You are hereDialogue - Narrative Blog / Sonja Blignaut's blog / Self insight (or not ...)

Self insight (or not ...)


Sonja Blignaut's picture

By Sonja Blignaut - Posted on 28 October 2009

IncompetenceI like reading Bob Sutton's blog, he often links to books and writings I never would have known about if not for him.  This week, he wrote about Professor David Dunning from Cornell University, who's done some really interesting research (along with various colleagues) on self-awareness.

Some interesting insights from the Professor's new book "Self-Insight: Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself. " include: "people do a pretty bad job of guessing their IQ scores, are downright awful at rating their ability to catch other people's lies, that workers do a far worse job of assessing their own social skills than their superiors or peers, that in survey of thousands of high school seniors 70% of respondents rated their leadership ability as above average while only 2% rated their leadership ability as below average, and -- turning to my own profession -- that 94% of college professors say they do above average work."

A key insight from this is ... "you should be wary of self-assessments in general, but especially wary of people who seem to be incompetent. As Dunning puts it, "The central contention guiding this research is that poor performers simply do not know -- indeed cannot know -- how badly they are performing.  Because they lack the skills required to produce correct answers they also lack the skills to accurately judge whether their own answers are correct."

This immediately got me thinking about the average performance assessment processes in organisations.  Most all of the ones I went through had some sort of self-assessment involved.  If this research is true, it's no wonder people find performance management such a thorny issue. 

Another discipline that this could impact on is "expert location", many of the methods I know of also involves some sort of self-assessment.  Makes you wonder how many of the exoerts we find really are experts and how many are deluding themselves?

One of the biggest problems I have as an MBA admissions adviser – friend, coach, confidant, drill sergeant, etc., to applicants trying to crack top-tier schools – is explaining to clients that “good is nice, great is nicer,” but neither will get you into a top-tier MBA program. Only “good + special” will get you in.

Everyone knows that there are far fewer places than excellent candidates, but not everyone understands the implication of this, which is that the standard “good profile” application is more likely to fail than succeed. I do ding analyses: often there is something clear to point to, but often there is not. I’m left saying “there was no juice,” and I don’t mean this as a carry-all cop-out. What I mean is – putting it another way – the applicant has provided reasons for Adcom not to reject them, covering all bases, saying the right things, but has not given Adcom a compelling reason to say yes.

Easier said than done. What if there is no specialness (distinctiveness) there? “I haven’t done anything that special,” they will say. “I have not won Olympic medals; never hot-air ballooned over the Atlantic; not pulled anyone from a burning car …”

I won’t kid you – it’s great if you’ve done something memorable like this. But there are two types of specialness. Specialness of what you have achieved AND specialness of who you are. Not everyone has the first type in their bag, but everyone can have the second.I am william from a cisco ccna school.



Dialogue Newsletter

Sign Up Today!




Subscribe to RSS Feed

Syndicate content

awards

2009 SA Blog Awards Runner Up

All material copyright © 2007 - 2009 The Narrative Lab