In this culture, and others, we value confidence in leaders, mechanics, doctors, generals, and even strangers we've asked for directions. But in all these cases, and more, we're actually seeking expertise, knowledge, and capability — in short, competence.
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin (left) with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan in discussion before meeting with the House Banking Committee on 20 May 1999, just six months before the work of Kruger and Dunning appeared. They were then both at the height of their power, which both used liberally to resist calls for regulation of new and growing sectors of the financial markets — the very sectors that contributed so much to the financial crisis at the end of 2008. Both men were studies in confidence, and that confidence played a role in persuading officials and the population at large that the U.S. economy was healthy and on course. Yet, on 23 October 2008, under questioning by Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, former Chairman Greenspan testified, with regard to his "conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality," that, "…I found a flaw, I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I have been very distressed by that fact." He went on, "I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works…I was shocked." One model of what might have happened to him is that he had discovered the limits of his competence. The fourth factor observed by Dunning and Kruger states that, "Incompetent individuals can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this comes (paradoxically) by gaining competence." If this model applies, one might conclude that by October, 2008, Mr. Greenspan was somewhat more competent than he had been in 1999. Read Mr. Greenspan's complete testimony and view other documents related to the hearing. Photo courtesy U.S. Department of the Treasury.
We usually assume that confidence comes from competence. We apply this assumption personally when we seek health care, investment advice, or other services. But we also apply it at work — when we make hiring decisions, when we evaluate the assertions of superiors and subordinates, and when we get advice from consultants.
Trouble is, the assumption is wrong.
We know this because of the pioneering work of Justin Kruger and David Dunning, who, working at Cornell in 1999, discovered a phenomenon now called the Dunning-Kruger effect. [Kruger 1999] They performed experiments that yielded results consistent with these four principles (paraphrasing):
- Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, dramatically overestimate their ability and performance.
- Incompetent individuals are less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it.
- Incompetent individuals are less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance.
- Incompetent individuals can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this comes (paradoxically) by gaining competence.
Taken together, these four factors contribute to an inverse correlation between confidence and competence — exactly the opposite of what most of us assume.
If we can't rely on confidence as an indicator of competence, on what can we rely? In assessing competence, when we do consider factors beyond confidence, we tend to focus on domain-specific content. That helps, but it's not enough. Here are four generic indicators of competence for application in the workplace.
- Awareness of limitations
- The truly competent understand that their competence is limited — that there are things they can't do or don't know. This knowledge drives a continued desire to learn.
- Desire to learn
- Curiosity, practice, questioning, and continued study are signs of a drive to enhance competence. It is this drive that established the existing level of competence. Where this drive is weak, competence is questionable.
- Constructive response to failure
- Responding to Incompetent individuals, compared
with their more competent peers,
dramatically overestimate their
ability and performancefailure in constructive ways is another important way to build competence. This ability is probably essential to building competence. - Ability to assess risk realistically
- Realistic risk assessment requires a reservoir of experience — competence — in the relevant domains. Incompetence leads to mis-assessment of risk. The fearful and incompetent tend to overestimate risks; the brash and incompetent tend to underestimate them. Competence tempers both.
I'm not 100% sure that these indicators are necessary and sufficient — probably not. But they've come to me through a lifetime of experience. If you have others you rely on, send them to me and I'll consider adding them to my list. 
Top 
Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
For more about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, see "How to Reject Expert Opinion: II," Point Lookout for January 4, 2012; "Devious Political Tactics: More from the Field Manual," Point Lookout for August 29, 2012; "Overconfidence at Work," Point Lookout for April 15, 2015; "Wishful Thinking and Perception: II," Point Lookout for November 4, 2015; "Wishful Significance: II," Point Lookout for December 23, 2015; "Cognitive Biases and Influence: I," Point Lookout for July 6, 2016; "The Paradox of Carefully Chosen Words," Point Lookout for November 16, 2016; and "Risk Acceptance: One Path," Point Lookout for March 3, 2021.
Footnotes
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
When Your Boss Attacks Your Self-Esteem- Your boss's comments about your work can make your day — or break it. When you experience a comment
as negative or hurtful, you might become angry, defensive, withdrawn, or even shut down. When that happens,
you're not at your best. What can you do if your boss seems intent on making every day a misery?
Working Journals- Keeping a journal about your work can change how you work. You can record why you did what you did,
and why you didn't do what you didn't. You can record what you saw and what you only thought you saw.
And when you read the older entries, you can see patterns you might never have noticed any other way.
Some Limits of Root Cause Analysis- Root Cause Analysis uses powerful tools for finding the sources of process problems. The approach has
been so successful that it has become a way of thinking about organizational patterns. Yet, resolving
organizational problems this way sometimes works — and sometimes fails. Why?
Disjoint Awareness- In collaborations, awareness of how our own work might interfere with the work of others is essential.
Unless our awareness of others' work — and their awareness of ours — matches reality, the
collaboration's objective is at risk.
Disjoint Awareness: Systematics- Organizations use some policies and processes that can cause people in collaborations to have inaccurate
understandings of what each other is doing. Performance management, politics, and resource allocation
processes can all contribute to disjoint awareness.
See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness, Critical Thinking at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming October 5: Downscoping Under Pressure: I- When projects overrun their budgets and/or schedules, we sometimes "downscope" to save time and money. The tactic can succeed — and fail. Three common anti-patterns involve politics, the sunk cost effect, and cognitive biases that distort estimates. Available here and by RSS on October 5.
And on October 12: Downscoping Under Pressure: II- We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope. Available here and by RSS on October 12.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers
resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing
technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your
organization!
Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we
love the work but not the job.Learn how to make your virtual global team sing.Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or
maybe even outright revolt?Learn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.