Happy last day of February 2026! Just like that we are two months down into the new year, ten more to go, uh! What usually happens to babies born on 29th February (leap years), do they celebrate every four years? That’s a rhetorical question – no answer required.
In my professional journey, I have come across people for whom the first question in your interaction is ‘are you technical’? Or sometimes you hear conversations that ‘so and so is not technical’. I normally ask myself, what exactly do we mean by somebody is technical or not? Can’t we let their skills or work speak for itself? Not too long ago somebody asked me the same question at an industry event, and I went on to reply by asking them to explain which technical skill (s) they were referring to. It was a fumble to get their answer. And this got me thinking how we get it all wrong if we peg technicality on basis of education background and not necessarily the actual expertise or hands-on experience that somebody brings to the room. End of day, nobody pays for papers only if we can’t apply what was learnt, right?
I am always of the opinion that if you are a professional, then you are technically knowledgeable or experienced in a certain field of practise. The degree of specialization or level of experience is what differs from one professional to another. The latter is often shaped by your prior context or subject area of work. You have either for example worked in the financial services sector as a risk or investment analyst, or you have not. You have either worked as a rig engineer in the oil and gas sector or you have not. You have either worked in the legal profession as corporate transactions advisor, property lawyer, criminal lawyer or you have not. You have either worked in the engineering field as a production engineer, machines installation and maintenance engineer, systems controller or you have not. The kind of conversation you bring to a table having worked in a certain space versus having only read widely about it are two different things – one is working knowledge; the other is mostly literature knowledge. To me, all these define the extent of technicality. However, they should not be confused with technicians with ability to fix hardware or craft material things with own hands which I will speak to later as I think those constitute a definite technicality regardless of the field – you either can or cannot fix a car engine for example.
While you may be considered as technical in one sector, you are non-technical in another where you have never practised, nor has the relevant knowledge and skills applied there, hence the term layman. This explains why from a communications perspective, it is recommended to address the public in a non-technical language, which means avoiding terminology only or mostly known/used by practitioners in a specific field of practise, thereby leaving a general audience struggling to understand what is being said. There is always insistence on using terms found in everyday conversations for easy digestion of the public information. It would be a different thing altogether if the same conversation is taken to an industry audience – the assumption being that the professionals in that space have a good understanding of the terminology or technical lingo which applies there. If you don’t belong in that space, you may end up lost and questioning your intellectual abilities – this doesn’t mean you are not good as a professional – you are simply in the wrong room based on your skillset. It is no wonder that each sector organizes its own professional networks, industry events and engagement bodies. However, and for the sake of public communication, they then try to find a common way to explain information is relevant to a general audience.
Technical – is there a common understanding?
There is a common understanding of the term technical, or so I believe. It often relates to technicians who in practise are people who have the hands-on skills and ability to fix equipment, machines or hand-crafted materials. Except for licensing and accreditation purposes, such people may never even step into an academic room to acquire requisite skills. Instead, they horn these technical skills by working under a more experienced technician in that field through apprenticeship learning by doing. For example, we have technicians in medical and research laboratories, construction sites, communication equipment, automotive industry, aviation or marine vessels, agriculture, shoe, clothes and textiles industry.
I therefore find it rather unconstructive to have conversations that start with– or even judge people’s mastery of a topic based on ‘technical or non-technical’ by virtue of their academic origins. Unless referring to hands-on skills acquired through TVET or technical training programs, in all other scenarios you are probably just more professionally suited to a certain field and therefore can better speak about it or solve everyday problems in it because you have a good understand of how things work there.
The correct question to ask when approaching professionals should be ‘what is your line of expertise’ rather than ‘are you technical?’ The fact you have a certain academic background doesn’t automatically qualify you to be ‘technical’ in that field unless you have practised in it, gained working knowledge, experience and skills and therefore knows what works or not out of practise and not textbook understanding. Textbook understanding provides a good foundation for building up– but should not be the correct technicality yardstick to apply. Experience and practical skills at doing something is and should always be the real yardstick.
This explains why for example, a self-made software engineer who never stepped into any classroom, but is extremely good at developing applications required by top Silicon Valley tech firms will likely get sought after at a higher pay, than a PhD holder who has never really created a real life software used by big companies, or had to bug and fix multi-dollar systems to enhance cyber security, interoperability and redundancy.
The extent to which somebody is skilled is often out of applied knowledge or level of experience working in a specific domain. The combination of both then enables one to be considered an expert in that line or not. We should therefore stop undervaluing ourselves or other professionals by throwing around the term non-technical, instead speak to where their expertise is suited.
Until the next post, happy moments identifying and growing your expertise so you can better articulate your technicality!