This was posted on JOS and got me to thinking:
An article on Marketwatch.com that explains the strategic value of selective incompetence.Here is an excerpt:
Quote:
Strategic incompetence isn't about having a strategy that fails, but a failure that succeeds. It almost always works to deflect work one doesn't want to do -- without ever having to admit it. For junior staffers, it's a way of attaining power through powerlessness. For managers, it can juice their status by pretending to be incapable of lowly tasks.
In all cases, it's a ritualistic charade. The only thing the person claiming not to understand really doesn't understand: That the victim ultimately stuck with the work sees through the false incompetence.
This article describes a lot of the nuances that I have seen in effect when someone claims that they can't do something, or makes such a racket that the task is pulled from them.
The following hits home for many of us:
Quote:
Strategic incompetence involves a lot of unnecessary posturing, notes Robert Sutton, a professor of management science at Stanford University. But it's not all bad. "One way in which lower-status people feel more esteem in the presence of higher status people is to show they have a skill that's valued and needed," he says.
Describes IT people in a nutshell.
I've seen this kind of behavior specifically with some clients who claim to not be able to understand management or technical issues that govern a project.
The often quoted maxim that relates to this principle is something like "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". I find that people can understand whatever they put their minds to in sufficient detail to follow the reasoning and make an informed decision.
IMO, selective incompetence explains those many times when communication breaks down because your client or boss refuses to follow reasoning. They don't want to understand because contact with geekly things "soils" them and lessens their credibility as a "leader."
