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?
Hi Jo Lein, thanks for your comment and question for everyone this morning.
Leaders can enhance their self-awareness by first examining their core beliefs and values and how this compares to others they respect.
Gathering feedback about their strengths and weaknesses provides another essential insight. How others see their assets and challenges helps them to see themselves more objectively.
It is surprising how few people at the top of their fields actually take a moment to ask for feedback.
In her best-selling book about women in the workplace, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg recounts the time she was interviewed by legendary broadcaster Tom Brokaw. Because she thought her performance in the interview was below her standards, she asked Brokaw for feedback. Brokaw was stunned. He told her that, in a lifetime of interviews, she was only the second person to ask him for feedback.
Peer evaluations can be a powerful tool for elevating performance, especially when done in a constructive way. We've found that creating opportunities for peers to give each other feedback for improvement, rather than just grades or acknowledgement, can make a real difference.
One approach is to set up regular check-ins – even quick, 15-minute standing meetings – where everyone on the team shares their progress, next steps, and any blockers. This makes frequent communication a normal part of how the team works and makes it feel less risky to raise concerns early.
You could frame it as a team-wide practice, so it doesn't feel like anyone is being singled out. And it would give you much earlier visibility into any potential issues and more opportunities to course-correct as a team.
The key is to focus the peer feedback on ways to do more of what's working and things to improve going forward, rather than just evaluating past performance. It's about feedback for growth, not grades.
Of course, strong teams and psychological safety are important for this to work well. But when done right, peer feedback can be incredibly motivating in a way that top-down feedback alone can't match. It taps into our natural desire to feel valued and respected by our colleagues.
What's your take on this? Have you tried anything similar with your team? I'm curious to hear your perspective.
(Disclosure: ALEX is the virtual coaching tool created by the firm that authors this substack, based on the Field Notes knowledge base. I gave ALEX your above question and this was the reply)
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:
Makes me wonder about the cohort of people who are rated by their managers as 5s and also self assess at 5. Is that a likeable cohort? Would they rate as arrogant and low in Admired Leadership's relational behaviors?
Re: X Spaces - Low performers that know they are low performers - that would be a good study. I’m in training now - I don’t get to play with that much fun data anymore.
I have seen the Dunning-Kruger effect at work in the upper echelons of university leadership. As a VP, I once suggested to my president that we tap into faculty expertise to help us solve a specialized problem. She responded, “My leadership team is a bunch of smart people. We don’t need anyone else.” Do I need to add that she was mistaken?
The D-K effect is the result of that fatal combination of ignorance and arrogance that infects C-suites everywhere. Nonetheless, a culture of inquisitiveness and growth can counter the D-K effect at pretty much any level.
Sounds like the leader you describe above would have been a cultural log jam. How many outspoken members of that team would it have taken to turn that leadership group around? Could it have happened at all without the president's buy-in?
I came to the ensconced team late, and my modest attempts to crack the status quo ended with my canning. The president exercised absolute power while presiding over a college with an abysmal 30% graduation rate. That pretty much sums it up. No one cared.
This further underscores the importance of recognizing that self-awareness has two parts:
1. Internal Self-Awareness - how we see ourselves regarding values, strengths, passions, aspirations, fit within our environment, reactions, and impact on others.
2. External Self-Awareness - understanding how others view us within the same.
As leaders, we must have the courage to ask others to help us see our blindspots and encourage those who are under our responsibility to do the same.
I also love the four stages of learning for this, which provides a framework along with the Dunning-Kruger effect to objectively explain this to folks in our feedback, circumventing some of the defensiveness that can occur when someone realizes their competence is far less than how they see it.
Unconscious incompetence: The learner doesn't realize they have a knowledge or skill gap.
Conscious incompetence: The learner knows the gap and understands the importance of learning a new skill.
Conscious competence: The learner knows how to perform the task or use the skill, but it requires conscious effort, practice, and hard work.
Unconscious competence: The skill becomes more accessible and more natural to perform.
Maybe! It's the mysterious highest stage of existence. I might compare it to something like the topic of enlightenment. It is not exactly apples to apples, but the through-line is, how do you know you're there? How do you get there beyond the level of unconscious competence?
Ah Dunning Kruger. Adam Grant references it in his book 'Think Again' and he describes it brilliantly. Confidence is not the same as competence.
I often refer to the Dunning Kruger Effect as the opposite of self-awareness. For me, self-awareness and imposter phenomenon are closely linked in the same way that over confidence and under competence are linked.
I love Dunning Kruger, because it always makes me laugh. And then it makes me cry
Wow maybe this helps explain what is going on with the Liberals & NDP leaders in Canada & Dems in the US. Someone please get this infront of them & mainstream media & BIG everything in the world right now to see if they can do some self reflection & reality checks. They are all in a massive bubble with incompetent & arrogant even narcisistic leaders (I'd say the worst combo) who are drunk on self righteousness, power & control & $$.
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?
Hi Jo Lein, thanks for your comment and question for everyone this morning.
Leaders can enhance their self-awareness by first examining their core beliefs and values and how this compares to others they respect.
Gathering feedback about their strengths and weaknesses provides another essential insight. How others see their assets and challenges helps them to see themselves more objectively.
It is surprising how few people at the top of their fields actually take a moment to ask for feedback.
In her best-selling book about women in the workplace, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg recounts the time she was interviewed by legendary broadcaster Tom Brokaw. Because she thought her performance in the interview was below her standards, she asked Brokaw for feedback. Brokaw was stunned. He told her that, in a lifetime of interviews, she was only the second person to ask him for feedback.
