topic: [[Assessing]]|[[🐓 Idea Farm/2 Idea Guides/Growing Idea Guides/Teaming|Teaming]] people: #people/loraleilingard created: 2023-08-10 *Teams can be competent based on the context and relationships, not just the individuals' skills and expertise.* This reminds me of [[emergence]], and how many properties of groups can be thought of as [[Systems]]. When considering [[Assessing]] teams, consider [[Thinking in Systems]] meaning look at the purpose, the elements, and the relationships. It's kind of like [[Leading]], and the notion that [[group thinking is different than individual thinking]]. I am reminded of the [[ways of knowing]], and am curious about placing the idea of the ways of knowing into a collective competence model. Collective competence is an emergent property that is context dependent and not strictly linked to individual competence. It is a temporary social phenomena. This matters because the way that the [[Dunning-Kruger Effect]] can leave people with unconscious incompetence, we have to be cautious about our [[Blind Spot]] when it comes to our team’s functions and abilities. [[competence and confidence are not linked]], so we may end up finding our teams have [[Skilled Incompetence]] if the context is changed. ##### What would the opposite argument be? Is it possible to make our teams protected against [[black swan events]] with skills towards [[Antifragility]]? Or, are we always setting our teams up for fragility to the known situations? tags: #note/idea | #on/team | #on/competence | #on/understanding ##### Sources: Lingard, L. (2016). Paradoxical Truths and Persistent Myths: Reframing the Team Competence Conversation. _Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions_, _36_(1), S19–S21. [https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000078](https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000078)