The incompetence paradox

[rockstar.esq]

A while back I had a weird experience.  An ex-colleague who works for a company that repeatedly screwed my company over called to offer me a job.  He was surprised to find that I held him in contempt for his part in the dishonesty and malfeasance.

He maintained that he was personally innocent and insisted that he wasn't aware of any wrongdoing.  It must have bugged him quite a bit because he searched his old emails to find out what happened on the last job we bid together.  As he rattled off the chain of events, he ended up telling me that I won the bid but "the guy's above him" decided to hire my competitor!

In the rush to prove his innocence, he proved he knew the bid was rigged.

It's fair to say that neither party got what they expected from the conversation.

Nevertheless it's been bugging me because I figured that cheaters knew they were taking an ethical short-cut.  Once the curtain was pulled back, I thought he'd quit feigning innocence.  What I got was indignant incompetence.  He was actually upset that I would think he was dishonest.  After all, he told me the truth...about screwing me over!

The other day I stumbled upon a reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect which finds that incompetent people aren't able to recognize their own lack of skill because they're incompetent!  Reading more on it, I felt like maybe this explained quite a bit of what I'm seeing.  Then I got to a depressing part.  Apparently Dunning and Kruger found that highly skilled people underestimate their skills because they assume any given task is easy for everyone.  It seems as though only the average people should feel confident that they know what they're talking about! 

This got me to thinking about how rarely people square the outcome of their decisions with their intentions.  Outcomes affect others, yet people tend to believe morality is a function of good intentions.  Maybe my ex-colleague figures he's a good person because there's no malice in his dishonesty.  Why should I take it personally, when he screws everyone?!?

There's a saying known as "Hanlon's Razor" that goes: "Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity".  I realize it's trite, but there's a lot of truth there.  I've found it difficult to separate malice from dishonesty.  For a long time I took it personally when someone cheated me out of a desperately needed job that I'd worked hard to win.  At the same time I sunk a ton of time bidding to honest companies who were too incompetent to win a job. 

In my head, I figured the "good guy's" were doing their best, while the "bad guy's" were out for blood. 

While I still have more affection for an honest fool, than a kindly cheat, I have to admit they're equally bad.  Knowing that, it's my responsibility to proceed accordingly.

 

[John McPherson]

Man is not the only rational animal, he is the only rationalizing animal.

Dunning-Kruger works the same way on the ethical spectrum as it does for competency.

Folks who are unethical suppose that everyone is as crooked as they are, and anybody that is not is some sort of dull-witted rube. By cheating the rube, they rationalize that they are "providing a valuable life lesson".

After all, the guy passing you on the right (in the turn lane, in a school zone), doing 60 in a 25, gets to his destination faster than you do. Therefore, He. Is. Winning. At least in his own mind. And you are a sucker for obeying the law.

And who has he hurt, really? Just everyone else on the road that has to learn to drive defensively, and get their kids across that street to school, and.....

News story this morning: self-driving taxis take 3 times as long to get around New York as ones driven by the crazy daredevil human cabbies. Because they actually stop for red lights and pedestrians, and let other cars with right of way have it. Think any cabby is going to stay in the business long if he only makes 33% of what the psycho drivers make?

It is not enough to win: OTHERS MUST LOSE! And no one wants to be labeled a loser.

What's the famous sports motto? "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing!"

It is certainly the only thing that gets you lucrative endorsements.
 

[KRS]

There was a recent study that I can not find at the moment which would fit this topic.

In the study people where asked to do unethical tasks for different payments.

The ones who got paid little still judged the task as wrong, but with higher payments the job was more justified.

If the payment is high enough you find reasons to justify whatever you do because your work is valued by others.

And obviously someone else would do it worse than you do it. All in all its a blessing for everyone that you do it, maybe not because the job you do is ethical but you are the least bad person.

 

So if you competition sends someone to screw others he will think after a while that everyone does that, and that is why his job exists. If others where not crooked he would not have such a job, would he?

And he is even so fair and kind to tell you that its rigged. Thats how good of a person he is!

 

 

[Anachronist58]

I have now had time to read the above posts thoroughly. I just had my performance evaluation yesterday, and the only appropriate response from me would have been

"Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah".

No other response was entertained.

Being professionally critical of process is deemed as "negative attitude", which I am advised to work on.

Were I to purchase the company tomorrow, I would retain this particular manager, but he would receive training on the concept that there value in listening to the ideas of others.

Knowing the futility of attempting to reason with him, I simply stated that our organization has failed to meet my minimum standards, and thus, has failed its probation.

Name Withheld

[rockstar.esq]

John, I think you've made an interesting point.  I've been reading a book that investigates "middlemen minorities" and their role in societies.  There's a lot to it, but the condensed version is that societies tend to have minority groups that specialize in low barrier to entry vocations like peddling, or modern-day convenience stores.  Since it takes a ton of work to make these low-income ventures worthwhile, the members of these groups tend to work together which is seen by the population as "clannish" or "secretive".

I was surprised to learn that these groups have entire supply channels that essentially operate on the honor system.  The penalty for anyone who reneges on their debts is ostracism.  Since we're talking about people who can't get traditional lines of credit, ostracism is assured starvation.

Applying this to your argument, I think people get hazy on cause and effect relationships when ethical standards go unenforced.  Applying this to my work, I can spread the word about cheating scoundrels to deprive them of honest subcontractor bids.  From my desk, it's pretty obvious that the honest and competent contractors win far more often than the cheating scoundrels because they're attracting the market leading subs.

KRS,

I'll have to look into that study, the findings certainly align with the corruption that's common among "mega projects".  I was part of a forum discussion on why big jobs fail.  An (anonymous) design professional blatantly admitted that the real cost and duration of mega-projects are intentionally withheld from public consideration because they know the project would never get approved.  Once it's underway, the contracts are arranged to make halting it seem more costly than proceeding to completion.  This professional argued that the decision-makers know the truth about the "sausage making" so it's seen as "politics" rather than ethical obligations to the public.

It's my opinion that ambitious journalists and District Attorney's could immensely benefit society by investigating the abhorrent ethical standards in the design, development, and construction industries.

[Buzzkill]

I was doing business in the past with a guy who kind of proudly said, "We screw the other guy and pass the savings on to you."   I think it was partially in jest, but even as a joke it made me very wary of doing business with him.

[rockstar.esq]

1 hour ago, Buzzkill said:

I was doing business in the past with a guy who kind of proudly said, "We screw the other guy and pass the savings on to you."   I think it was partially in jest, but even as a joke it made me very wary of doing business with him.

Whenever things turn out differently than I intended, I try to think back looking for opportunities or moments where I could have made a different decision.  Taken as a whole, all of the very worst projects I've ever been involved in started with some form of dishonesty.

It's my considered opinion that the greatest predictor of unpaid invoices, poorly managed work, and project failure is dishonesty. 

At this point if a contractor or a client lies about anything, I see it as a serious warning sign.  I've narrowly avoided projects that put my competitors out of business. 

On the other side of the coin, I've found that projects that start with forthright, honest, and competent people are nearly always profitable. 

I often send a new client a couple of routine questions about their project to see how they handle themselves.  Competent people will either know the answers or they commit to getting the answers.

It may sound petty, but a whole lot of incompetents have bad manners.   That's certainly not enough to cast them aside, but it's a reason to be cautious. 

 

[Frosty]

23 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

I was doing business in the past with a guy who kind of proudly said, "We screw the other guy and pass the savings on to you."   I think it was partially in jest, but even as a joke it made me very wary of doing business with him.

There's a famous bar in Anchorage, "Chilkoot Charlie's", well Spenard to name the neighborhood. Anyway, Koot's moto is, "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you."

