incompetent leader attain competency through Mission Command. From these leaders, I learned the value of humility. Humility is one those things we discussed with students in the Captain’s Career Course. Great leaders may have great confidence but their confidence is only justified if it is obtained by starting a process with humility. The reason conscious-competent leaders sometimes fail is because they may be micromanaging and/or they have shut down the internal feedback and initiative desired in great organizations. If a conscious-competent leader misses the opportunity to learn from others due to arrogance, it can cause a leader to never realize his or her ignorance. Lack of insight can increase chances of a mistake, and lack of feedback can result in missing opportunities to make a course correction on the way to disaster.
A historical example: We can’t be sure about what occurred during conversations between General Lee and General Longstreet at Gettysburg. What we know is General Longstreet’s advice against General Lee’s plan to attack up the middle of the Union’s line. General Lee’s plan involved General Longstreet marching his men across a long, open field and up a hill to a well-defended Union line. Many theorized that the arrogance of the conscious and very competent General Lee caused him to disregard very good advice.
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Command Post
Leadership Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
8
8
0
It's necessary to understand your own and other's capabilities and determine what you and others will do as a leader.
"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.” -Von Hammerstein-Equord
"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.” -Von Hammerstein-Equord
(8)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Beware the industrious idiot. They will make mistakes so fast that you will spend the majority of your time fixing the mistakes that you know of, unaware of the continued stream of failure which lies in his wake.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
This is awesome. I just starting reading about this guy. I could see why he was held is such high regard.
(2)
(0)
CW2 Ernest Krutzsch
My dad once told me if you want to have something done efficiently, give it to your laziest worker, he/she will find the easiest way to accomplish a task. I don't consider myself lazy, just efficient. Case in point, I went to the Warrant Officer Candidate School at Fort Rucker, AL in 1991. While there they screamed and yelled while we were doing PT. I was a SFC before I went to WOCS. I noticed the younger guys were falling out more so than the old guys, Why? When the TAC Officers yelled at the younger guys to do pushups faster, they did, and kept it up when the TAC went to the next candidate to yell at, I and the other old soldiers did Pushups faster, until the TAC went away, and then did them as slowly as we could until we were yelled at again. That comes with age and knowledge :-)
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I have veterans from all branches and all walks of life show up at my door with some of the most amazing questions. Some you can answer right away, others require some digging. I learned my first year working here in the VA, that I don't know all the answers, but just like with Rally Point, I have surrounded myself with people that I can reach out to for answers. I simply refuse to pass the buck.
(4)
(0)
CW2 Ernest Krutzsch
And that is why we need to remove all of the career bureaucrats from the VA, and replace them with caring Veterans
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I enjoyed your post, LTC (Join to see). I've never looked at incompetence that way, so thanks for schooling me on it. I have looked at humility and arrogance quite a bit in my 40 years of active duty and (Army) civilian service, and I think you are spot-on, on that point. Besides turning others off with their arrogance, which very likely stifles feedback, arrogant leaders are usually closed to input from others, especially subordinates, and that is often their undoing. In that regard, it's a perfect storm: the arrogant leader doesn't want any feedback (except cheers) and the people around the arrogant leader are reluctant to provide feedback.
I've said before that among the few general officers I've worked with over the years, the very best ones were the ones who were humble and listened to input/feedback.
I've said before that among the few general officers I've worked with over the years, the very best ones were the ones who were humble and listened to input/feedback.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Very interesting, LTC (Join to see). Thank you.
As a corollary to "conscious incompetence" is the FAILURE MODE and our tendency to accept that failure mode.
In many high-stress, high-tech fields - especially those that require highly technical and rapid analyses of complex stimuli - confidence can be over-powering and have horrible consequences. My own field - nuclear plant operations - and that of commercial piloting quickly come to mind as examples.
There is a classic example from a cockpit voice recording. I apologize, but I forget the details. The short story is that the pilot is taking certain actions to stabilize the aircraft. The confident pilot is backed up by the flight engineer in these actions. All the while, the junior co-pilot is telling the pilot he's wrong, and the actions will increase the problem. The last recorded voice is the co-pilot, saying "I told you so. I told you so. Now we're all dead."
"Confident incompetence is more powerful than unconfident competence."
We train our operators - brutally - to always speak up and always support your position until your concerns are addressed. In all command structures, sometimes a decision has to be made - right now. Such is reality, but we never want it said that all aspects of the situation weren't fully considered. In this regard, there are two undeniable (and, some would say, undesirable) components to "do or die" training...
