The phrase still echoes in my mind: “Be Technically and Tactically Proficient.” At West Point, this wasn’t just a suggestion; it was a foundational mandate, drilled into every cadet from day one. What always struck me was its universality. Whether you were destined for the highly technical Field Artillery branch or the necessary Adjutant General Corps (Personnel) branch, this principle applied equally. Everyone had to be proficient in their craft.

In today’s professional landscape, especially in IT and product delivery, I’ve often heard colleagues say, “I’m not technical.” This principle kept surfacing as I observed the damaging effects of eroding technical standards taking root in my organization. I’ll admit that, in the past, I’ve judged thos who’ve said this in the past, but I realized it’s a flawed mindset that doesn’t do anyone any good.

My search for the exact origin of this principle led me to Dave Anderson’s blog post, “West Point’s Eleven Principles of Leadership – Rewritten”, which brilliantly breaks down the West Point principles. It confirmed for me that this concept, often ingrained via the “Bugle Notes” cadet manual, is the perfect lens through which to view professional competence today.

Let’s break down what West Point taught me and how it reshapes our understanding of “technical” in every professional role.

The West Point Mandate: Not Just for Engineers

The Army’s wisdom in making “Be Technically and Tactically Proficient” a universal principle is profound. It recognizes that every role, regardless of its perceived complexity, has its own “science” and “art.”

• Technical Proficiency is the “Science”: This is what you know. It’s the specialized body of knowledge, the methodologies, the tools, the standards, and the core facts of your specific domain. For an officer in Field Artillery, this includes complex ballistics, survey, and fire direction calculations. For an officer in the Adjutant General Corps, this includes the intricacies of personnel law, benefits, and force management doctrine.

• Tactical Proficiency is the “Art”: This is how you use what you know. It’s the judgment, the timing, the communication, the adaptability, and the ability to apply that technical knowledge effectively in a dynamic situation to achieve the mission. It’s the art of leadership, problem-solving, and execution under pressure.

West Point understood that even an officer in a support role needs to be technically proficient in their doctrine and systems. The idea that some roles are “technical” and others are “non-technical” simply doesn’t hold up under this rigorous standard.

Debunking the “Non-Technical” Myth in the Modern Workplace

When someone in an IT context says, “I’m not technical,” they’re often implying they don’t write code or manage servers. But this is a narrow, almost dismissive, definition of “technical.” Every role contributing to software delivery, for example, has a deeply technical core:

• The Project Manager (PM): Is a PM “non-technical”? Absolutely not. They must be technically proficient in the science of project management. This includes understanding PMBOK principles, Agile methodologies (Scrum, Kanban), risk management frameworks, resource allocation techniques, and the use of sophisticated project management software. Their “technical” domain is the structured execution of projects.

• The Business Analyst (BA): Is a BA “non-technical”? Again, no. BAs are technically proficient in the science of requirements elicitation, process modeling (UML, BPMN), data analysis, stakeholder analysis, and solution design as outlined in bodies of knowledge like the IIBA BABOK Guide. Their “technical” domain is bridging business needs with system capabilities.

• The UX Designer: Is a UX Designer “non-technical”? Of course not. They are technically proficient in user research methodologies, wireframing tools, prototyping software, accessibility standards, and cognitive psychology principles that inform user behavior. Their “technical” domain is creating intuitive and effective user experiences.

The common thread is that each of these roles demands a rigorous, specialized body of knowledge—a “science” that must be mastered. This is their technical proficiency.

The Cost of a Misunderstood Mandate

When individuals, or entire organizations, accept the premise that some roles are “non-technical,” it creates several problems:

1. Lowered Standards: It implicitly permits individuals in these roles to remain ignorant of the fundamental technical “science” of their domain, leading to poor decisions, missed details, and ultimately, project failure.

2. Lack of Credibility: A PM who can’t speak intelligently about the underlying technical challenges (even if they can’t code them) loses credibility with their engineering team. A BA who doesn’t understand system constraints will propose unfeasible solutions.

3. Unnecessary Divides: It fosters the “us vs. them” mentality between “business” and “tech” when, in reality, everyone is part of a single operational unit with interdependent technical specializations.

Reclaiming the Universal Standard

The wisdom from West Point applies directly to every modern workplace. Every professional role has a “science” that requires technical proficiency and an “art” that requires tactical proficiency.

The irony that an institution founded primarily to train engineers for the nation requires this key principle of competence from every graduate is not lost on me. It confirms that the principle is universal, not just specialized.

Instead of categorizing ourselves as “technical” or “non-technical,” let’s embrace the idea that we are all experts in different technical domains. A Project Manager is technically proficient in project methodology, just as a Software Engineer is technically proficient in coding languages. Both are essential, and both require continuous learning and application.

By internalizing “Be Technically and Tactically Proficient” for our specific crafts, we elevate our individual contributions, strengthen our teams, and ultimately achieve our missions more effectively.