Self-Awareness and Lack Thereof

When I was completing my Master's Degree, I was truly amazed at the things I discovered both personally and professionally.

Some of the requirements for this program were in person classes, 3x/week for close to 8 months until Covid. These 12-15 person classes were truly transformative for me. We would have to read close to 250 pages of literature a week, form opinions, share our opinions on the readings but then also challenge others' opinions. If you did not have an opinion and/or unable to share your opinion, you were not welcome in the class and your grade would reflect it. A few times a week, I was in an environment where I was forced to have an opinion on matters, support those opinions with proof on how I came to certain conclusions, and then challenge others'. These programs aren't designed to force you on what to think, as I've heard, but on the contrary, teach you how to think and how to seek answers/ask questions as opposed to have answers imposed on you. This led me to approach my research in a way that eliminated all my personal beliefs, and to start by asking questions and allow the answers to be uncovered vs. imposing my own beliefs onto the research and discover what I wanted to. This is why I used the grounded theory approach (an aside at the end of this where I will dive a bit deeper for clarity). This also then led to exploring this topic further in the hockey world over the last little while and revisit my approach to see how it impacted my day-to-day.

I have found that as I gain more experience, I gain more knowledge, confidence etc., which makes me feel like more of an expert. Knowledge, experience and confidence are all necessary parts of my role and my approach to my role, but I never want to lose sight of continued learning. Ego and self-awareness are always competing and I do not want my ego to interfere with decisions I make on a daily basis (which was a major theme in my research and scouts evaluating talent). Those attributes are complimentary to making a decision but only once you put all the necessary work in, and continue to ask all the right questions. I was reminded of this when I stumbled upon an old video I had watched previously of John Cleese talking about intelligence.

WATCH HERE

"You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are."

Ignoring the political commentary, it made me very curious on the actual study conducted and how it could be applied to my research. So I found the 1999 study he referred to, sited here, but I will also share the abstract here, as it is behind a paywall.

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."

Essentially what this is saying, the more incompetent you are, the less likely you are able to realize it, leading you to make poor decisions based on what you believe to be true. If you work to continue improving your skills, the more you begin to understand your limitations allowing you the increased capacity for learning. This is just scratching the surface on the research but interesting results nonetheless.

How does this lend itself to hockey?

I believe it is clear by now that there is a ton of Ego present in the hockey industry as “there are scouts that are progressive and open minded and stuff, but there's a lot of stubbornness in the industry still” (Scout 3 - NHL Amateur Scout). There is a fine line between ego and confidence, along with the perception people have vs. what a person truly feels/does. Regardless of the blurred lines, definitions, and perceptions, ego/confidence may be interrupting your ability to continue to make the best decision.

Let me preface my next point by saying, I think there are some great people in the hockey industry, who's knowledge and experience are assets to their respective organizations who are experts at what they do.

So as a traditional reader (hockey parent, player, etc) it is important to note that there are a lot of perceived experts in the hockey industry. Some are obviously great, and others may be suffering from what was just discussed. Do not let opinions shape your experience. There are non-negotiables, such as work ethic, training, etc., but sometimes it is ok to block out the noise and just play hockey. Other peoples' opinions are exactly that, opinions. With that though, players, are you over valuing your own beliefs? Are you as good as you think you are? Or is your belief that you're great, blinding you from realizing you're not? Whether you're great or not, if you want to be, get back to work and you might just learn something.

As for the 1% of readers who may be a decision maker of an organization, I urge you to question your approach. What are you doing to ensure your ego is not getting in the way of your growth? Are you asking the right questions? Or are you seeking to ask only the questions to get you to the answer you desire? Are you a leader or are you a winner? Can you be both? How?

ALL: Are you self-aware? Or are you so confident you're self-aware, that it is the exact thing holding you back from realizing you aren't?

THE HARDER YOU WORK, THE GREATER UNDERSTANDING YOU WILL HAVE FOR HOW MUCH HARDER YOU HAVE TO WORK.

Thank you for coming down this rabbit hole with me and hope you can carry this into your own lives.

Looking to shift your approach in your organization? Ask me about my Organizational Audits.

Aside: Grounded Theory Approach

The importance of grounded theory is the fundamental belief that knowledge might be expanded through the creation of new theories rather than the forced analysis of data using existing theories. The grounded theory is a methodical approach to research, typically conducted by social researchers primarily using qualitative methods. The grounded theory is used in research to uncover theories that assist in explaining the data, after the data has been collected.

I chose the grounded theory approach for 2 reasons:

I am/ was a novice researcher and has limited expertise in the professional talent ID landscape, which is core understanding as to why the grounded theory approach is used.

There is a lack of knowledge of the industry in the literature, suggesting it is appropriate to seek what new ideas may arise, and that lack of knowledge poses as an ideal starting point for the grounded theory approach.

The grounded theory approach involves conducting the research, coding the results by creating themes or categories, reducing those categories, and interpreting those results to outline a theory that helps understand them in the selected field of investigation. The approach consisted of using open-ended questions that allowed the interviewees to express their true feelings or opinions, that allowed for theories to emerge that help explain the data.