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.

Where I live it is common to have slab foundations (How to Build a Slab Foundation) for homes.

Slab foundations are solid blocks of poured concrete on top of which the structure is erected. There are several important characteristics that a slab foundation must have in order to support the house that is being built.

• It must be shaped correctly for the house. It is costly and difficult to alter the basic shape after it hardens.

• Although it looks like a solid mass of concrete, it actually conceals a great deal of infrastructure including electrical conduits, plumbing and cables (which provide strength).

• Everything attached to or embedded in the foundation must be in the right place (again, it is hard to change things fixed in concrete). For example, the plumbing for sewage should emerge where the bathrooms are planned to be.
• Finally, after doing all of the necessary things, it is important to preserve your flexibility for all of the remaining elements of the home. For instance, the placement of the second story wall for the guest bedroom is not to be tied to something in the design of the foundation.

The foundation serves its purpose even though it is not a visible feature of the home. The structure above obscures what is beneath it and many people give little thought to what they don’t see. However, you absolutely must pay attention to your CI foundation. And the quiet time after your first management presentation is a good time to establish what will support all that you do later.

Congratulations!

If you have gotten this far then you already spotted an important need for competitive intelligence, identified a senior leader that cares about it and managed to get the assignment to address the need. Even better than that, you worked into the discussion the topic “competitive intelligence.” Whether or not it really registered with your leader could be debated. They may have simply been glad to offload a difficult subject to a willing soul. Their expectations are low (and you should have tried to set them that way) but you have started toward a vision that will now become clearer soon.

More importantly, you have begun to set a people oriented tempo to your work.

You are recognizing (or at least hoping) that competitive intelligence will touch important areas for leaders in the company. CI analyses will show how well competitors are doing and sometimes how poorly your company is performing.

Meanwhile, leaders and peers are invested in how things are going. They set in place strategies that they think will be effective. And your work will eventually help them be more successful. However, that time is in the future. Between now and then is a minefield of egos, insecurities, turf wars, differing philosophies and more. Don’t worry too much, you can get through it. I’ll help you.

What’s next in our slow march to introduce a successful competitive intelligence program into the organization?

You tease them.

Do you believe that the best jobs are the ones created for you? (I do.)

That is, because of your interests, skills and initiatives, you convince someone to assign to you what you wanted all along.

Competitive intelligence positions are often like that. As I described in my “Find the Pain” entry, it starts with recognizing that something is missing in the organization and seeing that the missing element is causing real pain to someone in leadership. Though their response to the pain may not be the immediate formation of a competitive intelligence function, there is an opportunity for someone with insight to gain such a role.

What does it take to get the job? There are two important points to remember.

First, ask for the job by name.

That means that using “competitive”, “competitor” or “intelligence” in your discussions is important. At this stage it only signals the domain of your effort. It does not mean that the leader has to authorize a budget, commit significant personal time or invest their prestige in the effort. It does alert those that are observant that you might be about a larger, more valuable task.