Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jo Lein's avatar

As a coach for teachers and school leaders, I’ve seen firsthand how the Dunning-Kruger effect can impact teams and schools. Leaders—especially those new to their roles—may unknowingly overestimate their skills simply because they lack the experience or perspective to evaluate their performance. This isn't just frustrating; it can create blind spots that affect everyone involved.

To help leaders become more self-aware, I’ve found that structured peer feedback and modeling are essential. Encouraging teachers or principals to receive input from multiple perspectives gives them a clearer, more rounded view of their own abilities. Peers can help identify the gap between perceived and actual skills in a supportive way that builds understanding instead of defensiveness. I am that peer for many.

Another effective strategy is building a culture where feedback isn't just about "fixing" issues but is integrated into growth and skill development. That approach normalizes the process of improvement and encourages leaders to see their own gaps as opportunities rather than failures. It’s challenging but powerful work—and it really can make all the difference in helping them step out of their own echo chambers.

What are some peer-based or collaborative feedback methods you’ve found helpful for bridging that perception gap?

Expand full comment
David C Morris's avatar

I love all the commentary today. We run a 10-month program based on the Admired Leadership platform and we have participants go through a 360 feedback process. We find during our debriefing sessions that participants value/weight their peer ratings the most - consistent with today's post and other content I've seen/heard on through the Admired Leadership universe. BTW - I love the Dunning-Kruger effect so much, I measured it comparing self-assessment ratings and manager ratings in annual performance reviews.

TLDR - Results

Regarding low performers - 101 employees with the lowest possible manager rating of "1" rated themselves on their self-assessments on average 3.84. This is higher then the next two groups (2 and 3) with average self-ratings of 3.54 and 3.74 respectively (Overestimate).

Regarding high performers - 4,967 employees with the highest possible rating of "5" rated themselves slightly lower at 4.60 on average (Underestimate).

If you're interested, you can view the analysis that is available in my github repository:

https://github.com/davidcmorris/hrmeasured/blob/67536020e0d06cb21102e8ab47be2068442c3270/Dunning-Kruger%20Effect%20on%20Self-Ratings%20in%20Performance%20Reviews.ipynb

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts