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 premortem 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 future investigators of future failure, must necessarily relax any commitment to present positions, because the premise of the premortem is that the present position is 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 of the effect 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 the durability of the negotiated agreement is compromised.  Top    Next Issue

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:

The Trap of Beautiful Language

As we assess the validity of others' statements, we risk making a characteristically human error — we confuse the beauty of their language with the reliability of its meaning. We're easily thrown off by alliteration, anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus.

Motivated Reasoning and the Pseudocertainty Effect

When we have a preconceived notion of what conclusion a decision process should produce, we sometimes engage in "motivated reasoning" to ensure that we get the result we want. That's risky enough as it is. But when we do this in relation to a chain of decisions in the context of uncertainty, trouble looms.

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: II

Planning teams, like all teams, are susceptible to several patterns of interaction that can lead to counter-productive results. Three of these most relevant to planners are False Consensus, Groupthink, and Shared Information Bias.

Unrecognized Bullying: III

Much workplace bullying goes unrecognized because of cognitive biases that can cause targets, perpetrators, bystanders, and supervisors of perpetrators not to notice bullying. The Halo Effect and the Horn Effect are two of these biases.

Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 3: Contributions in Team Meetings: Advocating

An agenda in the form of an ordered list of topics might not provide an appropriate framework for a given meeting. For example, if A depends on B, and B depends on A, we must find a way to discuss A and B together in some orderly fashion. Here are some alternatives to linear, ordered agendas. Available here and by RSS on September 3.

And on September 10: Contributions in Team Meetings: Scoping

Some meetings focus on solving specific problems. We call them "working sessions." More often, we delegate problem solving to task teams, while meetings wrestle with the difficult task of identifying or "scoping" problems rather than solving them. Scoping discussions can be perilous. Available here and by RSS on September 10.

Coaching services

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