Being wary is the proper thought if you drink in Koot's, it's in a rough neighborhood and nefarious things happen all the time. It's a dive bar,, world famous, probably the most famous in Alaska but it's a dive, large, multiple live band loud and often rowdy. It's cleaning up though, I don't think there's been a shooting inside in quite a while.

If you get to Anchorage AK. put your ID and money clip in an inside pocket and visit Koot's. Any cabby in Anchorage will know what you mean if you say Koot's.

Frosty The Lucky.

[arkie]

Where I grew up in West Texas, there was a famous, rough, rowdy bar frequented by roughnecks and construction guys.  When one got out of his car at night and walked inside, there appeared to be gravel in the parking lot.  When you saw the parking lot in daylight, it wasn't gravel, it was teeth!!!!

[Buzzkill]

5 hours ago, Frosty said:

There's a famous bar in Anchorage, "Chilkoot Charlie's", well Spenard to name the neighborhood. Anyway, Koot's moto is, "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you."

I spent a few nights in that bar when I was at Fort Richardson for some training in the early 90's. IIRC there was sawdust on the floor, but it never struck me as any worse than a lot of places I'd been in.  I'm guessing that motto isn't unique to them though.  The guy I was dealing with was from Chicago.

[Tubalcain2]

good grief!

[John McPherson]

Anachronist58, if organizations REALLY wanted to improve, they would make upwards and lateral evaluations mandatory as well. As they are mostly utilized now, downwards evaluations are a tool to keep the lower echelons in line. Any criticism will get you fired. 

Open communication is when both sides get to talk on equal footing. Dictation is when the one in power speaks.

Is Festivus over? Where is my aluminum pole? It is time for the 'Airing of Grievences'!

[Anachronist58]

John McPherson, I thank you for your words. Fortunately, if you will, in my circumstance, I have several factors working in my favor:

I am a seasoned Curmudgeon, in that my sense of timing is (usually ) well evolved.

I place no value in retaining my current employment, and Mrs Taylor supports me in this - just look at her face!

My trade is one of those rare specialties that is absolutely essential to production (Tool & Cutter Grinders are nearly extinct in this county).

My loyalty is to the Mission, and not the Management, which shields me from a tendency to please people, as opposed to fulfilling the letter of my own professional ethics.

I am sad to know that many must compromise their sense of right and wrong in order to keep bread on the table. I believe most people would do the right and sensible thing, if Leaders were wired to foster that concept.

I am not independently wealthy, but my time on this planet is running out, and I now value that time at $600 per hour. None have been willing to pay that rate, but I tend to work for "free" on MY time.

The last independent job I did, I had three months to finish, and the customer began to pester me after 18 days. I quickly finished the job: "No charge, and don't ever bother me again". That's when I set my new rate, which may come down if my venture takes off.

I thank all here for your indulgence,

Robert Taylor

[Andy98]

On January 12, 2017 at 0:02 PM, Anachronist58 said:

Being professionally critical of process is deemed as "negative attitude", which I am advised to work on.

One can be negative and critical: "This place is stupid, and we do crap work"

And one can be positive and critical: "We are not doing the best we can. We are capable of doing better"

Negative is demoralizing and corrosive - it does wreck a workplace. Meanwhile positive and critical people can compeletly transform a workplace (if allowed).

It's cynic/critic vs coach. Coaches are great.

Maybe talk with your manager, tell him you really want to help improve things, and ask him for advice on how to do it. Be open to what he says. Also ask him for help - two people are better than one.

Or maybe your workplace is pathalogical...

On January 11, 2017 at 6:40 PM, rockstar.esq said:

This got me to thinking about how rarely people square the outcome of their decisions with their intentions. 

I read a study once that compared actual error rates of people in various roles, to perceived error rates of those people. They found that weathermen had the best handle on how correctly they do their job, since are errors are quickly apparent and irrefutable.

I think about this at election times whenever an incumbant government gets the boot. So here in Canada we pushed out an old incumbant government about a year ago. For that to happen, millions of people must have had to decide that the guy they voted for 4 years ago is no longer any good. Its an opportunity to go look at your decision 4 years ago and ask, "Did I get it right?" and if the answer is "no" then start asking why you blew the call.

