Cedric Chin Profile picture
Jul 21, 2021 34 tweets 11 min read Read on X
1/ I recently finished digging into a body of work around extracted tacit mental models of business expertise, and it is wild.

It turns out that business experts all share a common mental model of business, and you can do all sorts of interesting things if you have that model.
2/ Lia DiBello writes, of her work:

“… we noticed that highly talented business performers are very similar to each other. (…) business is an orderly closed system of relations between principles, and so-called intuitive experts in business have an implicit grasp of this.” Image
3/ That's an excerpt from her chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Expertise, a chonky book that I shouldn't have any right in owning.

The excerpt was so compelling I dove into Lia DiBello's entire publication history. Image
4/ What I found: DiBello has spent her entire career extracting tacit mental models of expertise from business experts.

To my surprise, she hasn't published as much, but that's mostly because she has spent the bulk of the past 20 years consulting for companies. Image
5/ So what is that model? Glad you asked.

The basic idea is this:

Business expertise consists of two main things — domain-specific mental models, and a property called cognitive agility.

The domain-specific mental models map to a core shared model of business expertise.
6/ That core shared mental model is basically a triad. For convenience we'll name it first, before diving in:

a) Supply
b) Demand
c) Capital

This is taken from her 2010 chapter in Informed by Knowledge (snippet below): Image
7/ It's important to understand that this triad is extremely general in nature. How it is expressed is radically different, depending on the industry.

So, for supply — factors involved in effective ops looks different in a yoghurt company vs a mining company vs a SaaS.
8/ The key marker of skill is in the ability of the businessperson to intuitively understand how changes in one leg of the triad affects the other two legs.

This also explains how a good businessperson is able to recognise another good businessperson: Image
9/ So for instance, if there's a change in the capital environment, how does that affect competition? (The market — the demand leg of the triad).

And what changes must the company make? (This is supply).
10/ DiBello also uses the names leadership/strategy/finance. To map it to our previous terms:

Supply — Leadership (factors that affect operations)
Demand — Strategy (factors that affect the market)
Capital — Finance (factors that affect business finance or access to capital)
11/ How does this intuitive understanding of the triad express itself? DiBello's insight is that it allows the businessperson the ability to a) notice cues that novices do not, and b) predict changes as a result of those cues in each leg of the triad.

This was a profound insight
12/ It meant, for instance, that business expertise MAY BE EVALUATED. And that it may be trained.

Before we talk about the evaluation technique she invented, we need to talk about the second component of business expertise: cognitive agility.
13/ Cognitive agility is defined as the ability of an exec to update his or her mental models in response to changing situations. Image
14/ Cognitive rigidity is the opposite: where the person is impervious to new data, and is 'dominated by a rigid framework or paradigm that acts to filter out new, possibly relevant, information, creating blind spots. Image
15/ This explains a LOT. I've written about how I am uncomfortable with frameworks in the past, because I've often been put in situations in business where no framework could fully explain the effects I saw around me. I've grappled with this topic a lot: commoncog.com/blog/reality-w…
16/ In fact, I've also observed that the WORST people to hire in a startup environment are those with high 'cognitive rigidity'. I even wrote an entire blog post attempting to pin down that property: commoncog.com/blog/dismissiv…
17/ DiBello got there more than a decade before I did. I was delighted to learn that other businesspeople have noticed: Image
18/ The key point that DiBello makes re: cognitive agility is that it is by far the more important skill when it comes to business. More important than general problem solving ability.

And she developed a way to evaluate it, too.
19/ I'm skipping over a lot of methodological detail to justify the assessment, which you can read in the actual paper:

One last thing before we talk about the assessment. Expertise in a given company is by nature a form of distributed cognition.wtri.com/wp-content/upl…
20/ The implication is that the entire exec team has to be evaluated together, because deficiencies in some legs of the triad may be shored up if some members have it and others don't. The best business experts have all 3, of course.

But a team can collectively have all 3 too.
21/ DiBello's core innovation is something called a Profiler. It takes a similar company in the same industry, extracts public information about said company, and then presents it to execs.

