Recently, I had my annual HVAC inspection. Like most homeowners, I view these visits as preventative maintenance. A technician arrives, inspects the equipment, performs a few routine tasks, and hopefully can assure me that everything appears to be operating properly. This year was different.
A younger technician asked me to stay for a minute after pointing him to the unit. He wanted to make sure that I knew where and could replace the filters if I desired. What is normally less than an hour became a three-hour examination of the system. He found a humidifier filter I did not know existed that appeared not to have been serviced in years. He discovered that the airflow indicator used when replacing filters had been written incorrectly, causing filters to be installed backward. He identified maintenance issues that had been unnecessarily complicated by installation decisions and noted that an evaporator coil was beginning to rust due to improper drainage caused by the angle of the drain pipe. Most concerning, he found a small natural gas leak that required immediate attention.
None of these issues had developed overnight. Multiple technicians had inspected the same system over nearly a decade. My initial reaction was frustration, not with this tech, but with how so many professionals could miss so many obvious issues.
The more I reflected on the experience, the more I realized that competence is often more complicated than we assume.
The younger technician may not have known more than those who came before him. In fact, he was likely less experienced. What distinguished him was not necessarily his technical expertise but his curiosity and desire to educate the customer. He wanted me to understand how the system worked. He showed me where filters were located, explained common failure points in this model, and pointed out maintenance tasks I could perform myself. While inspecting the equipment, he wrote the expected and actual voltages directly on several components so that future technicians could track degradation over time.
That last point struck me. Most technicians would verify that a component was working correctly. He was trying to make it easier for the next person to determine whether it was getting worse. One evaluates the present. The other attempts to understand the future.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I had recently seen the same pattern in a completely different context.
Technical Competence does not equal Communication Competence
I have been helping a company interview candidates for a highly technical mid-level role that requires communicating with both executives and technical teams. The position demands someone who can explain business implications to a CMO and discuss implementation details with developers, agencies, and technology partners.
To evaluate this capability, I developed a simple exercise. Candidates were asked to explain the same problem twice. First, they needed to explain the drop in website traffic to the CMO and their leadership team and secure buy-in for the recommended fix. Then they needed to explain the same issue to a development team responsible for implementing the solution.
I expected this to be one of the easier parts of the evaluation. Instead, it became one of the most revealing. These were knowledgeable professionals. I have seen them all present well at conferences. Several had impressive experience and strong technical credentials. Yet the results varied dramatically.
Some candidates could explain the issue clearly to developers but struggled to communicate with executives. Others could discuss strategy at a high level but could not translate recommendations into actionable technical guidance. Several relied heavily on notes and slide decks for topics they should have understood deeply enough to explain without support. One even created a clever storytelling deck that gave comparative context to the problem.
The most revealing moments occurred when the technology failed. A few candidates experienced problems loading slides in Teams. Rather than adapting, they became focused on fixing the presentation. None pivoted to a verbal explanation or another way of communicating the concept.
The objective of the exercise was not to deliver a slide presentation but to communicate understanding and drive action. The same lesson appeared in both examples.
The HVAC inspection was not really about HVAC.
The interview exercise was not really about SEO or technology.
Both highlighted the difference between technical competence and operational competence.
Technical competence is knowing.
Operational competence is the ability to achieve the intended outcome.
One technician understood HVAC systems. Another understood HVAC systems and educated customers, documented degradation, identified future risks, and improved future maintenance decisions.
One candidate understood the problem. Another understood the problem and could explain it differently to a developer, a CMO, an agency partner, or an executive team, adapting as circumstances changed.
Both possessed knowledge. Only some demonstrated the broader capabilities required to create value.
Organizations frequently evaluate the dimensions of competence that are easiest to measure. Certifications, years of experience, technical credentials, and subject matter expertise are all visible and easy to compare. Curiosity, communication, adaptability, judgment, stewardship, and the ability to translate complexity into action are much harder to assess.
Yet these are often the capabilities that separate average performers from exceptional ones.
This distinction extends beyond hiring decisions. Organizations themselves frequently fall into the same trap. They measure whether processes are completed rather than whether objectives are achieved. They focus on current performance rather than monitoring degradation. They reward compliance with procedures while overlooking the curiosity required to identify emerging risks.
The greatest risks are often not hidden, but they become invisible because they have become familiar. The communication gaps in the interviews were not hidden. They simply existed outside the dimensions being evaluated. Perhaps that is the real lesson.
Competence is not a single trait. It is a collection of capabilities that work together. Knowledge matters. Experience matters. Technical skill matters. But so do curiosity, communication, adaptability, and the willingness to remain focused on the objective when the process breaks down.
The technician who tracks degradation rather than simply confirming operation.
The candidate who can explain the same issue differently to a developer and a CMO.
The professional who reaches for a whiteboard when the slides fail.
These individuals are often distinguished not by what they know, but by how effectively they apply that knowledge to achieve the intended outcome.
We often assume competence because someone possesses expertise.
In reality, expertise is only one dimension of competence.
The dimensions that matter most are often the ones we never think to measure.
Explore More Epiphanies
This article is part of my ongoing series, My Digital Marketing Epiphanies – realizations, hard-earned lessons, and mental models shaped by decades in the field.
If you want more insights, visit the full archive here: My Digital Marketing Epiphanies