[Anachronist58]

Andy98,

I agree with your presentation, and being human, I am still in the process of evolving (and sometimes devolving) from cynic to coach. Depending on factors such as fatigue, irritability, and exasperation, I plod steadily toward that positive goal.

I regret that I am unable to engage my manager except indirectly through my own conduct, or courteously, yet firmly, adhering to logic and my own long-honed standards.

Dunning Kruger IS pathological by definition (and is a component in most, if all of human personalities to a lesser or greater extent).

I (endeavror to) never cast aside wise council, Andy98, so I thank you for sharing your well considered insight.

Robert Taylor

[Frosty]

I haven't been in Koot's since before you were there last. Did they still fine you for not throwing the peanut shells on the floor? I heard they stopped having peanuts i the shell as table snacks because people were starting too many fires tossing them at candles on other tables. I would've gotten rid of the candles myself.

About critics vs "coaches" everybody needs a good acidic kick in the pants now and then. ALWAYS trying to couch things in ways to be "positive" reduces reality to should've been or a living reality show. Too many folk have nothing but corrosive toxin to offer but these people serve a very valuable purpose or how else would we learn to tell them from the useful folk?

Frosty The Lucky.

[Anachronist58]

I walk and wobble on the knife's edge every night.......

I have occasionally fallen off...

[rockstar.esq]

On 1/14/2017 at 0:31 PM, Andy98 said:

I read a study once that compared actual error rates of people in various roles, to perceived error rates of those people. They found that weathermen had the best handle on how correctly they do their job, since are errors are quickly apparent and irrefutable.

That's interesting.  I recall watching a program on "D-Day" which discussed the tactical significance of an accurate weather prediction.  I watched that program a few years ago, but there were a few "experts" who said that advancements in technology hadn't improved their ability to accurately predict the weather that far in advance. 

From what I've read, weather predictions for anything beyond 5 days have been wrong more consistently than random chance.  As I recall, the same is true for professional sports analysts.  

The problem is that everyone's allowed to "correct" their predictions when there's less uncertainty.

Reading your post made me laugh because construction projects are often hard bid and the results publicly read on bid day.  The feedback for the General Contractors is about as immediate as you could ever ask for.  The problem isn't a lack of feedback, it's applying the feedback to correct the process.

If you asked 100 construction estimators why we have these uniform processes and procedures, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if over 30% of them had never thought about it before.  Every year I encounter an estimator for a GC who genuinely doesn't understand that their job is stressful and hectic entirely because their subs don't trust them.  Most contractors won't make any effort to prove they are trustworthy, yet they are certain that subs are unprofessional.

There are all these people who think they've got a handle on running a successful construction company.  Statistically speaking, they're wrong.  The national average Contractor net profit is between 1 and 2 percent.  That's so pitifully low that the majority of construction company owners will be destitute by retirement. 

I chose estimating in part because it provides insight into who's doing what.  What I've seen suggests that the majority of construction companies are running on borrowed time.  I'm guessing that the next time the construction market improves, there will be a lot of mergers and buyouts.  There are a lot of crusty incompetents counting on optimistic Millennials to pay for their retirement.

 

[Wroughton]

I've heard a number thrown around that 80% of Fortune 500 Companies use personality tests like MBTI to type their employees. While I don't think MBTI is perfect, it's the best tool I've found for interacting with my fellow humans and understanding myself. I can't help typing people. I feel a little judgmental but it helps me understand their inner motivations.  Sometimes, not all the "data" is in before I get screwed. 

Rockstar, your battlefield is a cesspool.  And, when you roll around in the poo, it gets on you, and that tends to piss a person off. Especially principled peoples like yourself. I'm not calling you jaded, but from when we had our first discussions about bid selections years ago, you've processed a lot more "data".  Thank you for all your counsel, and your "awareness".

