Electrical Competence.

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.

• Enzensberger, Hans Magnus; Martin Chalmers (December 1, 2009). The Silences of Hammerstein. USA: Seagull Books. p. 87. ISBN 978-1906497224.

Wellmeaning but stoopid and diligent are the ones to be aware of, in all walks of life !   


Regards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord

The other aspect to consider is the fact that we now appear to value credentials over competence & experiece.

whjohnson:

The other aspect to consider is the fact that we now appear to value credentials over competence & experiece.

How do you provide evidence of competence without credentials?

Having met many people who have all sort of qualifications, both paper and practical,  whom I would not trust to change a lightbulb I am wary of qualifications. Having seen many CVs that identified ideal candidates that on interview could not answer simple questions about their strengths in the CV it becomes obvious their CVs are exaggerations at best. 


On the other side I have worked with people without qualifications who know and can explain the theory and do the practical stuff to a high standard. 


So I have no answers apart from an in depth interview and a practical test to identify if they have any practical skills. Talking to past employers is another route but beware the "You will be lucky to get xxxxxx to work for you" type reply.

How to tell if someone is competent for a particular role is actually very tricky, and is one where things beloved of personnel depts like CVs, and qualifications from degrees to NVQs and certification of every colour, are only ever part of the story, perhaps a pre-filter to remove a few of the most unsuitable candidates from the short list.

The first challenge is to know and be clear what the role actually requires, and all to often often the process fails at that stage. As an example not too far from reality,  perhaps one day we want someone who can design test rigs, and the recruiting team decide to advertise for a test engineer - so we get folk who have 30 years experience of following test procedures, but have never written one. Waste of everyone's time, or you get someone who claims they can but can't.  Everyone thought they were doing the right thing but the result is not good.

Then assuming the description is good, how to weed out the lazy, those who over estimate their ability or those for some other reason can't hack it ?

Well, the first thing to do is to talk to them, and that can be by 'phone to begin with. Equally an on-site meeting can be telling, as even the casual 'have a good journey ?' question reveals folk who got driven in by parents, those who can or cannot read a timetable and generally how good the candidate is at planning their working day. Then if it's a technical role, what  have they worked on what part of it was theirs - to what degree do they sound like they personally took responsibility for their contribution. Clearly this only works if the interviewer is up to speed on the topic.

The result of getting it wrong is managers who don't understand what their charges are supposed to be doing and possibly engineering staff who don't either, that way lies poor decisions and waste, and in extremis,bankruptcy.

Jaymack:

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.

Wellmeaning but stoopid and diligent are the ones to be aware of, in all walks of life !   


Regards

 

How true is that!

These characters seem to have a zest for authority and control..........you spend your whole life learning to avoid them like floating sea mines.


Paper qualifications aside, the standard onsite practice usually instigated by the site foreperson (foreman) is to employ temporarily the candidate for the morning and set some tasks increasing in difficulty. Where time and job requirements allows, you'd be hired if you reached the required standard for the tasks at hand.


Legh

In my experience, some of those with credentials gravitate into administrative roles and are no longer technically competent after a few years; this is not a criticism as most of these would probably agree with. Competence requires periodic refreshment of knowledge and experiences, the time period for that is dependent on the individual's memory retention; some may become incompetent after a short time. I think that periodic "licensing" by examination is necessary in any field, I suggest 3 to 5 years at least. We all probably cringe when another edition of the wiring regulations appears, requiring another examination for registration purposes etc., but we should also quickly realise how much knowledge has been lost in the interim. 


Regards    . .

How do you provide evidence of competence without credentials?

Or more to the point, what evidence is there that the credentials are trustworthy? Or demonstrate how the holder will perform, as distinct from how they're capable of performing?


   - Andy.