Capability Inversions and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

When a less-competent leader of an organization — a group, department, division, or enterprise — must deal with more-competent subordinates, the people involved can descend into a toxic, anger-inducing maelstrom of frustration, paranoia, failure, revenge, and chaos that can threaten the viability of their organization. The Dunning-Kruger effect can play a role, advancing the arrival of unfortunate outcomes.

Some capability inversions escape these disasters. These are the inversions that are in the "open" — inversions that everyone involved acknowledges. I discussed open capability inversions last time, and noted that they usually develop into a leader-and-advisers configuration that works well. The problematic inversions are what I called concealed capability inversions, in which the less-competent leaders (LCLs) try to deny and disguise the inversion, while their more-competent subordinates (MCSs) labor onward trying to complete the organizational mission in spite of the wrong-headed decisions and behavior of the LCL. These concealed capability inversions are the category that are most susceptible to the consequences of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

How the Dunning-Kruger effect manifests itself

Four of the principal findings of Dunning and Kruger [Kruger 1999] are:

• The less competent overestimate their own competence
• The more competent tend to underestimate their own relative competence, as a result of a false consensus effect
• The less competent don't recognize the superior competence of the more competent
• The more competent tend to estimate accurately the incompetence of the less competent

Applying the findings of Dunning and Kruger to concealed capability inversions we can expect that:

• LCLs tend to believe that they are more competent than they actually are
• MCSs tend to believe that they are relatively less competent than they actually are
• LCLs don't fully appreciate how much more competent MCSs are
• MCSs accurately assess the incompetence of their LCLs.

The result of all this is that LCLs don't fully appreciate the gap between their own incompetence and the competence of their MCSs. They probably recognize that there is a gap, but they probably believe that the gap is significantly smaller than it actually is, if not reversed in polarity. MCSs also perceive that there is a competence gap, but they estimate that the gap is just slightly smaller than it actually is.

The dynamics of concealed capability inversions

A concealed Less competent leaders don't
fully appreciate the gap
between their own incompetence
and the competence of their
more competent subordinatescapability inversion isn't invisible. Indeed, concealed might be the wrong word. Denied might be more fitting. For these inversions, we might expect the LCL to deny that the inversion exists, despite feelings of looming insurrection brewing among the MCSs. And the MCSs probably know perfectly well what's going on, though they might have reached an agreement not to speak of the LCL's incompetence openly. An elephant-in-the-room sort of thing can develop.

MCSs then likely endure lives of frustration. Their LCLs blunder through the days making wreckage of the good work of MCSs and rejecting their recommendations. Some MCSs try to respond by devising tactful critiques of their LCL's positions, or they try to intervene to protect their work or the enterprise. Their success in these endeavors is limited.

To many LCLs, criticism by MCSs is unfounded, and worse, the MCSs seem to the LCLs to be unqualified critics, because the LCLs cannot recognize the competence of the MCSs. LCLs are likely to experience MCSs' critiques and interventions as insubordination or even personal attacks. Some LCLs then construct a variety of explanations for interventionist behavior by MCSs. Intervening MCSs are:

• Disloyal, traitorous
• Not team players
• Disgruntled, vengeful, bitter
• Overstepping their bounds, unaware of their proper places
• Greedy or ambitious

If these characterizations, delivered publicly, don't serve to quiet the insurrection, some LCLs then terminate some or all intervening MCSs, hoping to deter any further interventions. Terminations usually deter interventions in the short run, but as LCL incompetence continues unabated, further "insubordination" by MCSs is inevitable.

The leader's intensifying obsession with security

Safety and security are the second level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. [Maslow 1943] According to this model, the lowest-level unmet need in the hierarchy captures our attention, preventing us from attending to the higher-level needs. In the context of a concealed capability inversion, LCLs might feel insecure about their tenure in their position, or they might fear that the capability inversion might be discovered. LCLs in this frame of mind might tend to focus on remedying that insecurity. They are less able to attend to the next level of needs, loving and belongingness. These LCLs have limited energy for true friendship, trust, and acceptance, which are the foundations of high performance organizations.

The LCLs' focus on safety and security helps them allocate personal and emotional resources to consolidating their political positions in the organization. In some cases they also commandeer organizational resources in service of their own agenda of preserving their tenure. And some LCLs might adopt the tactics of bullies to create a "crew" that helps them enforce loyalty to the LCL.

In this way the capability inversion, the LCL's desire to conceal the inversion, and the Dunning-Kruger effect tend to create all that is needed for a toxic work environment that prevents the organization from achieving its goals. First in this series  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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 Workplace Politics:

Extrasensory Deception: II

In negotiating agreements, the partners who do the drafting have an ethical obligation not to exploit the advantages of the drafting role. Some drafters don't meet that standard.

Some Hidden Costs of Business Fads

Adopting business fads is an expensive organizational pattern, with costs that extend beyond what can be measured by the chart of accounts most organizations use. Here are some examples of the hidden costs of business fads.

I Don't Understand: II

Unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous statements are problematic, in part, because we need to seek clarification. How can we do that without seeming to be hostile, threatening, or disrespectful?

Off-Putting and Conversational Narcissism at Work: II

Having off-putting interactions is one of four themes of conversational narcissism. Here are five behavioral patterns that relate to off-putting interactions and how abusers employ them to distract conversation participants from the matter at hand.

Responses to Outrageous Demands

From time to time, we might encounter a powerful person making outrageous demands, possibly accompanied by threats if we don't comply. At first, the choice seems to be between acceding to their demands or flat out refusing. There are other possibilities.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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