The execs are asked to predict performance of that company, given cues in the data. Image
22/ The questions ask users to evaluate that company with respect to its (you guessed it!) strategy, leadership, and finances.

These questions are predictive of expertise because they map closely to real world decision-making these execs have to make. Image
23/ Then, the users are presented with the next year of results, and they are given feedback on their predictions.

This is how DiBello is able to evaluate cognitive agility.
Image
Image
24/ The end result is that DiBello and team can generate a heatmap of exec team blindspots, and use that to guide their interventions/training.

Here's a picture of an actual Profiler heatmap of an exec team: Image
25/ Some of these intervention stories are wild. For instance, DiBello and team was called to do an assessment for a financial services company in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. The exec team disagreed with the CEO and wanted to oust him. (Oxford Handbook):
Image
Image
26/ But only the CEO showed high predictive accuracy for financial risk in the Profiler. With the results of the cognitive assessment, DiBello and team convinced the board of the firm not to fire the CEO.

Like I said, wild.
Image
Image
27/ DiBello believes that business expertise relies not on superior analysis, but is instead on better organisation of knowledge, which allows the expert to perceive better, and therefore make better decisions. Image
28/ As a result, her training methods focus on 'cognitive reorganisation' — she doesn't really aim to teach new mental models, but instead attempts to reorganise what existing domain-specific models they already have, perhaps by establishing the triad organisation in their heads.
29/ Ok, this is the high-level thread. I've written about this body of work (and linked to all the relevant papers) in this week's Commonplace members-only post: commoncog.com/blog/tacit-men…
30/ This happens to be Part 7 of my series on tacit knowledge, but also the first part of a new series on tacit business expertise. DiBello's work is fascinating enough that there are still a few elements I have yet to explore.

commoncog.com/blog/the-tacit…
31/ For instance, how can we use this if we are business practitioners? My instinct is to use the core expertise model as a syllabus for learning.

Knowing that shape of business expertise looks like a triad of relationships is VERY useful to know.
32/ But the truth is that I'll have to test all of that. And I haven't even gotten into the meat of DiBello's training work.

(Again, if you're not aware, she contributed to Accelerated Expertise, a book prepared for the DoD on accelerating trial and error cycles).
33/ Follow if you'd like more tweets on business or career decision making. I have one on 7 Powers in action that I particularly like:
34/ Or subscribe to my newsletter, if you'd like notifications on new pieces:

The end!commoncog.com/blog/subscribe…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Cedric Chin

Cedric Chin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ejames_c

Aug 20, 2025
I want to call out an example of some remarkable thinking that I've had the privilege of observing up close.

About 2 years ago, @vaughn_tan started a project to come up with better thinking around 'uncertainty'. This MIGHT be important to business! MIGHT! But I was unconvinced.
Vaughn had noticed that our collective ability to deal with uncertainty was compromised by bad language. Because we do not have good language for uncertainty, we are forced to borrow words and concepts from risk management.

But this is bad: risk is VERY diff from uncertainty!
I was in good company in my scepticism, though. Vaughn's friend, the notable VC Jerry Neumann, told him that he was sceptical Vaughn's project would be very useful.

Neumann argued that it wasn't important to know what types of uncertainty exist — merely how to use it. Image
Read 14 tweets
Aug 3, 2025
I once had an intern do an internship with me because she wanted to see how I approached 'startup things'. At the end of the summer, she was surprised that I didn't have a set of hypotheses to test.

"Doesn't this go against the data-driven approach you talked about?" she asked.
I didn't have the language for it then, but I think I do now.

When an initiative / product / project is too new, there is too much uncertainty to form useful hypotheses.

Instead, what you want to do is to just "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks."
This sounds woefully inefficient, but it's not, not really. A slightly more palatable frame for this is "take action to generate information."

But what kind of information?

Actually I was looking for answers to the following four questions:
Read 15 tweets
Jul 29, 2025
A gentle reminder that if you want to speed up expertise intuition, you will do a lot better if you have an actual mental model of what expert intuition *is*.

