- 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)
- Conscious Incompetence = you know you can't do it well.
- Conscious Competence = you do it well, and you think about the work as you do it.
- 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:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.