Introduction
High self-esteem is widely recognized as a beneficial trait, often associated with positive psychological outcomes such as higher resilience, greater social confidence, and better overall mental health (Baumeister et al., 2003). Individuals with high self-esteem tend to experience lower levels of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues compared to those with low self-esteem (Orth et al., 2012). High self-esteem can also drive individuals to set ambitious goals, persevere in the face of challenges, and maintain a positive outlook on life. However, when high self-esteem is not grounded in actual competence, it can lead to a variety of problematic behaviors that can undermine personal and professional success (Dunning, 2011).
The disconnect between self-perception and actual ability is a phenomenon often referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect, where individuals with limited skills or knowledge overestimate their competence because they lack the self-awareness to recognize their shortcomings (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). These cognitive bias leads individuals to hold an inflated view of their capabilities, often resulting in overconfidence and poor decision-making. While these individuals may perceive themselves as highly capable, their actual performance often falls short, which can have serious implications in settings where competence is critical, such as in the workplace, academia, or interpersonal relationships (Dunning et al., 2004).
Moreover, the effects of high self-esteem without competence can extend beyond personal consequences, impacting group dynamics and organizational effectiveness. For example, in team settings, an overconfident individual may dominate discussions, dismiss others' input, or make poor decisions that affect the entire group (Schaefer & Williams, 2020). In leadership roles, such individuals might take on more responsibilities than they can manage, leading to strategic missteps or operational inefficiencies. Their inability to accurately assess their skills can prevent them from seeking necessary support or admitting mistakes, further compounding their lack of competence (Ehrlinger et al., 2008).
This article describes some of the specific behaviors that individuals with high self-esteem but low competence may exhibit. By identifying these behaviors, it is possible to better understand the challenges associated with inflated self-perception and to develop strategies for addressing the negative impacts these individuals can have on themselves and those around them. The analysis focuses on observable behaviors such as overconfidence, defensiveness, resistance to feedback, superficial charm, and dismissiveness, all of which are symptomatic of the gap between perceived and actual abilities.
Observable Behaviors
Observable behaviors are crucial when evaluating job performance, particularly for individuals with high self-esteem but low competence, because they provide concrete evidence of how these individuals interact with their tasks and colleagues. Unlike self-reported confidence or self-perceptions, observable behaviors—such as overconfidence and risk-taking, defensiveness, blame shifting, resistance to feedback, superficial charm and being dismissive of others’ expertise —offer a reliable means of better assessing actual performance and the impact on team dynamics (Dunning, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011).
Overconfidence and Risk-Taking
Individuals with high self-esteem but low competence often display significant overconfidence, which can drive them to engage in risky behaviors and make poor decisions. Overconfidence in this context refers to the tendency to overestimate one’s abilities, knowledge, or control over a situation, leading to a distorted view of reality (Dunning, 2011). This inflated self-belief can result in a range of risky behaviors, including the pursuit of ambitious goals without adequate preparation or the disregard of potential negative outcomes. The overconfidence effect is particularly pronounced in individuals who lack the self-awareness to recognize their own limitations, leading to a cycle of repeated mistakes and failures (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
Taking on Tasks Unprepared
Research has shown that overconfident individuals are more likely to take on tasks or responsibilities for which they are ill-prepared, often ignoring the need for caution or additional learning. For example, they might overcommit to projects, underestimate the time or resources required, or make strategic decisions without thoroughly analyzing the risks involved (Schaefer & Williams, 2020). This behavior is often fueled by a desire to maintain their inflated self-image, as acknowledging their limitations would challenge their perception of themselves as capable and competent.
The tendency to take excessive risks is not only evident in personal decision-making but also in professional and organizational contexts. In leadership roles, overconfident individuals may make bold but unfounded decisions, such as investing in unproven technologies, pursuing aggressive business strategies, or ignoring expert advice (Hayward et al., 2006). These decisions can have far-reaching consequences, potentially leading to financial losses, reputational damage, or operational failures. The impact of such risk-taking behavior is often exacerbated in group settings, where the overconfident individual’s influence can sway the decisions of others, leading to groupthink or collective overestimation of capabilities (Janis, 1972).
