C-10 | CHATTING WITH GPT: CONFIDENCE VERSUS COMPETENCE

In the past few weeks, the concept of the Dunning-Kruger Effect has been discussed in our Council of Ministers “De Dames” setting. Trigger for the discussion was our perception that several leading figures on our island “overestimate” their competence and compensate by appearing confident. My conclusion: Research and blogging material. Now let’s jump into an interesting subject.

In the dance of leadership and governance, the distinction between confidence and competence often blurs, leading to critical missteps in judgment. As time progresses, a pattern emerges, revealing a tendency, for us, to gravitate towards leaders who exude confidence, sometimes at the expense of scrutinizing their actual competence. This phenomenon isn’t confined to a specific era, region, or political system; it’s all over the world, and of course also on our Island of Curacao. This blog is about confusing confidence with competence. I have decided to research this subject further. So logically, I asked GPT for more insight on this subject.

THE ALLURE OF CONFIDENCE

Let’s start with the obvious. The allure of confidence is undeniable. We love confident people. Confidence commands attention, inspires followers, and projects an aura of success. However, this magnetic quality can sometimes be a façade, a front, masking deficiencies and leading to misplaced trust. The real measure of leadership—competence—is multifaceted, encompassing not just the ability to inspire but also the wisdom to make informed decisions, the skill to navigate complex challenges, and the integrity to act in the best interest of all.

This blog delves into the critical issue of mistaking confidence for competence, especially in the context of selecting or electing leaders (mainly political leaders). Together with GPT, I will examine the psychological and social dynamics that contribute to this phenomenon and discuss strategies to foster a more discerning electorate.

In an age where information is abundant, yet truth can be elusive, understanding the distinction between confidence and competence has never been more crucial. As we navigate the complexities of leadership in the modern world, this blog aims to ignite a conversation on the importance of looking beyond the surface, encouraging a deeper evaluation of the leaders we choose to follow. Join me as I unpack the layers, challenge preconceptions, and advocate for a future where competence and integrity take precedence in the hallways of power.

THE REASONS WHY WE CONFUSE CONFIDENCE WITH COMPETENCE

ME: So, I asked GPT: Why do we confuse confidence with competence?

GPT: Confusing confidence with competence can occur for several reasons, driven by a mix of psychological biases, social norms, and cognitive shortcuts. Here’s a look at why this happens:

1. Heuristic Processing and Cognitive Shortcuts: In many situations, people rely on quick judgments to assess others. Confidence can serve as a shortcut or heuristic for competence because it’s more immediately observable. This tendency to make snap judgments can lead individuals to equate a confident demeanor with actual skill or knowledge, especially when they lack the time or resources for a deeper evaluation.
2. The Halo Effect: This cognitive bias suggests that our overall impression of a person—often influenced by their confidence—can affect our judgment of their specific traits, such as competence. A confident individual may be perceived as more competent, skilled, or capable simply because their confidence positively skews our overall perception of them. (ME: a charismatic speaker will be seen a competent because he is confident in communicating)
3. Social and Cultural Norms: Confidence is often culturally associated with leadership and success. In many societies, assertive and confident individuals are valued and presumed to be more capable. This cultural bias can lead to a misunderstanding, where confidence is mistakenly taken as a direct indicator of competence.
4. Self-Presentation and Persuasion Skills: Confident people tend to be better at presenting themselves and persuading others of their viewpoints and abilities. This effective communication can be mistaken for genuine competence, as they may convincingly argue or showcase abilities they don’t fully possess.
5. Cognitive Dissonance Reduction: People prefer to avoid the discomfort associated with conflicting opinions, such as recognizing the discrepancy between someone’s confidence and their actual competence. It’s simpler to align these two by assuming that a confident person is also competent, thus reducing cognitive dissonance.
6. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: This phenomenon highlights a paradox where individuals with limited competence might overestimate their abilities, often displaying unwarranted confidence. Conversely, genuinely competent individuals might underestimate their skills. This effect can lead observers to mistakenly link confidence with competence.
7. Visibility and Memorability: Confident behaviors are generally more visible and memorable, making individuals who exhibit them stand out. This visibility can lead to the mistaken belief that these individuals are more competent, as their confidence makes them more noticeable and seemingly authoritative.

