Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores the phenomenon of the "incompetent-confident leader" - those who severely overestimate their leadership abilities and lack self-awareness of their deficiencies, yet paradoxically display great confidence in their skills. Research on the Dunning-Kruger effect shows how the incompetent tend to be unaware of their own incompetence. This cognitive bias has important implications in organizational leadership, where incompetent-confident leaders can make poor decisions, demotivate teams, and damage an organization's reputation and culture. The article outlines the key characteristics of incompetent-confident leaders and the substantial negative consequences their presence poses. To address this challenge, the article recommends that organizations implement rigorous selection processes, strengthen performance management systems, prioritize ongoing leadership development, plan for contingency succession, and maintain board-level oversight - all with the aim of minimizing the emergence and impact of this problematic leadership archetype.
In today's fast-paced, globally competitive business landscape, competent and effective leadership is more important than ever for organizations to thrive. However, research has shown that incompetent leadership remains a persistent challenge, negatively impacting employee morale, productivity, and the bottom line.
Today we will explore one of the most prevalent types of incompetent leader seen in organizations today - the incompetent-confident leader.
The Phenomenon of the Incompetent-Confident Leader
A growing body of research has shed light on the phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger effect - the cognitive bias where people who lack competence in a specific domain greatly overestimate their abilities. This leads to a lack of self-awareness about their actual (limited) ability (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Studies have found that the incompetent tend to be utterly unaware of not just how poor their performance is but also their inability to recognize their incompetence (Ehrlinger et al., 2008). This cognitive bias plays out in many domains but has particularly important implications in organizational leadership roles, where the consequences can be highly detrimental.
Research specifically on leadership competence and self-awareness has identified the incompetent-confident leader as one of the most common and problematic types of incompetent leaders seen in organizations. Incompetent-confident leaders are those who are not self-aware and utterly lack insight into their own limitations and poor leadership skills, but are paradoxically extremely confident in their abilities (McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Ropo & Hunt, 1995). With little awareness of their deficiencies, incompetent-confident leaders overrate their competence and can rationalize failures (Eichner, 2005; Park & collaborative, 2019). They tend to view negative feedback as unfair criticism rather than seeing opportunities for improvement.
Characteristics of the Incompetent-Confident Leader
Through qualitative studies analyzing accounts and perceptions of leaders' behaviors, certain defining characteristics of the incompetent-confident leader have been consistently identified:
Overconfidence bias: They vastly overrate their abilities and have an inflated sense of how effective they are in their role. This can lead them to take on more responsibility than they can handle competently.
Lack of self-awareness: They do not recognize the gaps and weaknesses in their leadership skills, strategic thinking, decision-making abilities, emotional intelligence, and so on.
Aversion to feedback: They are defensive towards and dismissive of any critical or negative feedback about their performance, rather than being open to learning.
Rationalization of mistakes: They make excuses for their errors and poor decisions rather than taking accountability. Mistakes of others are often blamed instead.
Focus on image over substance: More concerned with being seen as a 'strong' leader rather than developing the competencies required to be an effective one.
Inability to develop: Due to overconfidence and lack of self-awareness, they are unable or unwilling to develop their skills through continuous learning and self-improvement.
Consequences for Organizations
The presence of incompetent-confident leaders in key roles has significant negative consequences for organizations:
Poorer decision-making: Relying on gut instinct and faulty analysis rather than data and expertise leads to suboptimal choices that impact productivity, innovation, and financial outcomes.
Reduced productivity: Lower competence means less ability to motivate, engage and effectively manage teams, lowering morale and effort. The Peter Principle is often at play where leaders are promoted to their level of incompetence.
High turnover: Toxic behaviors, irrational demands and inconsistent direction drive talented employees to leave, disrupting operations and continuity. Recruiting and training replacements incurs heavy costs.
Eroded culture: Over time, the culture shifts from a focus on competence, integrity and accountability to one emphasizing political maneuvering, blame-shifting and self-promotion. This undermines motivation and trust.
Damage to reputation: Stories of poor leadership spread among current and prospective employees, customers and industry peers, weakening the employer brand. Rebuilding a positive image takes considerable effort and finances.
While overconfidence and lack of self-awareness can be found at all levels, the incompetent-confident leader poses exceptional risks when they hold senior roles with significant decision-making authority and resources at their disposal, as is commonly seen. Their flaws go unrecognized, multiplying problems for their organizations if left unaddressed.
How to Address the Issue of Incompetent-Confident Leaders
Given the substantial costs associated with incompetent leadership at senior levels, organizations must take proactive steps to minimize the likelihood and impact of the incompetent-confident leader phenomenon. Some key recommendations include:
Implement Rigorous Selection Processes
Conduct thorough competency-based interviews that evaluate traits beyond technical skills alone, such as self-awareness, learning agility, accountability.
Use psychometric and other assessment tools to gain deeper insights into a candidate's competencies, weaknesses, and self-perceptions.