1. All real learning is emotional. It has to suck so bad you never want it to happen again, or it has to make you feel so good that you want it that way all the time.
2. You don't practice until you get it right. You practice until you CAN'T get it WRONG.
So, the point of all this... There is as much danger in a lack of confidence as there is in an abundance of incompetence. Leaders need to allow (and teach) their people to dig deep for confidence when they know they're competent.
I'll let General Longstreet back me up on that one..
As a corollary to "conscious incompetence" is the FAILURE MODE and our tendency to accept that failure mode.
In many high-stress, high-tech fields - especially those that require highly technical and rapid analyses of complex stimuli - confidence can be over-powering and have horrible consequences. My own field - nuclear plant operations - and that of commercial piloting quickly come to mind as examples.
There is a classic example from a cockpit voice recording. I apologize, but I forget the details. The short story is that the pilot is taking certain actions to stabilize the aircraft. The confident pilot is backed up by the flight engineer in these actions. All the while, the junior co-pilot is telling the pilot he's wrong, and the actions will increase the problem. The last recorded voice is the co-pilot, saying "I told you so. I told you so. Now we're all dead."
"Confident incompetence is more powerful than unconfident competence."
We train our operators - brutally - to always speak up and always support your position until your concerns are addressed. In all command structures, sometimes a decision has to be made - right now. Such is reality, but we never want it said that all aspects of the situation weren't fully considered. In this regard, there are two undeniable (and, some would say, undesirable) components to "do or die" training...
1. All real learning is emotional. It has to suck so bad you never want it to happen again, or it has to make you feel so good that you want it that way all the time.
2. You don't practice until you get it right. You practice until you CAN'T get it WRONG.
So, the point of all this... There is as much danger in a lack of confidence as there is in an abundance of incompetence. Leaders need to allow (and teach) their people to dig deep for confidence when they know they're competent.
I'll let General Longstreet back me up on that one..
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I assume the term comes from the adult learning model that states that a person moves through 4 phases when acquiring a new skill:
1. Unconscious incompetence - I don't know what I'm doing, and am unaware of the fact. Straight up ignorance. It ends once I am made aware (and care).
2. Conscious incompetence - I don't know what I'm doing, but I am aware of the fact. This is where learning starts.
3. Conscious competence. I know what I'm doing, but I need to work to get it right. This is the skill-building level.
4. Unconscious competence. I know what I'm doing, but I don't need to give it any particular attention.
A good example is driving a car (the first phase was back when we had never even thought of driving a car, or my sister today. :-)). Remember the struggle to figure out what you were doing, that has morphed (unless you're my sister!) into being able to drive 100's of miles for hours without being consciously aware of all the little things that you have to do successfully to make that happen.
Conscious incompetence is neither good nor bad in itself. As a stage in learning, it is indispensable. It is also a great place to stop when you either lack the ability or inclination to tackle a particular skill directly. I really like what Marcus Buckingham has to say about reinforcing your strengths and finding others who compliment your weaknesses. In my case, I have let my computer programming skills (I was a computer programmer by trade for just under a decade) atrophy to the point where a high schooler with a decent brain can code circles around me. It just isn't worth my time. Likewise, I dislike yard work - and am not very good at it. However, it turns out that there are people who will happily take my money along with that task. :-)
1. Unconscious incompetence - I don't know what I'm doing, and am unaware of the fact. Straight up ignorance. It ends once I am made aware (and care).
2. Conscious incompetence - I don't know what I'm doing, but I am aware of the fact. This is where learning starts.
3. Conscious competence. I know what I'm doing, but I need to work to get it right. This is the skill-building level.
4. Unconscious competence. I know what I'm doing, but I don't need to give it any particular attention.
A good example is driving a car (the first phase was back when we had never even thought of driving a car, or my sister today. :-)). Remember the struggle to figure out what you were doing, that has morphed (unless you're my sister!) into being able to drive 100's of miles for hours without being consciously aware of all the little things that you have to do successfully to make that happen.
Conscious incompetence is neither good nor bad in itself. As a stage in learning, it is indispensable. It is also a great place to stop when you either lack the ability or inclination to tackle a particular skill directly. I really like what Marcus Buckingham has to say about reinforcing your strengths and finding others who compliment your weaknesses. In my case, I have let my computer programming skills (I was a computer programmer by trade for just under a decade) atrophy to the point where a high schooler with a decent brain can code circles around me. It just isn't worth my time. Likewise, I dislike yard work - and am not very good at it. However, it turns out that there are people who will happily take my money along with that task. :-)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC (Join to see), thank you for posting such a well thought out question with significant background.