People aren't against you, they're for themselves. Sounds like Hanlon's razor to me. They don't always/EVER see how their "for themselves" actions may have caused you or yours adversely.  Most of these types don't like being taken to task for being dimwits. It makes them THINK, and that HURTS.

Just that your here talking about this puts your into a small subcategory on the personality scale.

 

 

 

 

[rockstar.esq]

Wroughton,

Just for fun I did a freebie version of that test and it came back ESTJ-A "The Executive".  The explanation for that type certainly rung true for me. 

I appreciate your kindness, and I agree that most of what makes it a "cesspool" isn't personal. 

I completely understand that people don't want to come to unflattering conclusions about their actions.  I can see how a group so inclined might create it's own culture of dishonestly, however it's tough to imagine how it got so widespread throughout an entire industry.

I've had first hand experience with some of the people who are trying to implement standards, and procedures for estimating professionals.  The focus is on creating costly certifications and tedious forms.  None of which address the dishonesty that's at the root of all the problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anachronist58]

Sounds like ISO / AS9100.

But not so much dishonesty, as self delusional rationalization, as mentioned above, but fervently believed by those of us who practice it.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Anachronist58
addendum

[John McPherson]

rockstar, the answer to how something obviously wrong becomes the new norm is simple: lack of effective enforcement, and financial gain.

Why does everyone in the US speed, and do other unsafe acts on the highways? The chances of getting caught are extremely low, as are the potential fines. In some other countries, enforcement is rigid, fines are based on your gross income, and are progressive. Outcome: good behavior.

The honest answer to the question "How do you sleep at night?" is often "On silk sheets, in my mansion."

[Wroughton]

4 hours ago, John McPherson said:

 

Why does everyone in the US speed, and do other unsafe acts on the highways? The chances of getting caught are extremely low, as are the potential fines. In some other countries, enforcement is rigid, fines are based on your gross income, and are progressive. Outcome: good behavior.

 

In some countries, enforcement is non existent. You honk the horn like a psychopath when you go around a one lane, dog leg corner and hope that's an echo of your own horn you hear. Driving lane lines are suggestions, sidewalks are optional. Mama Mia!

[ThomasPowers]

Culture makes a huge difference; I've ridden in cars in Rome Italy and Jakarta Indonesia;  Rome was hideously aggressive; Jakarta was much heavier traffic but everyone was friendly and "helpful".  I still remember a "one lane" exit that had 2 lanes of cars and 3 lanes of motorbikes on it but no issues as everyone seemed to "agree" on how it should be.  Horns were only used as a "courtesy" warning.   Of course both these times were in the 1990's

I've also visited a village in Switzerland that the road through the village was 1 way each way---you got to the edge of the village and honked.  If nobody honked back it was one way your way. If they honked back it was one way their way...

[BIGGUNDOCTOR]

A comment above kind of fits me. I do tend to look at a lot of jobs as "easy for anyone to do". It also explains why I no longer have my machine and fab shop.....I never charged what I could have. Example, years after I had closed up I was was working as a mechanic at the Jelly Belly Candy Co. and got talking with the parts guy. When he found out I had had a shop he asked me how much I would have charged for a part they just got in. Essentially it was a 5/8" thick aluminum plate ,beveled edges, two holes heli-coiled on 3 edges, and three 1/8" x 1" slots. These were the plates that the heat stamps were attached to for marking the bags, and they got snapped onto the press unit. I looked it over, and figured 1hr each with basic jigs, and with the most time being spent on the broaching of the slots. I told him I would have a hard time telling him $100, and that it would have been more like $60 each. He then told me that they bought 20 of them for $300 each, and that was less than the $1,000 each that the manufacturer wanted. The entire heat press was $5,000 and built like crap.....nowhere near $5,000 in my estimation.. But here I am thinking to myself that the company got ripped off when I was ripping myself off years ago. I just made am estimate for a $1,200 job that another shop got $6,000, and the OEM was asking $20,000.

Some have old me that I am too honest , and nice, to be a businessman.