Overconfidence Creates A Failure to Adequately Prepare
Moreover, overconfidence can lead to a failure to adequately prepare for potential challenges or setbacks. Individuals with high self-esteem and low competence are less likely to engage in thorough planning or seek input from others, believing their own judgment to be superior. This lack of due diligence increases the likelihood of encountering unforeseen obstacles, as these individuals often neglect to consider alternative viewpoints or anticipate potential problems (Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1977). When their decisions inevitably lead to negative outcomes, overconfident individuals may struggle to adapt or recover, as their lack of competence limits their ability to navigate complex or high-stakes situations.
Fail to Learn from Mistakes
The dangers of overconfidence are compounded by the fact that such individuals often fail to learn from their mistakes. Studies suggest that people who are overconfident are less likely to engage in reflective practices or seek feedback that could correct their misjudgments (Sedikides & Alicke, 2012). Instead, they may rationalize their failures or blame external factors, further insulating their inflated self-perception from the reality of their performance. This cycle of overconfidence, risk-taking, and failure creates a pattern that can be detrimental not only to the individual but also to their teams, organizations, and broader professional environments.
These behaviors can highlight discrepancies between perceived and real abilities, allowing managers to identify areas where interventions are needed to improve performance. Observable behaviors also serve as indicators of potential risks, such as poor decision-making or disruptive interpersonal dynamics, which can negatively affect organizational outcomes (Baumeister et al., 2003). Therefore, focusing on what individuals do, rather than what they claim they can do, provides a more accurate and actionable assessment of their job performance.
Defensiveness and Blame Shifting
Defensiveness and blame shifting are common behaviors observed in individuals who possess high self-esteem but lack the competence to support their inflated self-image. These behaviors serve as psychological defense mechanisms, protecting the individual's self-concept from the threat posed by failure or criticism. When faced with feedback that challenges their perceived abilities, these individuals often react defensively, refusing to acknowledge their shortcomings and instead directing blame toward external factors or other people (Baumeister et al., 2003).
Defensiveness as a Protective Mechanism
Defensiveness can manifest as denial, justification of inferior performance, or outright rejection of feedback. These individuals are highly invested in maintaining their self-image, and any suggestion that they are less competent than they believe is perceived as a direct threat. According to Crocker and Park (2004), defensiveness arises when individuals with high but fragile self-esteem experience ego-threats, leading them to engage in self-protective behaviors rather than confronting their weaknesses. For example, a manager with high self-esteem but poor leadership skills may dismiss critical feedback from subordinates as insubordination or ignorance, rather than considering it a valuable opportunity for self-improvement.
Defensive individuals may also react aggressively when their competence is questioned, viewing criticism as a personal attack rather than constructive input (Kernis et al., 2005). This aggressive defensiveness not only harms interpersonal relationships but also discourages others from providing honest feedback, which could help the individual improve. Over time, this behavior creates an echo chamber where only positive reinforcement is welcomed, further disconnecting the individual from reality.
Blame Shifting and Externalization of Failure
Blame shifting is another key behavior of individuals with high self-esteem and low competence. Rather than accepting responsibility for their mistakes, they externalize failure by attributing it to factors outside their control, such as bad luck, biased supervisors, managers, or evaluators, or uncooperative team members. This externalization serves to protect their ego by deflecting accountability and preserving their self-image as competent and successful (Campbell & Sedikides, 1999). For example, an employee who consistently misses deadlines might blame unclear instructions or uncooperative colleagues rather than their own poor time management skills.
Blame shifting is a common manifestation of the Actor-Observer bias, a cognitive bias where individuals attribute their own negative behaviors to external factors while attributing others' negative behaviors to internal characteristics (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). When engaged in blame shifting, people deflect responsibility for their mistakes or failures onto others or external circumstances, aligning with the Actor-Observer bias by emphasizing situational causes for their actions while neglecting similar considerations for others (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). This tendency reinforces self-serving narratives and protects one's self-image by minimizing personal accountability.
The tendency to shift blame undermines personal growth and learning because it prevents individuals from engaging in the self-reflection necessary to recognize and correct their deficiencies (Sedikides & Alicke, 2012). Instead of viewing failures as opportunities for development, blame-shifting individuals see them as proof that external forces are conspiring against their success. This mindset can lead to a cycle of repeated mistakes, as the individual fails to take corrective actions or develop the skills needed to improve their performance.
