By Chris Bekker | Leadership | Atomli
I recently read an article questioning how the Dunning-Kruger effect has been interpreted and applied in learning and development. It prompted me to reflect on a question I have encountered repeatedly in my work in leadership development: how do we actually know whether someone can lead?
A manager may explain the principles of delegation with great clarity. They may understand why coaching matters and describe precisely how a difficult performance conversation should be conducted. Yet none of this tells us whether they can consistently demonstrate those behaviours in the workplace, under pressure, with real people and real consequences.
The reverse is also true. A manager who lacks confidence may possess considerable capability and still struggle to recognise or show it. Confidence and competence are related, but they are not the same thing, and neither is a reliable proxy for the other.
Three things we often confuse
For those of us involved in leadership development, this raises an important question. Are we developing knowledge, confidence or actual leadership capability? Ideally, all three. But we should not confuse them, because each is built differently and each needs to be assessed differently.
The research on self-assessment supports this caution. Kruger and Dunning (1999) reported that people with lower skill in a domain tended to overestimate their performance. That finding has been widely repeated, but it has also been challenged. Later analyses argue that a substantial part of the pattern can be explained by statistical artefacts and regression effects rather than by a distinctive psychological deficit in low performers (Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2020; Nuhfer et al., 2016). A systematic review of physician self-assessment found that the accuracy of self-ratings against observed measures of competence was generally poor, and not in one predictable direction (Davis et al., 2006). The practical lesson is not that people are blind to their own ability, but that self-report is a weak instrument on its own.
The classroom
Classroom learning provides common knowledge, introduces principles and creates opportunities for participants to share experiences. Practical exercises and role plays allow managers to experiment with new behaviours in a safe environment, and they create valuable opportunities for observation and feedback.
Sometimes participants discover that something they thought they understood is harder to apply than expected. That is not failure. It is learning, and it is often the first accurate piece of information a manager has received about the gap between understanding a behaviour and performing it.
Individual coaching
Coaching helps managers explore their strengths, challenges and development needs. It encourages reflection and greater self-awareness. Importantly, it helps individuals recognise the difference between what they believe they can do and what they consistently demonstrate.
This is also where confidence can be addressed on its own terms. Self-efficacy, the belief that one can successfully execute a behaviour, is shaped most strongly by mastery experiences (Bandura, 1977). A capable manager who doubts themselves benefits less from encouragement than from structured evidence of what they have already done well.
Workplace application
This is where leadership capability is ultimately tested. Can the manager delegate effectively? Can they handle a difficult conversation? Can they motivate, develop and hold people accountable? Can they adapt their approach to different individuals and situations? And can they do so consistently?
Consistency matters because expertise develops through sustained, deliberate practice with feedback, rather than through exposure to information alone (Ericsson et al., 1993). A single good conversation shows that a behaviour is possible. A pattern across months shows that it is capability.
A deliberate process
For me, leadership development should follow a deliberate sequence: learn, practise, apply, reflect and adjust. Feedback and coaching support every stage of that cycle, and the cycle repeats. It resembles experiential learning models in its emphasis on moving between concrete experience and reflection (Kolb, 1984), but the emphasis here is on observable change in the workplace rather than on completion of a programme.
Diagnose rather than label
We should also be cautious about using psychological models to label people. An individual who appears overconfident is not necessarily incompetent, and someone who expresses uncertainty is not necessarily lacking capability. Applying a well-known effect as a shortcut to judge a participant replaces diagnosis with assumption, and it risks missing the very person who most needs accurate feedback.
Perhaps we should spend less time asking participants, “How confident do you feel?” and more time exploring three other questions. What can you demonstrate? What feedback have you received? What are you doing differently?
Those questions move the conversation from self-perception to evidence. They are harder to answer, and they are far more useful.
The ultimate measure of leadership development is not how much someone knows, or even how confident they feel. It is the difference their behaviour makes in the workplace.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006). Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. JAMA, 296(9), 1094-1102.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2020). The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data. Intelligence, 80, 101449.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
Nuhfer, E., Fleisher, S., Cogan, C., Wirth, K., & Gaze, E. (2016). Random number simulations reveal how random noise affects the measurements and graphical portrayals of self-assessed competency. Numeracy, 9(1), Article 4.