Skills vs. Capabilities

"We need people with more skills!" cried the HR Manager and her cadre of business representatives. Without the right skills, they said, "we can't deliver our products and services!"

Yes, of course. But maybe those that are looking for "skills" are pursuing the wrong goal.

I think there's a monumental difference between skills and capabilities. Skills are something that you get better at practicing over and over. It's a finite ability that can be used under a fixed set of constraints in a narrow set of environments. A skill is something you learn to do and go do it. You repeat it over and over and get better at it and do it the same way every time.

A capability is different, I'd say. A capability isn't a specific skill that fits in a given situation. It's an deep-rooted ability which can be applied in many contexts. It's something you train and have to learn to do in context. It's not an isolated skill, it's an ability that flows in and out as the environment demands it.

Take tennis for example. An open-stanced forehand groundstroke is a skill. It is only usable when the ball is on a specific side of your body and works better on certain court types and when a certain type of ball is hit to you. You practice it and you get better at it. As a result, you try to control the environment so that you can use that shot...so your skill is in a relevant context. Either that or you learn more skills so that you have more options to choose from as you control your environment.

Moving your feet to position correctly to the ball applies to any shot you take in a tennis match: a serve, a volley, a groundstroke, an approach shot, and overhead smash...anything. Moreover, it's an ability that applies to many different sports like basketball, football, soccer, or volleyball to name a few. It's something you train and focus on as part of other actions and motions. You learn the fundamentals and you get better at applying a capability in various circumstances. It's something you use differently as the environment changes. In fact, you use capabilities to adapt to a changing environment.

I'd venture to say that the organizational world is one we have less control over than previous generations and we'll probably continue to lose control of the environment around us. As this happens, capabilities will become more relevant than skills, because skills will become obselete. Some days your business will require an open-stanced forehand ground strokes and other days you won't even be competing on a tennis court, figuratively.

So that raises a question. Is your organization's HR department (or schools, or business leaders, more importantly) cultivating skills or cultivating capabilities? Do they even understand the difference?

—

This is my most visited post from people across the world. You can find more by visiting my blog landing page at www.neiltambe.com/blog.

Or stay in touch another way: If you’d like email updates from me once a week with new posts, please sign up to stay in touch, pick up the RSS feed, or catch me on twitter @neil_tambe.

Governance 2.0? and reviewing Paul Light's a Government Ill Executed

Whether or not I've blogged about this before, I often think it: our reconstruction of institutions for governance are outpaced by our increasing and increased demands on institutions for governance. Our problems are becoming more difficult to solve just as our capacity for solving those problems lags behind. I'll take this as truth because I've read about it quite a bit in Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed, I've heard about it from people who know governance, I've witnessed it myself and it's evidenced in small things like crumbling bridges, baffling government websites and inept paper trails.

So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?

First, what are the tell-tale signs of new breeds of problems?

Interdisciplinary Complexity - We're not in Kansas anymore. Problems we have are large and difficult, often requiring multi and interdisciplinary problem solving approaches. For example, protecting our borders requires addressing illegal immigration, drug smuggling, food safety, the mapping of terrorist networks, financial intervention etc...only to name a few. This one example encapsulates many different disciplines and issues. Moreover, many of these components are intertwined in other government missions (food saftey is related to public health, etc.).

Data Centered - The problems now have to be addressed in the most cheap, effective, and non-intrusive way possible. On top of that there's a tremendous amount of data that's able to be collected. On top of that, performance is measured quantitatively (my guess that it's a borrowing from the financial system, for better or worse). All of this requires data at all steps in the problem-solving process.

Speed, but - Things move fast. If problems aren't addressed quickly, the nature of the problem will change. At the same time a lot of problems require long term strategy, planning or oversight. So, speed must be balance with long-term circumstances...which is really hard, in my opinion.

Subject to democracy - As constituents, we have access to a lot of information. Because of this there can be a tremendous amount of scrutiny from interest-groups, the educated public or the public at large. So, governmance structures not only need to be able to withstand scrutiny but also filter out irrelevant or politicized criticism and leverage increased exposure of government work to aid in problem solving. Institutions of governance need to be able to know when to say "we're wrong", "you're wrong" and "we could use your help". This issue is beyond public relations, it's more appropriate to consider this issue public integration because the public is inolved in governance from day 0.

