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.

First, the bane …

In the Lord of the Rings story, the fellowship travels great distances and through many adventures trying to accomplish their mission. One of my favorite parts of the story is when they must travel through Moria, an underground dwarve colony and site of their great mines. Led by Durin, the dwarves settled “under the mountain” and began to build, explore and mine the riches that they found there. What they did not know (until it was too late) was the danger that dwelt in the depths. A Balrog. Durin’s Bane. The unspeakable terror that threatened them all. And it was coming for them.

A little dramatic, I suppose, but it is worth recognizing similar banes that befall the competitive intelligence community. That is, the “terrors” that hold the potential to derail all that we know to be true and worthwhile and to make our mission difficult, if not impossible. It is not hard to identify these things. It is only hard for us, collectively, to overcome them.

Here are the five banes that I think are most troublesome.

In the never ending quest to define, explain and sell competitive intelligence, we sometimes resort to analogy. When the analogy is a familiar one, maybe our listeners will grasp that key fact that we have thus far struggled to express.

One example that we often use is armed conflict between nations. Wars are the ultimate human competition because the stakes are so high for many people. The problem with using it as analogy for business competitive intelligence is that the rules are clearly different. Ethics in business and war are not the same. Nations may justify actions during war time that an anathema to peace time life.

Another example that we can use is sports. The attractiveness of the sports analogy is that a “lifetime” is played out in plain view each season. All teams start with similar resources and the same record. Pitted against each other in a series of contests, the stronger teams emerge to contend for the title. There, superior systems collide to determine which will prevail. Nice and neat. Then it happens all over again.

Of course, business contests are not all that neat. Plus they usually occur with multiple, simultaneous competitors. The beginning and endings are not so clear cut. And, it is entirely possible that there will be more than one winner.

Okay, despite the caveats, there are good and bad lessons to be learned from American professional football.

One of the things that intrigues me about competitive intelligence is the types of relationships that are required to be successful. Intuitively I think and empirically I know that people matter most. We get assignments from them, ask them to tell us their fears and deliver implicit commentary on their performance even as we report on the competitive environment.

I get it that they need specific information about competitors. I also know that clients or managers want to increase their confidence in their decision making. And, commonly they want to feel that they won’t be blindsided. Most of all they want help to make wise choices about the future that will reflect well on their leadership.

So what role should I play? Information source? Critic? Counselor? Oracle? Or, maybe, friend?

I can hear you through the computer right now (disagreement and skepticism transmit well). Yes, you think that the first 3 or 4 possibilities often fit. But, definitely not the “friend” role. That is entirely too soft a description that no client or senior manager would provide in a job description. They want bottom line results and value those that directly (directly!) contribute. Tangible, measurable and preferably quick results would be their highest goal.

Yet, I wonder about that. Not understating the need for results and concrete benefits, I think that we sometimes miss the human element of leadership and what it needs most.

Many times leaders are trying desperately to keep ahead of the game. There are rivalries within the company which are threatening their position. The people that work with them are constantly angling for attention and favor. Competitors, of course, would be gleeful if they failed. The Board is constantly evaluating their performance and it is easy to understand that most won’t advance. It’s a jungle and thriving within that jungle is tough. One needs help but where will it come from?

There is not one answer to that question.