Seek input from numerous direct reports and peers of candidates, not just those provided as references, for more balanced perspectives.
Consider simulations or case studies to observe how candidates think through challenges, rather than relying primarily on resumes and interviews.
Strengthen Performance Management Systems
Enforce regular calibrations between a leader's self-evaluation and feedback from multiple direct and indirect reports. Large gaps merit investigation.
Establish clear key result areas and behavior-based competencies for leaders, monitored with objective metrics wherever possible.
Link performance ratings and compensation directly to demonstrated competencies and behaviors, not just role responsibilities.
Provide confidential and anonymous reporting channels for employees to flag concerning leader behaviors without fear of retaliation.
Prioritize Leadership Development
Make ongoing skills and leadership training mandatory for all people managers, with content focusing on self-awareness, giving feedback, and emotional intelligence.
Coach senior leaders individually through confidential 360-degree assessments and one-on-one feedback to enhance self-insight.
Rotate high potentials among different functions, businesses and geographies regularly to broaden perspectives and challenge assumptions.
Promote a culture where seeking feedback and advice from others is expected and respected rather than seen as a weakness.
Succession Planning with Contingencies
Map out internal successors for each critical role to ensure adequate coverage if a leader proves incompetent or leaves suddenly.
For unique roles with few internal options, recruit external successors proactively and onboard them well in advance as understudies.
Have measures like probation periods for new senior hires to assess "fit" before being confirmed permanently in roles.
Prepare transition/exit plans in case of unsuccessful leaders to minimize turbulence and protect critical operations.
Board-Level Oversight
Require the board to oversee talent strategy and succession planning rigorously rather than viewing it as an HR function.
Give the board independent advisors/coaches to confidentially counsel them on leadership quality issues.
Empower and protect whistleblowers channeling concerns about specific executives directly to independent board members.
Hold the CEO directly accountable for developing a deep leadership bench and minimizing incompetent leaders company-wide.
Case Study: Turning Around Incompetent Confident Leadership at ABC Company
ABC Company was a mid-sized consumer goods manufacturer that had seen consistent but gradual declines in market share and profitability for nearly a decade due to leadership issues. The founder-CEO, John, was highly confident in his vision but increasingly out of touch with customers and the pace of industry change. Despite numerous acquisitions and diversification efforts driven by his impulses, the business became over-leveraged and complex to manage effectively.
John had surrounded himself with 'yes-men' who refused to critically question his decisions or provide unfiltered feedback. Consequently, his leadership deficits went unaddressed for years. Employee morale eroded as talented managers left in frustration with the directionless strategy and political infighting. The board saw the issues but felt constrained due to John's controlling founder-mindset.
A new independent chairman was brought in with a mandate to reform governance practices and select a new CEO. After an extensive external search and leveraging assessment tools, Susan - an operations expert from a leading competitor - was selected as the new CEO. Susan immediately launched initiatives to address ABC's competency gaps:
A 360-degree review uncovered specific development areas for John, now executive chairman, and direct reports. Coaches helped improve self-awareness.
Susan replaced underperforming VPs after several months of performance reviews using behavioral competency evaluations from employees.
Cross-functional rotations and external assignments broadened perspectives.
Training focused on collaborative decision-making, providing feedback, and managing change.
Employee forums, surveys and a whistleblower program surfaced remaining issues transparently.
Within two years, Susan stabilized operations, refocused on customer value, trimmed unproductive assets, improved talent management practices and rebuilt a high-performance culture focused on meritocracy, accountability and continuous learning. The improved leadership team revitalized ABC's brands and market position. Profitability recovered steadily as the legacies of past incompetent leadership were overcome.
Conclusion
In today's VUCA world, the stakes of leadership incompetence are higher than ever for organizations seeking to outperform rivals and adapt at a rapid pace. While overconfidence and lack of self-awareness can be found among leaders at all levels to some degree, the specific case of the incompetent-confident senior leader poses exceptionally grave risks if left unaddressed. Through measures like more rigorous selection processes, robust performance management and feedback systems, ongoing leadership development initiatives, contingency succession planning, and board-level oversight, organizations can take proactive steps to minimize the emergence and impact of this problematic leadership archetype. With awareness of this cognitive bias and commitment to strengthening associated processes and culture, businesses can foster the type of adaptive, self-aware and accountable leadership needed to sustain success in dynamic market environments.
References
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 98–121.
Eichner, N. E. (2005). Why leaders fail and the power of spiritual leadership. The Business Renaissance Quarterly, 1(2), 69-79.
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.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed (Technical report no. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Park, H. S., & Guan, X. (2019). The development and validation of the incompetent-confident leadership scale. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 163–176.
Ropo, A., & Hunt, J. G. (1995). Entrepreneurial processes as virtuous and vicious spirals in a changing opportunity structure: A paradoxical perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3), 91-111.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Identifying and Handling the Most Common Type of Incompetent Leader in the Workplace. Human Capital Leadership Review, 19(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.19.1.3