Resource constrained - Anyone and everyone bashes institutions of governance. This rhetoric is characterized by the suggestion of big, bloated government or in the assertion of extended individual rights at the cost of the good of the republic. As a result governance organizations have to d more with less. Perhaps once their performance is elevated or better recognized resources will follow, but for now, they've gotta do more with less, god forbid Americans don't get another tax cut or get pork barrel spending in their state or district.

There are probably other qualities.

So, what to do? A first step (and I agree with Light here) reorganize the government to center around missions, not functions. What is within the purview of the government, what are the most important priorities? Government agencies have inertia and should be moving forward not based on what prior needs were but on what future needs are going to be.

Clean up the data and fix up the portals. There's a LOT of information, but it needs to be better organized so that governments and the public can use it better. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? With this goes, triage. Creating systems that allow valuable public interaction not only keep the public at bay regarding issues that don't concern them, but it also puts the public comfortably in the center of the debate in issues which their involvement matters greatly.

I have to think about this more.

Reviewing Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed:

An important book which sharply addresses one central question...what's the deal with the Federal Civil Service. It lacks an in-depth historical perspective as to why the Federal Civil Service came to be this way just as it only has a brief list of prescriptions. It's strength is explaining the situation on the ground, right now. And, by golly, the situation is dire.

A particular treat was analysis surrounding particular areas of reform and the difficulties those reforms might bring. Light had a particularly keen insight about streamlining the Federal Civil Service. It's not simply about cutting staff and resources. It's about trimming layers of management and moving resources way from the top of the hierarchy and towards the front-lines, where resources matter most. He also unveiled another issue, the size of the "shadow" contractor workforce, which most tend to underrate.

Light's prescriptions, though brief, are clear. The educated reader could easily piece together a slew of ideas by simply reading the analysis he provides. Whether Light does this to keep the page count low or to avoid partisan overtures is irrelevant, his text is well researched, candid and urgent. Light keeps it non-partisan but like most Americans his tone is pro-good governance.

His most important call to us is not issue specific. He bring momentum to the idea that piecemeal reform just won't do anymore and that we need a comprehensive, non-partisan, civil-service reform agenda. I sincerely hope that's a call that American's and America's elected officials will take action towards.

Stories in sacrifice

How can we possibly learn to do something that has the appearance of being against individual interest?

Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.

-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)

-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)

-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)

Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.

So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?

Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?

Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.

Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.

I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?

Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.

Culture - Lessons from the Catholic Church, The Spanish Inquisition, Taxis and Backpacker Hostels

5.27.09, 30,000 ft above Central Peru, 830 am-

Upon leaving Lima Peru, I´ve come to think differently about culture. Not on the traces of culture like race, popular media or idiosyncracies, but on the essence of culture...perhaps? Furthermore, the prevailing school of thought in the circles I tend to socialize in is mistaken about culture, I think. In their desire to be "inclusive" and in their application of the concept.

A culture should not strive to be inclusive, to attempt as such is not only impossible but undesireable as well. The best, most productive and most brilliantly vibrant cultures are not defined by their inclusivity, but by their distinctivness. Take the example of the monks in the order of San Francisco. Touring the monastery, the values of the place are clear: God is Supreme, a life (and death) devoted to god is honorable, Peruvian influence and heritage is important and with limited exception we are one before god. These values are extracted from the artwork, memorials and crypted catacombs in the monastery. The distinctiviness of the culture is ever-present. Those who don´t "fit in" wouldn´t want to be a part of it. This sounds crude, I don´t mean it that way.

And it is better that way, though. Beacause of the distinctiveness of the culture, the devoted stay and accomplish the aims of the culture to the fullest extent. If the culture tried to bring in everyone through a doctrine of inclusivity-for-no-reason, there would be no culture and if there were, it certainly would not be as distinct and defined...it´d be bland cause it would have no core values.

