In Human Resources, there is a phenomenon we’ve all seen at some point: people with little experience who feel more confident than those who have spent years in the profession. It happens in every team, every sector, and every company.

This phenomenon has a name: the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Understanding it is essential for managers, HR departments, and professional firms looking to make better decisions, avoid conflict, manage talent, and design realistic training plans.

In this article, you’ll learn exactly what the Dunning–Kruger effect is, why it happens, how to detect it, and most importantly real workplace examples so you can identify it within your own organisation.

What Is the Dunning–Kruger Effect?

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low skill or little experience tend to overestimate their competence, while more experienced individuals are aware of how much they still don’t know.

It was described by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, and has since been widely studied in work environments, leadership, and management.

In simple terms:

• The less someone knows, the more they think they know.
• The more someone knows, the more they are aware of what they don’t know.

Why Is It So Common in the Workplace?

Because at work people don’t just perform tasks—they must also evaluate their own performance. And that’s where the trap lies.

Someone who hasn’t mastered a skill usually struggles to correctly assess whether they’re doing well or poorly. This lack of reference leads to an inflated sense of certainty.

That’s why HR teams often encounter people who believe they are “ready to lead”, “prepared for a promotion”, or “fully capable of a technical role” when the facts show otherwise.

What Impact Does It Have on the Company?

Here is where the Dunning–Kruger effect stops being a psychological curiosity and becomes an organisational problem.

If not identified in time, it generates:

• Frustration within teams
• Misalignment between real performance and self-perception
• Conflicts with managers
• Wrong decisions in internal promotions
• Productivity issues
• Insecurity among genuinely competent employees who begin to question themselves

This is why it’s so useful for HR departments and managers to understand and manage it.

Dunning–Kruger Effect: Real Workplace Examples

Let’s get to the key point: real examples that show this bias in action.

1. A Junior Employee Who Wants to Lead Projects Without Mastering the Basics

One of the most visible expressions of the bias.
A person who has been with the company for three months claims they already “master the tools”, propose strategic changes, or even ask to coordinate other colleagues. This often happens in young talent still in the learning and adaptation phase.

The reality: they still make basic mistakes and have no management experience.

Here, the Dunning–Kruger effect appears because the employee lacks the knowledge required to recognise their own lack of knowledge.

2. A Low-Performing Salesperson Who Believes the Problem Is “Lead Quality”

Very common.

The sales manager sees that their closing rate is low, but the salesperson insists they “know how to sell perfectly” and that the issue lies in Marketing, the leads, or the CRM.

This inability to recognise their own shortcomings prevents improvement.

A study by University College London (UCL) notes that low performers not only struggle with the task, but also lack the skills needed to detect their own errors—amplifying the overconfidence typical of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

3. A Technical Profile Who Refuses Training Because “I Already Know This”

A worker resistant to training, updating processes, or adopting new practices.

They say “I’ve always done it this way”, yet their deliverables show inconsistencies, mistakes, or outdated knowledge.

This is a classic case of overconfidence that slows innovation.

As highlighted by Forbes, the paradox of the effect is striking: the very skills needed to perform a task well are the same ones that allow you to recognise when you’re not doing it well.

4. Someone Who Overestimates Their Ability to Work Under Pressure

In meetings, they claim they can handle more projects, more workload, more deadlines.
In reality, they collapse, miss deadlines, and constantly need help.

The gap between perceived confidence and actual capability is huge.

5. The Leader Who Believes They Communicate Well, but the Team Doesn’t Understand Priorities

A manager who thinks their instructions are “clear”, “direct”, and “obvious”, yet the team struggles to prioritise, duplicates work, or lacks context.

Here, the Dunning–Kruger effect can severely impact culture and overall team performance.

How to Detect the Dunning–Kruger Effect in a Company

One of the clearest signs is a mismatch between words and actions.

In other words, when the confidence a person expresses doesn’t align with their actual performance.