Impact on Interpersonal and Professional Relationships
Defensiveness and blame shifting can also negatively impact interpersonal and professional relationships. Colleagues, subordinates, or supervisors may become frustrated with an individual's refusal to accept responsibility, leading to conflicts and diminished trust (Leary et al., 2007). In team settings, these behaviors can create a toxic environment where accountability is lacking, and constructive criticism is avoided for fear of backlash. Over time, this can erode team cohesion and impair overall performance, as individuals become reluctant to collaborate or provide honest feedback.
Moreover, blame shifting often leads to scapegoating, where others are unfairly held responsible for failures. This can damage relationships and morale, particularly in organizational settings where team success depends on mutual support and cooperation. The individual’s constant need to protect their self-image at the expense of others fosters resentment and can significantly hinder group dynamics (Schaubroeck et al., 2011).
Defensiveness and blame shifting are symptomatic of the gap between high self-esteem and low competence. These behaviors serve to protect the individual's ego but come at the cost of personal growth, professional effectiveness, and healthy relationships. Recognizing these patterns is crucial for addressing the underlying issues and fostering an environment where constructive feedback and personal accountability are valued.
Resistance to Feedback and Learning
Individuals with high self-esteem but low competence are frequently unwilling to accept feedback that challenges their inflated self-view. Research indicates that when these individuals receive negative feedback, they often respond with denial or justification, refusing to acknowledge the validity of the criticism (Baumeister et al., 2003). This defensive stance is motivated by a need to maintain their sense of self-worth, which is closely tied to their belief in their abilities. Consequently, they may only seek out feedback that confirms their strengths, avoiding input that could highlight their weaknesses (Kernis, 2003).
This selective feedback process creates an echo chamber that reinforces their self-delusions. By disregarding critical feedback, they miss opportunities for self-correction and skill development, which are essential for personal and professional growth (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). For example, an employee who consistently underperforms might focus solely on the rare positive remarks they receive, while disregarding repeated suggestions for improvement from supervisors or peers.
Fear of Learning and Self-Reflection
Resistance to feedback often extends to a broader reluctance to engage in learning activities that might expose their lack of competence. Individuals who overestimate their abilities may avoid new challenges or learning opportunities, fearing that their inadequacies will be revealed (Dunning, 2011). This fear of failure or embarrassment can lead them to shy away from training, skill development workshops, or any form of self-improvement that requires admitting they have room to grow.
Research on the Dunning-Kruger effect highlights that those with low competence often lack the metacognitive skills needed to evaluate their own abilities accurately, making them blind to the extent of their incompetence (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). As a result, they rarely seek out new knowledge or skill-building opportunities because they believe they are already proficient. This resistance to learning not only hampers their development but also perpetuates their cycle of failure, as they continue to operate with outdated or incorrect information.
Dismissal of Expert Advice
Another manifestation of this behavior is the dismissal of expert advice. Individuals with inflated self-esteem may not only resist direct feedback but also undermine the credibility of experts who contradict their self-perceptions. They might downplay the relevance of others' expertise or suggest that their unique perspective is just as valid, despite evidence to the contrary (Schaefer & Williams, 2020). This behavior further isolates them from valuable insights that could enhance their competence.
For instance, in organizational settings, a manager who dismisses expert recommendations in favor of their intuition may lead their team astray, making uninformed decisions that result in poor outcomes. This dismissal of expert advice can create a toxic work environment where others feel undervalued and demoralized, reducing overall team effectiveness and trust.
Consequences of Feedback Resistance
The resistance to feedback and learning can have significant negative consequences, not only for the individual but also for those around them. By refusing to acknowledge their areas of weakness, these individuals remain stagnant, unable to adapt to new challenges or improve their performance. This stagnation can lead to repeated failures and missed opportunities, as they are unable to grow beyond their current skill level (Ilgen et al., 1979). Moreover, their behavior can have a detrimental impact on team dynamics, as their unwillingness to accept feedback can discourage others from offering input, stifling collaboration, and innovation.
Furthermore, their resistance to learning can reinforce a fixed mindset, where they view their abilities as innate and unchangeable rather than malleable through effort and practice (Dweck, 2006). This fixed mindset limits their potential, as they are unlikely to invest the time and energy necessary to develop new competencies. Ultimately, the combination of high self-esteem and low competence, coupled with an aversion to feedback and learning, creates a self-sustaining loop of underperformance and missed growth opportunities.