However, this does not comment on the diversity within cultures, in fact the ideas are separate. Inclusivity only leads to diversity if the culture is trying to superfically circumvent narrowmindedness. Rather, I think a strong culture-note the use of culture instead of "cult"- WOULD be diverse, so long as the aims of the culture were virtuous and morally sound, which I´m assuming here. (A culture with mal-intent or impact is not a culture, but a cult, in my opinion) So to summarize, a culture must have clear boundaries that people can voluntarily stay inside or outside of. Cultures cannot be "inclusive" in the sense that everyone can be a part of them without ANY qualification. To do so would lead to a culture with no values or would be completely paralyzed to act in a virtous and moral way...in the long run, I think. In a sentence, cultures must have culture.

But while they remain committed to defining themselves distinctly, cultures most also engage with other cultures because of the size and interconnecteness of our civilization. To claim otherwise can be dismissed out of hand. if cultures neglect to engage with others, xenophobia occurs. Why does xenophobia matter? Because it leads to conflict. In some cases its really bad. Sometimes people die as a result. Sometimes, many thousands perish or live lives that are forcibly inhumane because of culture clash.

The Spanish Inquisition is an example of culture clash, rather than cultural discourse. Two cultures met and were different. The spanish decided to interrogate, torture and kill their so called heretis and did so with delusions of justification from a higher authority.

Indeed, when it comes to cultures, a choice emerges between division and discourse. History has repeated itself in this regard. The outcomes are poor when we choose division of distinct cultures instead of discourse. Division is a choice we must avoid, it is not a solution of culture clash, but exactly that, an avoidance of the problem. Peruvians and other colonialized countries can attest to this.

Surely this is hard. Once we choose to reject division we have another choice. Should we try to come to peacable co'existence with one another or should we do the bare minimum to get by. A wonderful taxi driver we had, Raul, laid it out clearly (in spanish) - when people cannot understand eachother, there are problems. That being said, we had a wonderful time exchanging our stories on a 25 minute trip. We took another trip that day which lasted 25 minutes and now, I couldnt tell you the name of the cabby. We still reached our destination, I suppose.

Nevertheless, there´s a joy in trying, even if its difficult or unsuccessful. Staying in a backpaper hostel has been one of the best, most hopeful experience of my life so far. We came together from all over the world and sometimes a lot was "lost in translation" , but we made friends, even if they werent lifelong. And it was exhilirating to engage in cultural discourse. But it isn´t easy.

I think we can have strong and drastically different cultures. But if we do, we cannot walk away from discourse and trying really hard to engage in that discourse. There´s certainly join in the journey to do so. And best of all, it´s something that´s possible. Call me an optimist, but I don´t think any culture clash can´t be resolved. We have it in us. We´re damned if we don´t get it out of us.

Just landed in Cusco, on to Ollantaytambo, time for an adventure.

What Motivates Me

What Motivates Me (Original text written immediately after University of Michigan Dance Marathon on 3.22.09)

My inspiration is Nakul Bhansali, because he was wrong--the cost was his life--for the wrong reasons. He caught Dengue Fever, he was misdiagnosed and did not receive proper treatment. This does not reflect the suffering he faced, which was great--all he could do in the end was whimper in delirium for an apple while his body crackled; like fire, it is said. He was wronged by people, organizations and institutions.

Any case like this--with or without similar specifics--must never happen again in human history. There are two things which must be protected and enabled: life and virtue. In Nakul's case, both life and virtue were obviously compromised.

The most dangerous villains of life and virtue are people, organizations and institutions.*

So, I resolve for myself the following: life and virtue must forever be enabled and protected from the people, organizations and institutions than mangle them. Doing so is my supremest and sincerest conviction.

* - The most dangerous people, organizations and institutions are public ones, which is why I think enabling/protecting is most important in the public sphere.

Writer's note: I decided to strike the word "people" several times, because I do not believe the problem is with individuals. I believe that individuals are good inside, at the very least they are more good than wicked. The problem is not with individuals, the problem of wickedness comes from aggregations of persons, I think. Persons are not complex, people are complex.