Insights Into Better Safety Conversations

Tag: Competence

The competence gap

July 7, 2026

Most competence failures do not begin with incompetence. Instead, they begin with a gap between what someone is being asked to do and what they are currently equipped to handle.

The difficulty is that this gap is often invisible. Qualifications remain the same, job titles do not change, and years of experience continue to accumulate. On the surface, everything appears as it always has.

What changes is the context in which people are expected to perform. Work becomes more complex, decisions become more ambiguous and expectations continue to grow. Over time, the demands of a role can increase more quickly than an individual’s capability.

This shift happens gradually rather than suddenly, it often goes unnoticed by both the individual and the organisation.

This is why competence should never be viewed as a fixed state. It is something that must be continually developed, examined and maintained. Many of the most significant competence risks remain hidden until performance begins to suffer. By that stage, the gap may already be influencing judgement, communication and, ultimately, safety.

The strongest organisations recognise that competence is not simply about whether someone once met a required standard. They continually ask whether capability and expectation remain aligned. After all, competence problems rarely begin with a lack of effort. More often, they begin with a gap that nobody realised was growing.

How do you know when someone is genuinely competent and who decides?

July 7, 2026

One of your hardest challenges is knowing when confidence and experience are masking a quiet gap between what people are being asked to do and what they’re actually equipped to handle.

Competence is one of the most relied-upon concepts in building safety and one of the least examined. It is often treated as something that can be confirmed once and then assumed: evidenced through qualifications, years of experience or professional standing. These indicators matter. But on their own, they are not enough. Competence is not a fixed state. It is contextual, dynamic and dependent on how individuals behave when conditions change.

The limits of qualification-based assurance

Formal qualifications and experience provide an important baseline. They indicate exposure, learning and technical capability at a point in time. What they cannot guarantee is how someone will respond when the context shifts. Unfamiliar scenarios. Conflicting information. Time pressure. Competing priorities.

Two individuals with similar credentials may perform very differently when these factors are present. One may recognise the limits of their understanding and seek support. Another may press on with misplaced confidence. The difference is not technical knowledge. It is behavioural judgement. Assuming competence based solely on credentials creates a false sense of security, particularly in complex, safety-critical environments.

Asking for help is a behavioural strength

One of the clearest indicators of competence is not certainty, but awareness of limitation. Knowing when to ask for help requires judgement, self-awareness and humility. It also requires an environment, where doing so is accepted and supported. In practice, many experienced professionals feel pressure to appear capable at all times. Admitting uncertainty can feel like a risk, particularly in cultures that equate confidence with competence.

This is where behavioural competence becomes critical. Choosing to seek input, challenge one’s own assumptions or escalate uncertainty is an active demonstration of competence, not a weakness.

Competence is shared, not owned

Competence is often treated as an individual attribute: something a person ‘has’ or ‘doesn’t have.’ In reality, competence in building safety is frequently collective. Decisions are rarely made in isolation. Work is handed over, reviewed, relied upon and built upon by others. One person’s judgement affects another’s risk exposure. This creates a responsibility that extends beyond one’s own performance.

Senior professionals, in particular, play a critical role in managing and contributing to the competence of others. This includes:

  • Recognising when tasks exceed individual capability.
  • Providing support and challenge.
  • Creating space for learning and reflection.
  • Avoiding role creep that quietly stretches people beyond safe limits.
  • Competence is sustained through attention, not assumption.

How competence erodes over time

Competence does not usually fail suddenly. It erodes gradually. Workload increases. Roles expand informally. Pressure becomes normalised. Shortcuts are rationalised. Over time, the gap between capability and expectation widens. Not because people become less skilled, but because the context demands more than before. Without deliberate attention, individuals may continue operating beyond their effective competence without realising it or without feeling able to say so.

Behavioural competence acts as an early warning system. It prompts reflection, escalation and adjustment before performance degrades into risk.

Behaviour underpins technical capability

Technical competence determines what someone can do. Behavioural competence determines what they choose to do and when. It influences whether assumptions are tested. Whether uncertainty is acknowledged. Whether decisions are reviewed. Whether learning occurs.

This is why behavioural competence underpins technical competence. Without it, technical capability is brittle, effective in stable conditions, fragile under pressure.

Rethinking who ‘owns’ competence

If competence is treated as an individual possession, organisations risk overlooking how it is shaped, supported and sustained. A more realistic view recognises competence as something that is:

  • Context-dependent.
  • Influenced by workload and pressure.
  • Maintained through interaction and feedback.
  • Strengthened or weakened by leadership behaviour.

This shifts the question from “Is this person competent?” to “Is competence being actively managed here?” Judgement, not confidence. Confidence is visible. Judgement is quieter. Confidence can mask uncertainty. Judgement recognises it.

In safety-critical work, competence is not proven by how assured someone appears, but by how they respond when certainty is absent.

It is demonstrated through restraint, escalation, collaboration and reflection, especially under pressure.

