top of page

Countering Poor Self-Awareness: Strategies for Leaders to Mitigate the Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. This often occurs in conjunction with an inability to recognize their lack of skill. While this phenomenon was first studied in relation to intelligence testing and metacognition, researchers have since found its implications extend to various domains, including leadership. When left unaddressed, the Dunning-Kruger effect can negatively impact organizational performance as overconfident, unskilled leaders make foolish decisions and fail to recognize growth opportunities.

Today we will explore the Dunning-Kruger effect as it relates to organizational leadership and provides actionable strategies that leaders can use to counter its impact.

Understanding the Dunning-Kruger Effect in Leadership

Cognitive Mechanisms that Drive Overconfidence

At its core, the Dunning-Kruger effect stems from deficits in metacognition—the ability to accurately assess one's own knowledge and cognitive abilities. Specifically, those with low ability suffer from a "dual burden" that magnifies overestimation (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make poor choices, but their incompetence also deprives them of the skills needed to recognize such errors. Without awareness of what they don't know, incompetent individuals apply flawed logic and remain ignorant of the true standards against which their work should be judged.

In leadership roles, this manifests as an inability to identify one's weaknesses, shortcomings or areas still needing development. Overconfident leaders overrate their skills and operate under the mistaken belief they have little left to learn. This renders them closed off to feedback and resistant to remedying deficits, even as problems and poor results accumulate. Their misplaced sense of competence blinds them to the gaps seriously undermining their effectiveness.

Biases that Inflate Self-Evaluations

Beyond metacognitive deficits, certain cognitive biases also contribute to inflated self-perceptions among incompetent leaders:

  • Self-serving bias: Taking excessive credit for successes while blaming failures on external factors out of their control.

  • _ Above-average effect_: Viewing oneself as superior to most peers due to natural tendency to highlight strengths and downplay weaknesses in self-evaluations.

  • Confirmation bias: Seeking out and weighting information that validates preexisting beliefs about one's abilities while disregarding disconfirming feedback.

The combined influence of these biases reinforces erroneous perceptions of competence, making incompetent leaders especially resistant to evidence challenging positively skewed self-views. To counter the Dunning-Kruger effect, such biases must be openly acknowledged and their distorting effects mitigated through structured efforts to cultivate self-awareness.

Developing Self-Awareness to Counter Overconfidence

Given the deeply entrenched cognitive factors that drive the Dunning-Kruger effect, developing an accurate sense of one's leadership abilities requires a multipronged strategy addressing both skills and biases:

Obtaining Accurate, Objective Feedback

  • Request regular formal evaluations from direct reports, peers and senior leaders surveying effectiveness across key responsibilities.

  • Institute 360-degree reviews gathering anonymous feedback to curb leniency bias in self-ratings.

  • Conduct quantitative studies measuring outcomes associated with leadership (e.g. profit/loss, attrition rates) to gauge actual impact beyond perceptions.

Reflective Practices for Insight into Blind Spots

  • Maintain a leadership journal cataloging decisions/actions and their consequences to uncover patterns of success/failure over time.

  • Write self-evaluations prior to receiving feedback to expose unrecognized limitations.

  • Audit assumptions and reasoning behind choices to recognize flawed logic and erroneous beliefs about abilities.

Development Planning to Address Weak Areas

  • Create specific, measurable goals in weak domains based on feedback and self-reflection.

  • Commit to skill-building activities like training, coaching or mentoring.

  • Track progress regularly and adjust plans as needed until expertise develops.

Sustained use of such measures helps leaders build a grounded, multidimensional view of their talents as well as shortcomings requiring dedicated effort. This mitigates biases that inflate incompetent self-perceptions while fostering the insight needed to properly evaluate and improve performance over time.

Implementing Countermeasures: Industry Examples

Forward-thinking organizations have adopted practices to develop leadership self-awareness and counter the cognitive biases that undermine it. Some examples:


  • All officers undergo regular evaluations spanning technical/tactical skills and command/interpersonal aspects.

  • Results inform promotion/assignment decisions as well as leadership development plans specific to ratings.

  • Reflective practices like After Action Reviews scrutinize decisions/outcomes to accelerate learning from successes/mistakes.


  • Google pioneered " stack ranking" mandate where managers assess/distribute ratings for all direct reports across performance dimensions.

  • Facebook uses 360 reviews and self/manager goal-setting meetings to minimize bias and surface developmental needs.

  • Both leverage data insights into productivity, attrition etc. to objectively measure impact of people strategies including those of senior leaders.


  • The Cleveland Clinic conducts multisource assessments and requires senior administrators to periodically rotate clinical roles to retain perspective and expertise.

  • At Kaiser Permanente, leaders partner with coaches to design customized development plans addressing weaknesses uncovered in feedback processes.

By explicitly addressing blind spots and building self-awareness through structured input and reflection, these organizations help competent leaders strengthen performance while mitigating overconfidence among those still developing mastery. This fosters a shared commitment to continuous growth integral to high performance.


The Dunning-Kruger effect presents a serious challenge to leadership when leaders fail to recognize inabilities blocking effectiveness and growth. However, this essay argues awareness of its cognitive drivers allows countermeasures addressing both skills and biases. With sustained efforts like multi-rater feedback, reflective practice and development planning, leaders can overcome tendencies towards overconfidence and gain the grounded self-understanding needed to evaluate and strengthen performance over time. While no panacea, such evidence-based approaches offer leaders and their organizations a means to counter poor self-awareness and ensure leadership abilities continuously advance to meet evolving challenges.


  • 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.


Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.



bottom of page