How big of a gap is actually able to be closed with work?
I can see someone moving from a 2 to a 4, or from a 7 to a 9.
But someone who is a 2 in the area of self awareness -- I'm not sure what could be recommended to get them to a 9.
Do you think there is a hard ceiling for most people, one or two notches above where they start?
Peer evaluations can be a powerful tool for elevating performance, especially when done in a constructive way. We've found that creating opportunities for peers to give each other feedback for improvement, rather than just grades or acknowledgement, can make a real difference.
One approach is to set up regular check-ins – even quick, 15-minute standing meetings – where everyone on the team shares their progress, next steps, and any blockers. This makes frequent communication a normal part of how the team works and makes it feel less risky to raise concerns early.
You could frame it as a team-wide practice, so it doesn't feel like anyone is being singled out. And it would give you much earlier visibility into any potential issues and more opportunities to course-correct as a team.
The key is to focus the peer feedback on ways to do more of what's working and things to improve going forward, rather than just evaluating past performance. It's about feedback for growth, not grades.
Of course, strong teams and psychological safety are important for this to work well. But when done right, peer feedback can be incredibly motivating in a way that top-down feedback alone can't match. It taps into our natural desire to feel valued and respected by our colleagues.
What's your take on this? Have you tried anything similar with your team? I'm curious to hear your perspective.
(Disclosure: ALEX is the virtual coaching tool created by the firm that authors this substack, based on the Field Notes knowledge base. I gave ALEX your above question and this was the reply)
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
Thanks for the run down of those stats, David.
Fascinating to see how the DK effect shows up everywhere.
Does the organization therefore take a different approach, of any kind, with any one of those cohorts based on your understanding of the effect?
Makes me wonder about the cohort of people who are rated by their managers as 5s and also self assess at 5. Is that a likeable cohort? Would they rate as arrogant and low in Admired Leadership's relational behaviors?
Re: X Spaces - Low performers that know they are low performers - that would be a good study. I’m in training now - I don’t get to play with that much fun data anymore.
Oooh - fun question.
Yes answer this one, David.
I wish I had data on that to assess. This data is from a previous company.
I have seen the Dunning-Kruger effect at work in the upper echelons of university leadership. As a VP, I once suggested to my president that we tap into faculty expertise to help us solve a specialized problem. She responded, “My leadership team is a bunch of smart people. We don’t need anyone else.” Do I need to add that she was mistaken?
The D-K effect is the result of that fatal combination of ignorance and arrogance that infects C-suites everywhere. Nonetheless, a culture of inquisitiveness and growth can counter the D-K effect at pretty much any level.
Sounds like the leader you describe above would have been a cultural log jam. How many outspoken members of that team would it have taken to turn that leadership group around? Could it have happened at all without the president's buy-in?
I came to the ensconced team late, and my modest attempts to crack the status quo ended with my canning. The president exercised absolute power while presiding over a college with an abysmal 30% graduation rate. That pretty much sums it up. No one cared.
Clearly there were incentives to maintain the blind eye.
This further underscores the importance of recognizing that self-awareness has two parts:
1. Internal Self-Awareness - how we see ourselves regarding values, strengths, passions, aspirations, fit within our environment, reactions, and impact on others.
2. External Self-Awareness - understanding how others view us within the same.
As leaders, we must have the courage to ask others to help us see our blindspots and encourage those who are under our responsibility to do the same.
I also love the four stages of learning for this, which provides a framework along with the Dunning-Kruger effect to objectively explain this to folks in our feedback, circumventing some of the defensiveness that can occur when someone realizes their competence is far less than how they see it.
Unconscious incompetence: The learner doesn't realize they have a knowledge or skill gap.
Conscious incompetence: The learner knows the gap and understands the importance of learning a new skill.
Conscious competence: The learner knows how to perform the task or use the skill, but it requires conscious effort, practice, and hard work.
Unconscious competence: The skill becomes more accessible and more natural to perform.
Is there room for unconscious mastery at a step above that?
Pretty rare air... but does it exist?
Maybe! It's the mysterious highest stage of existence. I might compare it to something like the topic of enlightenment. It is not exactly apples to apples, but the through-line is, how do you know you're there? How do you get there beyond the level of unconscious competence?
Enjoyed talking through this Field Notes entry as much as we have in a long time.
Thanks for your data, David Morris
Listen here: https://x.com/admiredleaders/status/1854981192820408409?s=46&t=qJjlPM23c8XyG3qSZ0D9cQ
A certain wake up call for ALL leaders.
Ah Dunning Kruger. Adam Grant references it in his book 'Think Again' and he describes it brilliantly. Confidence is not the same as competence.
I often refer to the Dunning Kruger Effect as the opposite of self-awareness. For me, self-awareness and imposter phenomenon are closely linked in the same way that over confidence and under competence are linked.
I love Dunning Kruger, because it always makes me laugh. And then it makes me cry
Having a teacher or mentor could also help in those situations.
Wow maybe this helps explain what is going on with the Liberals & NDP leaders in Canada & Dems in the US. Someone please get this infront of them & mainstream media & BIG everything in the world right now to see if they can do some self reflection & reality checks. They are all in a massive bubble with incompetent & arrogant even narcisistic leaders (I'd say the worst combo) who are drunk on self righteousness, power & control & $$.