Understanding the interplay of these factors is crucial in contexts like leadership, hiring, and education, where distinguishing between confidence and competence is essential. Cultivating environments that value tangible evidence of competence and implementing objective assessment methods can help mitigate the confusion between these two qualities.

The “merging” of confidence with competence presents a significant challenge in various spheres of life, particularly in the selection and evaluation of leaders. This confusion can lead to the elevation of individuals who possess the charisma and self-assurance to inspire confidence but may lack the substantive skills, knowledge, and ethical grounding necessary for effective leadership. The repercussions of such mismatches are not trivial; they can impact the success of organizations, governments, and societies at large. Recognizing the distinction between confidence and competence is thus not merely an academic exercise—it is a practical necessity for fostering healthy, functional, and just institutions.

ME: Again, the allure of confidence is undeniable, often acting as a beacon that draws individuals and groups to leaders who project certainty and self-assuredness. However, as history and contemporary experiences show, confidence without competence can lead to misguided decisions, misplaced trust, and, ultimately, failure to meet collective goals. The challenge lies not in diminishing the value of confidence but in ensuring that it is not the sole, or even primary, criterion for leadership selection and evaluation. Instead, a balanced approach that values competence—demonstrated through skills, achievements, and ethical behavior—equally, if not more, is essential.

ME: OK, GPT, so what can we do to better distinguish between Confidence and Competence?

GPT: To better distinguish between Confidence and Competence, we suggest the following:

1. Enhanced Evaluation Methods: Organizations and electorates should adopt more rigorous methods for evaluating the competence of potential leaders. This could include comprehensive background checks, analyses of past achievements, and scenario-based assessments that test decision-making abilities in real-world situations.
2. Education and Awareness: Building awareness about the distinction between confidence and competence and its importance in leadership selection can empower voters, stakeholders, and decision-makers to make more informed choices. Educational initiatives can focus on critical thinking and the value of evidence-based evaluations.
3. Emphasis on Track Record: Focus should be placed on a candidate’s track record of achievements and the tangible outcomes of their past leadership roles. This approach prioritizes concrete evidence of competence over persuasive rhetoric or charismatic self-presentation.
4. Structured Interviews and Assessments: In organizational contexts, structured interviews that focus on competency-based questions and standardized assessments can provide more objective data on a candidate’s abilities and potential for success in a leadership role.
5. Feedback Systems: Implementing robust feedback systems that allow for the ongoing evaluation of a leader’s performance, based on clear, measurable objectives, can help ensure that confidence is matched by competence over the long term.
6. Cultural Shift: Cultivating a culture that values humility and the willingness to admit and learn from mistakes can counteract the overvaluation of unwarranted confidence. This cultural shift can encourage leaders to develop a more balanced self-perception aligned with their actual competencies.

By embracing these strategies, societies, organizations, and individuals can better navigate the complex interplay between confidence and competence, leading to the selection of leaders who are not only inspiring but also truly capable of guiding their constituencies toward success and well-being.

Dieudonne (Neetje) van der Veen is a financial and management business consultant. His work and experience are mainly financial management and structuring of businesses in distress and Governance on Planning & Control cycles. Mr. van der Veen has a master’s degree in business economics (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam), is a Registered Accountant (Koninklijke Nederlandse Beroepsorganisatie van Accountants), a CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner) and a CICA (Certified Internal Control Auditor).

This article was written by Dieudonne (Neetje) van der Veen, with assistance of GPT4, Bard and Sonic Chat for research. Pictures have been created with DALL-E