The term "non-competence" is intentionally selected instead of "incompetence," to avoid the negative connotations associated with the latter, such as deliberate sabotage or destructive behaviours. "Non-competence" refers to circumstances wherein an individual requires additional training, mentorship, and support. In these situations, the person attempts tasks beyond their current skill level. However, their intentions are positive, and their motivations are aligned with the organisation's objectives. On the other hand, mistakes are an inherent part of any professional journey, irrespective of the level of expertise or knowledge in a specific domain.
Four factors of differentiation
The workplace must be a safe space where errors are accepted as an integral part of the innovative process. Nonetheless, the tolerance for mistakes should not be limitless, and the objective should always be progress and improvement. Recognising when correction, support, or simply learning from the experience is necessary is crucial for both career progression and the success of a project.
The differentiation between a mistake and non-competence can be determined based on four main factors: years of experience, the severity of the error, the frequency of similar events, and the context surrounding the incident.
Experience
The area of expertise directly related to the event plays a significant role in this determination. For example, an error in project management caused by a seasoned professional with ten years of experience would be viewed differently than the same mistake made by a recent graduate. However, if the experienced project manager were to stumble in an unrelated field they are exploring out of curiosity or interest, the reaction would be considerably more lenient.
That said, general life or career experience is also taken into account. For example, a fresh graduate exploring a new domain would likely be granted more understanding than an experienced professional exploring the same area. It is fair to say that experience is a pivotal metric in determining whether an event is a mistake or a case of non-competence, with changes to this metric significantly impacting other metrics.
Severity
Severity is the second factor that needs to be considered when determining whether an event is a mistake or non-competence. The gravity of the event plays a significant role in determining the response it garners. For instance, an inconsequential event may not even be brought to attention, whereas a blunder with devastating financial consequences for the organisation could, often rightfully, severely impact the individual.
Assessing the severity of a mistake is not always straightforward. It requires considering not only the immediate impact but also the potential long-term repercussions. A minor error might seem inconsequential initially but could have profound effects if it leads to a breakdown in client trust or the loss of a significant contract. On the other hand, a major mistake may have limited consequences if caught and corrected quickly or if it leads to valuable learning and process improvements.
Frequency
The frequency of the events is another key factor. This is a sliding scale that's inversely linked to experience. Essentially, the less experience a person has, the higher the tolerance for mistakes. However, if the same mistake is frequently repeated, it may be a sign of non-competence rather than simple errors. It's expected that as a person gains more experience and knowledge in their field, the frequency of their errors should decrease.
In this context, it's important to note that frequency isn't solely about the number of mistakes made. It's also about the variety of those mistakes. If someone keeps making the same mistake, it may indicate they are struggling to learn. This could be due to them having reached their capability limit, or it could mean that the training or mentor was ineffective. If the mistakes are varied, it is more likely a sign that the person is pushing their boundaries and learning new aspects of their role.
Context
Finally, the context surrounding the event also matters. This encompasses both external and internal factors. External factors may include job stress, overtime, family stress, and organisational culture. For instance, an error made during an extremely busy period or under high stress may be more excusable than one made under normal working conditions.
Internal factors to consider include whether the individual shows accountability and regret, their willingness to learn from the mistake, and their overall attitude towards their work and responsibilities.
Continuous improvement
Bringing it all together, we consider the four factors: years of experience, the event's severity, frequency of the events, and context. By weighing these factors, we can make a more informed determination of whether an event is a mistake or a sign of non-competence and respond in a more targeted manner. These responses should foster a learning culture and drive continuous organisational improvement.
In cases of mistakes, it is essential to have an open discussion about the event. These discussions should aim to understand the cause of the mistake without a blame game. Framing these conversations as learning opportunities rather than punitive measures will encourage individuals to own up to their mistakes. As Amy Edmondson's research at Harvard Business School shows, psychological safety plays a vital role in team learning and performance improvement. Teams that are unafraid to make mistakes, discuss them, and learn from them outperform those that hide errors due to fear of punishment (Edmondson, 1999).
Accountability is also crucial in responding to mistakes. Once the mistake is discussed and understood, steps should be taken to ensure it is not repeated. This may involve revising processes, providing additional training, or modifying systems to prevent a recurrence. In this context, accountability means taking responsibility for learning from the mistake and implementing the necessary changes, not merely accepting blame.
In cases of non-competence, the approach is different but still grounded in understanding and learning. Here, the emphasis is on identifying the skills gap and providing the necessary training or mentorship to close that gap. This is where a culture of continuous improvement shines, as non-competence can be seen as an opportunity for growth rather than a failure.
Mentorship is particularly effective here, as it allows less experienced individuals to learn from those with more experience in a supportive, one-on-one environment. A study by Allen, Eby, and Lentz (2006) found that both mentors and mentees reported higher career satisfaction and perceived career success than those not involved in a mentoring relationship.
By creating a work environment where individuals feel safe to take risks and make mistakes, we cultivate a culture of continuous learning and improvement. This perspective empowers individuals and teams alike to grow, innovate, and build a stronger, more resilient organisation. In such a setting, non-competence is not a failure but an opportunity for personal and professional growth.