Working with the Overconfident

The Overconfidence Effect is a cognitive bias that causes us to have confidence in the validity of our judgments at a level beyond what their accuracy could reliably support. The effect is evident in three ways: (1) We tend to overestimate our own performance; (2) We tend to assess our own performance as higher than it actually is relative to others; and (3) We tend to be overly precise when we assess the certainty or accuracy of our own beliefs. [Moore & Healy 2008] [Brenner 2015.4] The effect is more pronounced when confidence is high.

When organizational decision-makers make their decisions, they rely on advice from subordinates and professional advisors, all of whom are susceptible to the Overconfidence Effect. If decision-makers fail to account for the Overconfidence Effect, they're at risk of making decisions that produce disappointing results. Many have therefore adopted strategies that are intended to mitigate the effect.

Experiential mitigation of the Overconfidence Effect

Training those who supply judgments and recommendations is one popular mitigation method. Educating advisors and advisees about the effect does help. But as Russo and Shoemaker note, "experience reduces overconfidence." [Russo & Schoemaker 1992] Training is good. Experiential training is better. Experiential experience is best. Actual experience has the added advantage that it's based on incidents that are relevant to the work at hand.

Here are three tactics that can improve the way we deal with the Overconfidence Effect.

Curmudgeon teams

When you're considering a proposal, appoint several people to team up to oppose the idea. Make it their job to ask the difficult questions and to pose the difficult what-ifs. This approach invigorates the debate, and it's a lot of fun, especially in costume. To avoid any long-lasting effect on individuals who role-play curmudgeons, rotate this job on a monthly basis. See "Guidelines for Curmudgeon Teams," Point Lookout for January 16, 2019, for more.

The Switch-Side Debate

In debates at work, either in the context of meetings, teleconferences, or any written communication context, people tend to attach themselves to one viewpoint or another. The Overconfidence Effect can then cause them to be even more tightly attached to that viewpoint. After people have settled on their viewpoints, ask everyone to switch to another. In a binary debate, for example, if they were in favor, they must now be opposed. By requiring everyone to then defend a position they have previously rejected, we create an environment that causes all participants to confront their own views. [McGinnis 2014]

Everyone must then open their minds to the possibility that their original viewpoint, which they regarded as correct, might now be questioned. If their confidence in their position was unjustified, they then find themselves in a context in which it's safe to question their original viewpoint. This process tempers overconfidence.

Premortems

Premortems are simulated retrospective examinations of future events, conducted as if those future events had already occurred — and failed. The name is a play on the term postmortem, which is one of the names of the practice otherwise known as retrospective or after-action review. [Kerth 2001] By combining the benefits of psychological safety with a shift in temporal perspective, premortems offer advantages for anyone intent on tempering overconfidence. Participants in premortems, who are playing roles of investigators of failure, must necessarily relax any commitment to current positions, because the premise of the premortems is that the current position was flawed. See "Premortems," Point Lookout for March 23, 2022, for more.

Last words

Although popular topics related to the overconfidence effect tend to emphasize mitigation, exploitation can be of greater importance. For example a negotiator who is skilled at creating overconfidence in his or her counterparts could influence the negotiation against the interests of the counterparts to such an extent that it damages the durability of the negotiated agreement.  Top  

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

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 Cognitive Biases at Work:

Effects of Shared Information Bias: II

Shared information bias is widely recognized as a cause of bad decisions. But over time, it can also erode a group's ability to assess reality accurately. That can lead to a widening gap between reality and the group's perceptions of reality.

The Rhyme-as-Reason Effect

When we speak or write, the phrases we use have both form and meaning. Although we usually think of form and meaning as distinct, humans tend to assess as more meaningful and valid those phrases that are more beautifully formed. The rhyme-as-reason effect causes us to confuse the validity of a phrase with its aesthetics.

On Standing Aside

Occasionally we're asked to participate in deliberations about issues relating to our work responsibilities. Usually we respond in good faith. And sometimes we — or those around us — can't be certain that we're responding in good faith. In those situations, we must stand aside.

Motivated Reasoning

When we prefer a certain outcome of a decision process, we risk falling into a pattern of motivated reasoning. That can cause us to gather data and construct arguments that erroneously lead to the outcome we prefer, often outside our awareness. And it can happen even when the outcome we prefer is known to threaten our safety and security.

Illusory Management: I

Many believe that managers control organizational performance, but a puzzle emerges when we consider the phenomena managers clearly cannot control. Why do we believe in Management control when the phenomena Management cannot control are so many and powerful?

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers: Mechanics

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don?t grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold Project Sponsors or other Senior Managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here?s a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

And on May 28: Mismanaging Project Managers: Leadership

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't hold Project Sponsors or other Senior Managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with the project manager's ability to lead the project team. Available here and by RSS on May 28.

Coaching services

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