What the Dunning–Kruger effect, ballroom dancing and comedy taught me about mastering conversations.
I used to believe I was a much better communicator than I actually was.
I loved speaking in front of people. I could stand up in a room, speak off the top of my head, explain complex technical problems and feel completely comfortable doing it.
And because I was comfortable, I assumed I was good.
I've since learned something uncomfortable.
Confidence isn't competence.
The more I study conversations, the more I realize how much I still have to learn.
And I wonder how many leaders are walking around with the same blind spot.
When Confidence Exceeds Competence
In 1999, psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning conducted four studies examining how accurately people could assess their own abilities.
They tested participants in humour, grammar and logical reasoning.
Those who performed in the bottom quarter, averaging the 12th percentile, estimated their performance at the 62nd percentile.
Think about that.
People performing near the bottom believed they were performing above average.
The researchers suggested that people who lack competence in a skill may also lack the ability to recognize their mistakes.
But here's what I found particularly interesting.
When participants were trained in logical reasoning, they became better at recognizing the limitations of their earlier performance.
The training helped them recognize mistakes they hadn't seen before.
The findings have since been debated, including whether statistical effects account for some of the results. But the research raises a question worth considering:
How do you recognize what you don't know when you don't yet know what good looks like?
You train.
From Fancy Footwork to Fundamentals
I've been ballroom dancing for years, and I'm currently working toward my Gold levels.
When I started at Bronze, I thought I was pretty good.
People told me I was. Even my instructors said I was better than the average social dancer.
I loved learning new patterns. The fancier, the better.
As I trained through Silver and into Gold, something shifted.
I stopped asking, "What complicated pattern can I learn next?"
Instead, I started asking, "Can I actually dance like a Gold-level dancer?"
Because the difference isn't in the number of patterns I know.
It's in how well I execute the fundamentals.
Timing. Balance. Connection. Technique.
The very things I thought I already knew how to do.
I'm discovering exactly the same thing about conversations.
Three Hours to Write Three Pages
Recently, I started training in comedy writing at Second City.
Here's something I didn't appreciate before.
I can spend three hours crafting three pages of dialogue.
Three hours!
The idea might come to me in seconds. But choosing the words, building the conversation, creating tension and escalating the humour takes thought, technique and practice.
What looks effortless on stage is often anything but.
We understand that dancers practise technique, comedians rewrite their sketches over and over until they land, and engineers spend years developing their expertise.
Yet somehow, we assume we're skilled communicators simply because we've spent our entire lives talking to people.
Having thousands of conversations doesn't mean we've mastered the skill of having them.
The Leadership Blind Spot
As engineers, we're trained to solve problems through logic, evidence and technical reasoning.
And we're very good at it.
You've probably seen it play out. A design review. The analysis is airtight. The numbers check out. The room nods, someone says "let's take it offline," and nothing moves.
The logic was perfect. The conversation wasn't.
Because the measure of a conversation isn't how clearly you delivered your message.
It's what happens with the person on the other side.
Did you change how they think?
Did you change how they feel?
Did you inspire them to take action?
That's the difference between delivering information and influencing people.
I used to think that being comfortable speaking made me a great communicator.
Today, I'm far more interested in whether I can create the shift I intended.
So here's my question for you.
You've spent years training to develop and prove your technical competence.
When was the last time you trained your ability to lead a conversation with that same rigour?
And what evidence do you have that you're as good at it as you think you are?
——————————————————————————————————
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
For a discussion of subsequent statistical challenges: A Statistical Explanation of the Dunning–Kruger Effect (2022).