Friday, April 18, 2003

competence, credibility, and the value of apologies

via the original Wiki, Donald L. Kirkpatrick on the four levels of (increasing) competence:
  1. Unconscious Incompetence = you don't know that you can't do it well. (and nobody can tell you - see the full report of the Cornell study on incompetence)
  2. Conscious Incompetence = you know you can't do it well.
  3. Conscious Competence = you do it well, and you think about the work as you do it.
  4. Unconscious Competence = you're so successful it's "automatic" -- you do it well, without thinking about it.

Of persons/institutions on the four levels, the one you least want to be on the receiving end of (due to the likelihood of being misled) is #1.

given that all people/institutions screw up from time to time, how do you determine whether or not the one you're dealing with is a #1?

Answer: (i think) are they aware when they screw up, and just as importantly do they let you know? Some people are virtually incapable of admitting fault - they seem to be the more competitive ones, who are afraid of finding themselves in a "one-down" position. Some institutions don't want to admit fault because (i think) they want to project an image of power and competence to their customers (some of whom might not have noticed the error).

But to those customers who have noticed if, if you try to cover it up/pretend it never happened this tells them that either you don't know you erred or that you hide your errors (and leave people believing wrong info). Neither of which is conducive to trust.

If you want to rebuild damaged credibility, the most effective way to do it is to repair the damage directly, by saying "I/we did X, where X was wrong, Y is right, I/we will try not to make this mistake in future." Otherwise your customers have no way of knowing that you're aware it was wrong.

moral of story: apologies build trust if they demonstrate that you share the standards of your customers.

No comments: