Unconscious Competence LO19561

Richard GOODALE (fc45@dial.pipex.com)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:07:02 +0100

Replying to LO19552 --

John Gunkler has (at least for me) cleared away some of the haze
surrounding this very interesting thread.

Since I first read of this construct (on this list a year or so ago) I've
found it intriguing but troublesome. The concept of Unconscious
Competence as an "ideal" end state fit in well with certain aspects of my
own mental models on learning, but strongly conflicted with others.

In the first sense I recognised it is a description of what the tennis
player Billie Jean King was the first (I believe) to describe as "being in
the 'zone,'" in the late 60's early 70's. In this sense it is the
transitory phenomenon of a quantum leap in performance in which the
endeavour "feels" to the performer as so easy that they are not even
"trying" to achieve it. I've experienced and observed this phenomenon, in
business, sports, academia and other serious and not so serious pursuits,
as I'm sure has everyone, at some time or other in their lives.

In the second sense I recognised it as a classic consultant's 2X2 matrix
with one very unique factor--the "ideal" end state was located in the
Southeast corner of the matrix rather than the Northeast, as is the
well-established norm. Could this be? Why not?

Quite frankly, I consigned this dilemma to the recesses of my subconscious
until the recent flurry of messages on the subject on this list. The
posting which referred to the Arabian analogy of the U/C state as being
"asleep," jarred me out of my own U/C complacency on this issue. This
seemed to confirm the validity of the "2X2 matrix" element of my overall
mental model. "U/C" must not be "good," as it leads to stagnancy. And
yet.......I've played "in the zone" at a number of sports. I've been "in
the zone," directly and vicariously, in a number of consulting assignments
and personal situations. I "know" that the level of performance which can
be achieved when people don't "try" to achieve high performance can be
amazingly high.

John's posting made me recognise several important things:

1. You can't get to U/C without going through the full U/I, C/I, C/C
cycle. You only get "in the zone" in areas where you are relatively
competent. In the few times I've played soccer, or tried to sell TQM, or
tried to do the "Macarena," I've never been in the zone.

2. You can get in the zone only to the level of your relative competency.
When I was playing tennis very well, by most standards, my "zone" was
always several steps below the "zone" of my more competent contemporaries
(including Billie Jean King). I still get in the zone playing tennis,
even at my advanced age, but never (except in the most transitory
sense--e.g. one point, one game) against a player who is significantly
more competent than I.

3. Being "in the zone" (or Unconscious Competence) was and is a
transitory phenomenon, rather than some sort of lasting nirvana.

And yet, U/C exists. And, people do increase their competence over time
(e.g. learn). How so?

Think of an upwardly spiralling series of 2X2 competence/consciousness
matrices. Almost, but significantly not, linked at their Northeast
(competent/consciousness) corners. One (a person, a team, an
organisation, or whatever) gets to that NE corner of their current
environment (e.g. level of competency/nature of competition). He or she
or it moves into "the zone." But.....that zone is not "down" to the
Southeast of the matrix, it is up and right out of the matrix to the
Southwest of a new matrix, with higher levels of both competence and
consciousness.

In that situation, one has two options. One can enjoy the exhilaration of
being at that higher level of competence, and then happily drop back to
the previous level when they realise the effort required to stay at that
higher level. Or, they can commit themselves to attaining and sustaining
that higher level of competence. This, means starting all over at the
Southwest corner of the new matrix. It is hard and dirty work. But it is
necessary if one wants to make a quantum leap in performance.

It is what Nick Faldo did when he invested 3-5 years in the early 80's in
completely rebuilding his golf swing. It is what Jack Welch did in the
late 80's in completely rebuilding his origination (GE). It is what the
Chinese have been trying to do (sporadically) over the past decade to
rebuild their economy, polity and society to reassert their place in the
world.

Think back to the concept of an upwardly spiralling (to the Northeast)
series of matrices. When and if one gets to the NE quadrant of one
matrix, if one chooses to make the quantum leap to the next matrix, one
finds oneself at the SW quadrant of a new one. One is, again, at the U/I
corner of the new matrix. A lot of "hard graft" is required to get to
C/I, much less C/C at this new plateau. Most people or organisations who
get to this stage choose to treat it as a transitory phenomenon and
happily choose to move back to the lower energy phase of their previous
experience. The very few, however, embrace the unknown of the new
challenge.

This is how progress is made. This is what true learning is. At least,
IMHO.

Comments are very welcome.

Richard Goodale
The Dornoch Partnership

> 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.
[...snip by your host...]

-- 

"Richard GOODALE" <fc45@dial.pipex.com>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>