Other common indicators:

• Very confident individuals who still make basic mistakes
• Resistance to training or feedback
• Blaming external factors for their failures
• Excessive self-sufficiency in junior profiles
• Frequent complaints from colleagues about collaboration or realism

Meanwhile, those who doubt themselves tend to be the most competent—they understand the real complexity of the task.

Why Is It Important for HR to Understand It?

Because it directly affects:

• Career development
• Performance reviews
• Internal promotions
• Hiring processes
• Training programme design
• Workplace climate and actual performance

It can also create unfair situations:

Highly competent people who aren’t promoted due to lack of self-confidence.
Less competent people who advance too quickly due to overconfidence.

Both extremes are problematic.

How to Correct the Dunning–Kruger Effect at Work

You can’t “eliminate” it, but you can manage it through clear processes.

The key is reducing the gap between self-perception and actual competence.

Effective actions include:

1.     Structured and Frequent Feedback

Quarterly feedback, 1:1 meetings, and data-based evaluations.
This reduces distorted self-perception.

2.     Mandatory Training Plans

Not optional especially useful for people who resist learning.

3.     Role Clarity

Absolute clarity about functions and expectations.
One of the most powerful tools against unjustified overconfidence.

4.     360° Evaluations

Bringing together perspectives from managers, peers, and direct reports.

5.     Objective KPIs

When performance is measured with data, the bias loses strength.

Why Does It Appear More in Some Departments Than Others?

Because some areas are harder to measure objectively.

Marketing, sales, creativity, communication, and leadership involve subjective judgments.

In contrast, payroll, labour, or finance—areas governed by legislation, compliance, or numbers—leave less room for overconfidence because errors are easier to spot.

This is why GM Integra often sees it in multidisciplinary teams where technical, operational, and management profiles coexist.

What Should HR Do When Detecting a Clear Case?

The first step is a diagnosis based on facts, not opinions:

• Concrete examples
• Evidence
• Impact on the team
• Clear expectations

Then, create a development plan and set timelines.

Overconfidence decreases when the person understands exactly what needs to improve and how progress will be measured.

How to Prevent It During Hiring

HR and Talent Acquisition play a crucial role here.

Helpful tools include:

• Real technical tests
• Behavioural interviews (STAR)
• Task simulations
• Objective scoring rubrics

Intuition alone is not enough objective evaluation is essential.

Quick Checklist for Managers (5 Key Signals)

Item to Review	Applies?	What It Means	Recommended Action
1. Speaks with great confidence but doesn’t meet goals	☐	Inflated self-perception	Review KPIs and clarify expectations
2. Rejects training because “I already know this”	☐	Baseless overconfidence	Mandatory training + follow-up
3. Blames external factors when failing	☐	Lack of self-criticism	Focus conversation on evidence
4. Underestimates timelines or complex tasks	☐	Doesn’t see real difficulty	Review estimates and split tasks
5. Requests higher responsibilities without being ready	☐	Overestimation of level	Define a step-by-step development plan

FAQs

●      Can the Dunning–Kruger effect be measured objectively?

There’s no single test, but combining performance data, 360° feedback, and comparing self-assessment with results reveals clear signs.

●      Can it disappear on its own?

Sometimes, but usually it requires feedback, training, and exposure to more complex tasks. Time alone rarely fixes it.

●      Does it affect internal promotions?

A lot. It may lead to promoting unprepared people or blocking highly competent ones. HR must rely on data, not perceived confidence.

●      Is it linked to lack of feedback?

Absolutely. In companies without a feedback culture, people self-evaluate with no external reference, increasing the bias.

●      Does it appear in remote work?

Even more. With less direct supervision, self-perception can drift further from reality.

GM Integra Helps You Measure and Improve Real Performance

The Dunning–Kruger effect is not an isolated issue—it’s a human bias found in all organisations. Managing it well prevents poor promotions, internal conflict, and performance misalignment.

At GM Integra, as a Human Resources consultancy and labour advisory firm with more than 30 years of experience, we help companies with:

• Performance evaluations
• Organisational structure reviews
• Training and reskilling plans
• Labour management and team optimisation

If you want your organisation to run with clarity, alignment, and real results, we’re here to help.