Why do safety failures so often trace back to conversations that never happened?

July 7, 2026

You only realise communication has failed when something goes wrong, not because people lacked information, but because the right conversations never happened.

When safety incidents are examined closely, the root cause is rarely a lack of technical knowledge or formal process. More often, it is a breakdown in communication: an assumption left unchallenged, a concern not raised, a message misunderstood or a handover treated as routine rather than critical. These are not communication failures in the simplistic sense. They are behavioural failures.

Leadership, teamwork and effective communication are often discussed as competencies tied to senior roles or formal authority. In practice, they are enacted moment to moment, through everyday interactions that shape how information flows, how challenge is received and how responsibility is shared. This is why leadership in building safety is not a position. It is a behaviour.

Leadership happens between people, not on organisation charts

Formal authority does not guarantee leadership behaviour. Leadership shows up in how questions are asked, how uncertainty is handled and how dissent is treated. It is visible in meetings, handovers, emails and informal conversations, often more clearly than in strategy documents or role descriptions. In safety-critical environments, leadership is enacted whenever someone:

  • Clarifies expectations rather than assuming understanding.
  • Invites challenge rather than discouraging it.
  • Responds constructively to bad news rather than defensively.

These behaviours can be demonstrated by anyone, regardless of job title. Equally, they can be absent at the most senior levels. This is why leadership cannot be assumed. It must be observed.

Psychological safety is not a ‘nice to have’

The ability to speak up, ask questions and challenge assumptions is often described as psychological safety. In building safety contexts, this is not a wellbeing concept, it is an accountability mechanism.

When people do not feel safe to raise concerns, information degrades. Warnings arrive late or not at all. Assumptions go untested. Decisions are made on partial understanding. This does not usually happen because individuals are unwilling. It happens because environments subtly signal what is welcome and what is not. Tone matters. Reaction matters.

What leaders pay attention to and what they dismiss matters. Psychological safety is built or eroded through behaviour, not statements of intent.

The hidden cost of fragmented communication

Many safety failures involve multiple organisations, interfaces and handovers. In these environments, communication is rarely absent, it is fragmented. Information is shared but not aligned. Responsibilities are described but not understood. Messages are passed on but not owned. Poor handovers are not simply administrative oversights. They are behavioural moments where assumptions replace confirmation, and urgency replaces clarity. Effective communication is not about volume. It is about precision, timing and shared understanding.

Challenge and escalation are learned behaviours

Challenging a decision or escalating a concern is often framed as an individual trait, confidence, assertiveness, courage. In reality, these are behavioural skills shaped by context.

People learn whether challenge is welcome by observing how previous challenges were received. They learn whether escalation is safe by watching what happens to those who escalate. If challenge is met with defensiveness, delay or dismissal, it will reduce regardless of policies that encourage it.

This is why leaders play a critical role. Not by encouraging challenge in theory, but by responding well to it in practice.

Setting tone, clarity and permission

Leadership behaviour establishes permission. Permission to ask questions. Permission to slow things down. Permission to say, “I don’t know.”

When leaders model curiosity, clarity and openness, communication improves. When they model certainty, speed and intolerance of ambiguity, communication narrows. These signals are often subtle, but they are consistently noticed. Effective teamwork depends on shared understanding, not shared assumptions. That understanding is created, or undermined, through everyday leadership behaviour.

Communication failures are predictable, not personal

One of the most unhelpful responses to communication breakdowns is to treat them as individual shortcomings: someone failed to speak up, someone didn’t listen, someone misunderstood. In reality, communication failures follow predictable patterns. They emerge in environments where:

  • Time pressure is normalised.
  • Interfaces are complex.
  • Responsibility is diffuse.
  • Challenge is implicitly discouraged.

Recognising these patterns allows organisations to address behaviour, not blame.

Communication is the system that holds everything together

Strong systems rely on effective communication to function as intended. When communication behaviours are weak, even the best-designed systems begin to fail.

Leadership, teamwork and communication are not supporting competencies. They are foundational. They determine whether information moves, whether decisions improve and whether safety is actively prioritised rather than passively assumed.

The five behaviours that will define building safety

July 7, 2026

You are never explicitly asked to choose between right and wrong, you are asked to make decisions in grey areas where the ethical implications often only become clear later.

For many years, building safety has been discussed primarily through the lens of systems: roles and responsibilities, competence frameworks, gateways, documentation and assurance processes. These elements are essential. They provide structure, clarity and consistency in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. But they are not the whole story.

What is often left unspoken and sometimes assumed rather than addressed is behaviour. Not organisational culture as a broad or abstract concept and not training as a one-off intervention, but the everyday decisions, judgements and actions taken by individuals when responsibility genuinely rests with them.

The introduction of the Building Safety Act represents a subtle but important shift in emphasis beyond skills, knowledge and experience. Alongside clearer accountability and strengthened competence expectations sits a growing recognition that how people behave matters just as much as what systems exist.

