I work with a lead or supervisor, depending on who you ask, who perfectly illustrates the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you are not acquainted with this concept, I recommend looking into it. I have a strong suspicion that numerous leads/supervisors at Wells Fargo may display comparable characteristics.
6 replies (most recent on top)
I spent many years in business in Ireland. This sounds like the O'Dunning-McKruger effect.
in my exp, Indian males born in India have this tendency. there may be cultural reasons or political factors we could debate to explain why this might occur.
can also see how Dunning-Kruger effect could be a big problem on non-Agile teams when there is no real accountability and command and control management style may be more prevalent.
@f2+1js32f1wz: good post. agree with analysis. But WF does not do true agile. Its more Waterfall (wagile). Agree in principle that if WF leaders embraced authentic Agile frameworks and methodologies this would reduce risks of Dunning-Kruger effect and leadership poor decision making. https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1js3120rh
You've hit on a really important point about the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's definitely worth understanding how a lack of competence can lead to overconfidence, as it sounds like you're observing in your lead.
Building on this, it's interesting to consider how well-implemented agile practices, especially honest retrospectives and reviews, can act as a countermeasure to this effect for both the supervisor and the team members.
Think about it:
Honest Feedback Fosters Humility: The core of agile retrospectives is open and honest feedback about what's working and what's not. When these discussions are truly safe and focused on improvement (emphasizing people over just process), even a supervisor exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect will eventually encounter data and perspectives that challenge their self-assessment. Seeing the team's struggles or negative outcomes directly linked to their decisions or lack of guidance can start to chip away at an inflated sense of competence. Similarly, team members also get a clearer picture of their own contributions and areas for growth.
Focus on Outcomes Over Ego: Agile emphasizes delivering value and working software. Reviews with stakeholders provide concrete feedback on the team's output. If a supervisor's overconfidence leads to poor planning or direction resulting in a subpar product, this tangible evidence can be a powerful reality check.
Transparency Exposes Incompetence: Practices like daily stand-ups and sprint planning increase transparency. It becomes harder for someone to mask a lack of understanding or consistently miss the mark when the team has a clear view of everyone's work and commitments.
Bullies Don't Thrive in Openness: You're right – power brokers and bullies who rely on maintaining an illusion of superiority often dislike the transparency and shared accountability inherent in agile. If their incompetence becomes evident through regular feedback and collaborative work, they may indeed find the environment uncomfortable and potentially leave.
Psychological Safety is Key to Unlocking the Benefit: The crucial ingredient here, as we've discussed, is psychological safety. If the team doesn't feel safe to give honest feedback to a supervisor, even in a retrospective, then these practices won't be effective in addressing the Dunning-Kruger effect. A truly agile environment fosters this safety, encouraging open communication and constructive criticism.
The Scientific American article we were just discussing also highlights that the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't just about arrogance, but a lack of the skill to recognize one's own lack of skill. Regular, honest feedback within a supportive agile framework can help bridge that gap in self-awareness for everyone, including supervisors.
So, while agile isn't a magic bullet, a genuine commitment to its principles, especially the focus on people, feedback, and continuous improvement, can be a significant force in promoting humility and a more accurate understanding of capabilities at all levels within an organization. The absence of these principles can unfortunately allow the Dunning-Kruger effect to flourish, potentially contributing to the kind of frustrating situations you're describing.
OP,
Ok, thanks professor.
Not to be confused with the Peter principle.
I usually find those who refer to Dunning-Kruger to be examples of it, because they fail to realize it also includes highly intelligent people who underestimate their intelligence because they grasp how little they actually know.