The most useful model is the one below:

It gives you more handles on how to improve. Image
The name of the model is the 'recognition primed decision making' model, or RPD.

The basic idea is simple: when an expert looks at a situation, they generate four things automatically:

1. Cues
2. Expectancies
3. Possible goals
4. An action script.

You can target each.
For instance, if you're a software engineer and you want to get better from the tacit knowledge of the senior programmers around you, ask:

- What cues did you notice?
- What were your expectancies?
- What was your action script?

Details: commoncog.com/tacit-expertis…
Read 8 tweets
Jul 13, 2025
Here’s what I wish someone had told me before I ran a JTBD interview process for the first time.

Let’s back up: you’ve probably heard of the Jobs to be Done Framework.

Typically: “customers buy for a ‘JTBD’.”

But the framework excels at learning HOW your customers buy.
This is a HUGE win.

If you can find out how, exactly, your customers buy you:

- You can design your product for that journey.
- You can meet your customers where they are.
- You know what progress they’re trying to make!

Alas: the way to get there is tricky.
I think most folks don’t realise the JTBD framework comes with its own interview process. (I certainly didn’t!)

But a) it’s really powerful.

b) the bad news is that it takes a lot of skill to execute.

(You’d think they would advertise that disclaimer, but, alas).
Read 11 tweets
Jul 5, 2025
A gentle reminder that we've already had one 'general purpose technology that increased productivity across the board' — the PC.

And in that revolution, higher productivity/speed DIDN'T result in company wins.
It's a common narrative: "use new technology X and you will win / don't get left behind." Was widespread during that era.

The NYT was plastered with ads selling Wordperfect / Lotus 123 (and later Word and Excel) courses. From @stevesi's memoirs: Image
Also: I remember doing the research for the Commoncog case on Microsoft Office. We went back to the NYT issue when Office 95 was launched.

I'm not kidding about the newspaper being PLASTERED with 'learn Excel/Word' ads. Those course creators were making bank!
Read 10 tweets
May 4, 2025
I’m starting to believe that @justinskycak has … reading comprehension issues.

It’s a little funny to read a critique of your articles and then realise that the critique seems to be criticising something else?
justinmath.com/critique-of-pa…

The argument I make is:

1. DP is a sleight of hand research paradigm, and only claims to be the best way to get to expertise in fields with a good history of pedagogical development. (See: The Cambridge Handbook, where they point out that pop stars and jazz musicians become world class but not through DP)

2. Most of us are not in such domains.

3. Therefore we cannot use DP, and tacit knowledge elicitation methods are more appropriate.

The counter argument @justinskycak needs to make is simple: math is a domain with a long history of pedagogical development, therefore DP dominates.
Now let’s look at his critique of my critique of deliberate practice: justinmath.com/critique-of-pa…

Justin says that “talent is overrated” is not part of the DP argument.

I’m not sure what he’s read from Ericsson that makes him think that.

Hambrick et al document the MANY instances where Ericsson makes the claim “DP is the gold standard and therefore anyone can use DP to get good, practice dominates talent.”

Ericsson spends the entire introduction of Peak arguing this. When Ericsson passed, David Epstein wrote a beautiful eulogy but referenced his being a lifelong proponent of the ‘talent is overrated’ camp, which frustrated him and other expertise researchers to no end.

davidepstein.com/father-of-the-…

Now you may say that DP has nothing to say on talent, but then you have to grapple with the man making the argument in DECADES of publications — both academic and popular! If the man who INVENTED the theory sees the theory as a WAY TO ADVANCE his views on talent, then … I don’t know, maybe one should take the man at his word?

“Oh, but his views have NOTHING to do with the actual theory of DP” My man, if you’re talking to anyone who has ACTUALLY read DP work, you need to address this, because they’re going to stumble into it. Like, I don’t know, in the INTRODUCTION CHAPTER OF THE POPSCI BOOK ON DP.

Anyway, strike two for reading comprehension problems. But it gets worse …
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(