BS8670-1:2024 Competence Frameworks for Building Safety introduced five foundational behavioural competencies that apply across all dutyholder roles, regardless of discipline, seniority or organisational size. These behaviours are not aspirational value statements and they are not ‘soft skills.’ They describe the human capabilities that determine whether safety systems are applied with integrity, whether information can be trusted and whether decisions are made in the best interests of safety, particularly when pressure, ambiguity or competing priorities are present.

Taken together, these five behaviours define what good building safety leadership looks like in practice.

From tick-box competence to behavioural competence

Traditional approaches to competence have focused heavily on qualifications, experience and technical knowledge. These remain vital. However, they only tell part of the story.

Two individuals with similar qualifications and experience can behave very differently when faced with uncertainty, challenge or risk. One may escalate concerns early, challenge assumptions and prioritise safety despite commercial pressure. Another may defer, rationalise or remain silent. The difference is not technical competence, it is behavioural competence.

Behavioural competence concerns how individuals think, decide, communicate and take responsibility when exercising their role. It influences whether systems are used properly, whether assurance is meaningful and whether learning genuinely occurs.

This is why behavioural competence cannot be assumed. It must be deliberately developed and critically evidenced.

Introducing the five foundational behavioural competencies

The five foundational behavioural competencies as outlined in BS8670-1:2024 Competence Frameworks for Building Safety apply to all dutyholders under the Building Safety Act. They describe the minimum behavioural expectations required to discharge responsibilities effectively and ethically.

While they are often listed individually, their true strength lies in how they operate together as a coherent whole. At a high level, the five behaviours can be described as:

1.     Acting ethically and prioritising safe outcomes

Demonstrating integrity, professional judgement and a clear commitment to safety over convenience, pressure or short-term gain.

2.     Demonstrating leadership, teamwork and effective communication

Creating clarity, encouraging challenge, sharing information appropriately and contributing to psychologically safe environments where concerns can be raised and addressed.

3.     Managing and contributing to competence

Recognising the limits of one’s own competence, supporting the development of others and ensuring that work is undertaken by those with the appropriate capability.

4.     Taking personal responsibility and accountability

Owning decisions and actions, understanding the impact they have on safety outcomes and avoiding the diffusion of responsibility.

5.     Exercising an appropriate duty of care

Considering the foreseeable consequences of decisions and actions, particularly in relation to those who may be affected but not directly involved.

These behaviours are intentionally broad. They are designed to apply across different roles and contexts, while still setting clear expectations about conduct and judgement.

Why these behaviours matter now

Although these behavioural competencies are currently most explicitly associated with the Building Safety Act, their relevance extends far beyond regulatory compliance.

The built environment is becoming more complex, more interconnected and more scrutinised. Decision-making often involves incomplete information, competing objectives and significant uncertainty. In such conditions, systems alone cannot guarantee safe outcomes. Behaviour fills the gap between intent and reality.

When behavioural competence is weak, organisations may appear compliant on paper while remaining vulnerable in practice. When it is strong, systems are used as intended, learning is continuous and accountability is real rather than symbolic.

This is why these behaviours are likely to become the baseline expectation for competent leadership across the sector. What is currently framed as building safety-specific will, over time, shape broader definitions of professional competence, assurance and trust.

The challenge: behaviour is rarely made explicit

Despite their importance, behavioural competencies are often poorly understood and inconsistently addressed.

In many organisations, behaviour is assumed to be a by-product of experience or seniority. In others, it is discussed in general terms but not translated into observable expectations or evidence. As a result, conversations about behaviour can feel subjective, uncomfortable or vague.

This creates two risks. First, organisations may believe behavioural competence is present without being able to demonstrate it.  Second, individuals may not receive the support or challenge needed to develop the behaviours their roles genuinely require. Neither outcome supports safe, sustainable performance.

What good attention looks like at this stage

At this point in the sector’s journey, the most important step is not to rush to diagnostics or solutions, it is to pay deliberate attention. For dutyholders and organisations, this means:

  • Taking time to understand what the five behaviours mean in practice for specific roles and decisions.
  • Creating space for honest reflection and conversation about behavioural expectations.
  • Recognising that behavioural competence develops through dialogue, feedback and lived experience, not policy statements alone.
  • Beginning to think about how behavioural expectations can be evidenced in a way that is proportionate, meaningful and credible.

This is not about perfection. It is about intent, clarity and consistency.

Looking ahead

The introduction of explicit behavioural competencies under the Building Safety Act signals an important evolution in how competence is understood and assessed. It shifts the focus from what people know to how they act when it matters most.

As the sector continues to mature, these five behaviours will increasingly shape how leadership is judged, how assurance is provided and how trust is built, both within organisations and with those they serve. Those who take behavioural competence seriously now will set the precedent for our industry in the years ahead.

Topics:
Book a Consultation