Every professional experiences the moment when what they know is questioned. By implication, this moment also questions their value. That is, if they know something and are convincing to others, the professional is perceived to be valuable. On the other hand, if they do not know an important point or are unconvincing about what they do know, the professional is valued less (or not at all).

It is the way of the world, at least in knowledge positions within today’s economy.

There is another side, of course. Some people are completely convincing without the knowledge or experience to support what they advocate. Their self-confidence radiates within a room and casts a spell. People agree with this kind of person implicitly and are willing to follow him or her. Later, it may be clear that their confidence was misplaced. Then, a sense of betrayal replaces the false confidence. Convincing, yes, but (in the long term) they are not credible.

Competitive intelligence professionals routinely deal with knowledge. There are facts about the competitive environment, advanced data collection tools, powerful analytical models and insightful interviewing approaches. Awash with information, a competitive intelligence project usually ends with some type of report or presentation. Then, the facts, interpretations and recommendations are displayed for a sometimes-skeptical senior management audience. Attitudes of “convince me” and “prove it” often challenge the competitive intelligence professional’s performance and credibility. The obvious temptation is to emphasize expertise and exclude doubts, right? After all, is not humility a sign of weakness?

Unsurprisingly, there should be a balance between honest humility and expressed expertise. This balance is not contrived. Rather, it reflects what is true for most people. That is, the more that we know, the more we realize that we do not know. Put another way, whatever we know today, it will not be enough for tomorrow. Hence, we need a way to live with ourselves while delivering valuable services to others. We need to be able to explain what we do not know with as much credibility as we covey our certainties. (See my article on “The Right Answer to the Trap Question” for one approach.)

How do we do that? Here are seven guidelines that I use to balance my expertise and my humility.

This article was originally published in the Intelligence Insights May 2010 newsletter of the Special Libraries Association – Competitive Intelligence Division.

I remember standing next to my fellow student as we both stared at the teacher in the front of the classroom. Fourth grade rarely got as intense as when we were competing to give the right answer to the teacher’s flash card question. The teacher would wait until we ready and then quickly display the card with a math problem. What was the answer to “8 times 7?” We rushed to raise our hands. It was not a small matter to master multiplication and we were proud when we did (especially when we won the competition).

In math (as in most subjects), we learn the basics first. Complex problems remain a mystery until a solid foundation of principles and techniques is established. We first learn to add, subtract, multiple and divide. Later, we learn about fractions, percentages, geometric shapes and trigonometry. Each topic builds on established foundations and represents significant learning.

About the time that we were satisfied with what we knew, our math teachers introduced a new challenge – word problems.

Recently, the news of a “lost” prototype of the new Apple iPhone graced the covers of many prominent news publications (for example, CNN) . Could this be the design for the next model that most think will be revealed next month? Notice, the reports said, the new case design, the forward facing camera and the improved display. Apple must be dismayed that the revealed information. How would this information affect Apple’s competitors? Would not the early disclosure help them? Perhaps these competitors could alter their marketing messages, revamp their own products and initiate counter-measures in May (rather than after the official announcement).

A casual perusal of many websites such as Gizmondo and Engadget highlights many similar leaks. These sites routinely report pre-launch information about new products. Sometimes the information sources are clear. In many cases, the sources are unnamed. Sometimes the information is detailed. Often, the details are sketchy.

How should competitive intelligence people deal with leaks?

Here are five important principles and cautions.

Pop quiz – What does a soldier spend most of his time doing?

Someone might correctly point out that a soldier’s job is to defend his or her country by being ready to fight. So, do they spend most of their time fighting? In most armies, the answer is “no,” even when their country is at war. Soldiers spend most of their time waiting, practicing and preparing for the (relatively) brief times that they are in combat.

Military leaders know this, of course, and therefore create activities, training, simulations and duties to occupy the downtime between combat circumstances. Thus, when combat does occur, their troops are well prepared to win.

What about competitive intelligence professionals? What do you spend most of your time doing?

Many might guess that you and I are constantly engaged in projects for internal (or, for consultants, external) clients. That might be true for some people but my experience is that there can be significant downtime for most. By “downtime,” I mean that there is time when there is not a specific pressing project or task to complete. Maybe the management focus is on another issue or leaders are reacting to other problems. This time is a breathing spell that may be short or long. However, we know that it will end, perhaps abruptly when a new request for urgent competitive intelligence arrives.

How can the time between competitive intelligence projects be used productively?

(I have a short survey at http://jthawes.limequery.com/17155/lang-en on Competitive Intelligence Monitoring. Please add your opinion.)

I think that there are five R’s to remember to make this time useful.