Following the embarrassment that was the state of the nation address I feel it is appropriate to discuss the link between competency and intent. The reason I feel it is appropriate to discuss this link is due to a consistent complaint I hear from fellow South African’s about the under-performance in our public officials and people generally. This under-performance is almost always blamed on incompetency.
When recently talking about this I have had numerous experiences where people have told me that good intentions mean nothing. These people perhaps have the proverb “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” in mind when they assert that intentions mean nothing. Whatever the case may be, there is definitely the prevalence of the thought that the real issue is an issue of incompetency and having good intentions does not solve the issue of competency.
Implicit is this idea is the thought that it is a waste of time even talking about a person’s intent when the issue is a lack of competency because good intentions are irrelevant. I think this is a mistake, good intentions are absolutely and directly relevant to under-performance of any kind and in any area. It is very important to understand this because the ability to effectively address under-performance issues depends on an understanding of their true genesis.
Addressing Incompetency
Let us return to what is clear about how we should go about addressing the issue of wholesale incompetency. What do we need to do in order to make people more competent and more able to be productive members of society?
It seems that we should do 3 things for them. The first 2 are immediately obvious to all but the last is a little but more subtle.
1. Provide the means: The first thing we must do when trying to make a person competent is to provide them with everything they require in order to do their job. This includes things such as tools, resources, and standards. By providing a person with the means we give them everything they need in order to accomplish their task well.
2. Provide the ability: It is obvious that merely providing them with the means to do their job is not sufficient. A bad workman blames his tools no matter how good they are so without giving people the necessary skills the means you provide them will do no good. In addition to giving people the means to do their job then, we also have to ensure that they have the ability to do their job, we must ensure that they have the know-how.
Giving people the ability to do their job is a bit more complex than just giving them the required skills. We must also furnish them with the why of their job, they must know why they are doing what they are doing. This is essential because it enables the person to more accurately apply their skills and the means at their disposal to successfully do their job.
Accountability
Once we have addressed the two bullet points above we have effectively addressed the issue of incompetency. This is because we have given the individuals in question both the mean and the ability to do their job. We have a tendency to think that our job is done once we have managed to achieve this. This is however a mistake. This is because we still have not given them a reason to do their job well. What is absolutely essential, after providing people with means and ability, is to hold people accountable for their performance.
You can give a person fishing equipment and train him how to fish but you don’t give him any reason to become very good at fishing if you give him fish for free when he is lazy to fish. It is essential that there is consequences for under-performance, without this there is no reason for the person to perform well. When holding a person accountable you are saying to them “I have given you the means and the ability, now you must perform.” It is clear then that competency is only half the issue. There is something beyond competency which is just as significant, namely the willingness to do one’s job. This is an intent issue, it is a matter of having good intentions.
Examining Accountability
We will be able to clearly see the significance of good intentions by examining the issue of accountability a bit more closely. So, what precisely are we doing when we hold a person accountable?
The biggest thing we are doing when holding a person accountable is that we are, in a sense, forcing them to care about their performance. This much is obvious, it is what accountability means.
If we examine a bit more closely however we see that holding a person accountable actually amounts to the act of unlocking their willingness to contribute. By holding a person accountable we are making them care about their performance and so unlocking within them a willingness to contribute, to care about putting in enough effort to effectively execute their responsibilities. We are making them care about doing their job well and so making them concern themselves with the contribution they are making.
It should be clear that the willingness to contribute is in fact a matter of one’s intent. The willingness to contribute is something that sits behind a persons eyes, it forms part of the person’s reasons for doing what they do.
By holding a person accountable you are forcing them to have good intentions, more precisely you are forcing them to care about what they 
contribute. Accountability essentially works on a person’s intent. Accountability is the mechanism by which you address the self-serving motive which so often lies at the root of under-performance. Under-performance is very often the result of a person’s failure to care about whether or not he/she performs, not a failing in competency. It is a failing of the persons intent.
This should make it clear as day then that good intentions are absolutely significant. Failing to cultivate a willingness to contribute in a person is a failure to give the person a reason to perform well and so a failure to cultivate a benevolent intent. This is to allow the person to concern himself solely with what he gets out such that he does not care about doing his job well. Failure to address this will lead to under-performance.
The Primacy of a Benevolent Intent
The centrality of intent as a variable in good performance is further highlighted by the primacy of a benevolent intent, i.e. the willingness to contribute. Just to reiterate, accountability works on a person’s intent. It is the mechanism by which we address a persons self-serving intent and unlock the willingness to contribute. The more altruistic the person’s intent (concerned about the contribution they are making) the more they will translate competency into good performance. By unlocking the willingness to contribute we have helped the person attain to a more benevolent intent.
What is worth recognizing about a benevolent intent and the willingness to contribute is that it trumps competency in potency. The old proverb “where there is a will there is a way” springs to mind. By unlocking a benevolent intent in a person we have furnished them with the most essential element on the road to excellent performance.
This is because someone who has a benevolent intent has the will to strive to become good at doing their job. Such a person will, over a period of time, naturally develop the ability to do their job. Not only will such a person naturally develop the ability to do their job but they will also be able to acquire the means, by improvisation or by some other mechanism, to do their job. In other words, a person who readily willing to contribute will naturally develop competency.
Practically, within an organisational setting, competency is of course the first thing one is to address. This does not change the fact however that developing a willingness to contribute is the most essential element in becoming an excellent performer. This is because one who is driven to become good at whatever they are doing will naturally become competent. Developing this willingness is an intent issue so we see that it is impossible to separate intent from the issue of under-performance.