Our Desk | The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Renato Marques

You may have already been introduced to this psychological theory “coincidently” established in 1999 by then-Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, for whom the theory is named.
If not, do not worry, as I will explain it. In short, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognize their own incompetence. Additionally, they not only fail to recognize their own incompetence, they usually also feel more competent than they actually are.

According to several studies, this is more common that one would expect. Although these people are masked and hard to spot in some situations, in others it is clear due to their attitude and behavior.

One of the characteristics of people exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect is that they respond poorly to constructive criticism. Instead of trying to understand the underlying issues, they often freak out when criticized or opposed, or flee the situation then immediately fight against the unwanted feedback.

When explaining the outcomes of studies which led to the development of the theory, Dunning said, “The irony of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that the knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task. If one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at that task.”

In their paper “Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments,” Dunning and Kruger led a team of psychology professionals across four studies which tested factors such as humor, grammar and logic. They found that all participants who scored in the bottom quartile grossly overestimated their test performance and ability.
Recently, Professor Dunning, who still studies the topic at the University of Michigan, said that although the prospect seems a little scary, all is not lost, as recent studies show that in many organizations, people are underperforming simply because they do not know that they could be doing better, or do not know what great performance looks like and lack examples.
This occurs for two reasons mostly. One is self-
defense: “You [would] rather be the best from your class/company/circle of friends, than average or mediocre among the best.” The second reason is that “they just really lack the knowledge and ability, and do not possess any relevant experience from which they can learn from.”
The good news, however, is that most of these people can be taught, and most are eventually able to see the difference between their previously poor performance and their newly improved performance.

But on the problem of education and training, how can we improve the performance of people under the Dunning-Kruger effect when they are the leaders, managers and trainers?
This question is addressed precisely in a different but co-related study, where employees were asked about feedback on their performance. Over a third responded that they “never” or “rarely” received any feedback on their work and performance. Perhaps before we blame people in general for their “poor performance”, “lack of interest” and “ignorance” on a certain topic, we should first look to the leadership skills of those who initiated it.

Renato Marques