I too was enlisted before becoming a commissioned officer and learned from my own mistakes and others. I served as a Captain from 1984 to 1993, ,as a Major from 1993 until 2000, and as a Lieutenant Colonel from 2000 until 2008. I saw many people promoted around me and a number who left the service who were very capable but frustrated with various aspects of the personnel system primarily.
Most people excel at one of more things. The best leaders I have worked with a for new their own strengths and weaknesses and new the strengths and weaknesses of those who supported or worked directly for them. Good leaders seek advice, incorporate or reject that advice, make decisions in timely fashion while giving subordinates time to plan [1/3 to 2/3 rule], adjust the plan as necessary during execution and support subordinates including providing guidance and direction before, during and after the execution.
Unfortunately, I have seen a number of soldiers who were promoted above their level of competence and floundered at that higher level. I saw this more in the USAR after 9/1/2001. For some reason the Army decided that certain groups of people were not represented in sufficient numbers at the higher levels of primarily commissioned field grade and senior NCO's to a lesser extent. I saw one fellow officer who was promoted to Colonel who excelled at preparation for and coordination of high profile events but who had very few other skills. She had a wonderful promotion ceremony in the Hall of Heroes in the Pentagon and after that had no significant duties or accomplishments. Another officer was promoted to Colonel at roughly the same time. A couple years later he was convicted of defrauding the government by claiming BAQ and TDY while living with his sister nearby and claiming that he was staying far enough away and commuting from a distance that justified TDY.
Neither of these officers that I served with was outwardly a bad officer. We served together in the Pentagon following 9/1//2001. I was mobilized soon afterwards and the others had extended TTADs after their mobilizations were not extended. On the other hand my mobilization was extended to the then maximum allowable time 2 years and 180 days.
I too was enlisted before becoming a commissioned officer and learned from my own mistakes and others. I served as a Captain from 1984 to 1993, ,as a Major from 1993 until 2000, and as a Lieutenant Colonel from 2000 until 2008. I saw many people promoted around me and a number who left the service who were very capable but frustrated with various aspects of the personnel system primarily.
Most people excel at one of more things. The best leaders I have worked with a for new their own strengths and weaknesses and new the strengths and weaknesses of those who supported or worked directly for them. Good leaders seek advice, incorporate or reject that advice, make decisions in timely fashion while giving subordinates time to plan [1/3 to 2/3 rule], adjust the plan as necessary during execution and support subordinates including providing guidance and direction before, during and after the execution.
Unfortunately, I have seen a number of soldiers who were promoted above their level of competence and floundered at that higher level. I saw this more in the USAR after 9/1/2001. For some reason the Army decided that certain groups of people were not represented in sufficient numbers at the higher levels of primarily commissioned field grade and senior NCO's to a lesser extent. I saw one fellow officer who was promoted to Colonel who excelled at preparation for and coordination of high profile events but who had very few other skills. She had a wonderful promotion ceremony in the Hall of Heroes in the Pentagon and after that had no significant duties or accomplishments. Another officer was promoted to Colonel at roughly the same time. A couple years later he was convicted of defrauding the government by claiming BAQ and TDY while living with his sister nearby and claiming that he was staying far enough away and commuting from a distance that justified TDY.
Neither of these officers that I served with was outwardly a bad officer. We served together in the Pentagon following 9/1//2001. I was mobilized soon afterwards and the others had extended TTADs after their mobilizations were not extended. On the other hand my mobilization was extended to the then maximum allowable time 2 years and 180 days.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Very true and demonstrated almost daily....the best leaders understand their own limits and surround themselves with professionals that have the expertise in areas they might be lacking.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Some of our best leaders recognized that they didn't (and couldn't) know everything, but were smart enough to surround themselves with SMEs.
(0)
(0)
Wow, this is really good stuff here. I can say I greatly enjoyed reading this. I would agree with your points you have made. It is far too often that this is the issue with a poor leader. As a leader we should be able to speck of our short comings. For me as a PL in a Mechanized Infantry Platoon I have never performed a Gunnery. My knowledge is extremely limited. I hope to get some more time on a Bradley or go to Bradley Leaders Course at Benning. But just ignoring it and faking the funk when it comes to Gunnery is not going to help or make me look better. I believe that being up front with your short comings is more of what leadership is about.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google