Resistance to feedback and learning among individuals with high self-esteem but low competence is a significant barrier to personal and professional development. Their defensive responses to criticism, avoidance of self-reflection, and dismissal of expert advice prevent them from gaining the insights needed to close the gap between their perceived and actual abilities. Addressing these behaviors through targeted interventions, such as promoting a growth mindset and encouraging reflective practices, can help individuals become more open to feedback and committed to lifelong learning.
Superficial Charm and Social Manipulation
Individuals with high self-esteem but low competence often use superficial charm and social manipulation to maintain their inflated self-image and mask their lack of actual skills. These behaviors are typically characterized by a polished, persuasive demeanor that can temporarily impress others but ultimately lacks depth and authenticity. This superficial charm serves as a strategic tool, allowing these individuals to navigate social and professional environments without revealing their incompetence. However, this behavior can also have damaging effects on relationships and organizational culture as the manipulative nature of these interactions often leads to mistrust and disillusionment among peers (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
Superficial Charm as a Defense Mechanism
Superficial charm is often employed as a defense mechanism by those with high self-esteem but low competence, allowing them to divert attention away from their deficiencies. This charm manifests as an ability to engage others with charisma, articulate communication, and a seemingly confident presence, which can create a favorable initial impression (Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990). However, this outward charm is typically shallow and designed to mask the individual's lack of genuine expertise or skill. The aim is to project an image of competence and likability, which can temporarily compensate for their inability to perform effectively.
Individuals utilizing superficial charm often excel in short-term interactions where deep engagement or scrutiny of their actual abilities is unlikely. They may be adept at networking, making connections, and persuading others, but these interactions often lack substance. In professional settings, they might use charm to gain favor with superiors, avoid accountability, or manipulate team dynamics to their advantage (Jonason et al., 2012). This superficiality can be particularly misleading, as it may initially lead others to overestimate their capabilities, only for the truth to emerge when their performance is assessed.
Social Manipulation and Exploitation
Social manipulation is another key behavior observed in individuals with high self-esteem but low competence. These individuals often employ manipulative tactics to maintain control over situations and people. Common manipulative strategies include flattery, deceit, exaggeration of accomplishments, and the strategic withholding of information (Buss, 1991). They may frequently shift narratives to suit their needs, presenting themselves as victims, heroes, or experts depending on what the situation demands. This flexibility in self-presentation is a means of influencing others' perceptions, often at the expense of honesty and integrity.
Manipulative individuals are skilled at identifying the needs, weaknesses, or desires of others and exploiting these insights to further their own agendas (Back et al., 2010). For example, they might use selective praise to gain the trust of a colleague or employ guilt to deflect criticism and shift responsibility. These tactics not only serve to protect their self-esteem but also allow them to avoid confronting their own inadequacies. Over time, however, these manipulative behaviors can erode relationships and create a toxic work environment characterized by mistrust and resentment.
Impact on Interpersonal Relationships and Organizational Culture
The use of superficial charm and social manipulation often has far-reaching consequences, particularly in environments where teamwork and trust are essential. Initially, these behaviors may allow the individual to climb social or professional ladders, gaining positions of influence or authority. However, as their true competence—or lack thereof—becomes apparent, the impact on their relationships can be severely damaging. Colleagues and subordinates may feel deceived, exploited, or unsupported, leading to conflict and disengagement (Kramer, 1994).
In organizational contexts, manipulative behavior can disrupt team dynamics, as these individuals often prioritize personal gain over group success. Their unwillingness to engage authentically can hinder open communication, collaboration, and the development of a cohesive team culture. Furthermore, when manipulative individuals occupy leadership roles, they may set a negative precedent, encouraging similar behaviors among their subordinates, and creating an environment where dishonesty and self-interest are rewarded (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013).
Long-Term Consequences
While superficial charm and manipulation may provide short-term benefits, such as social acceptance or career advancement, the long-term consequences are often detrimental. These behaviors can lead to a cycle of failed relationships, professional setbacks, and a tarnished reputation as others begin to recognize the discrepancy between the individual’s charm and their actual competence. Additionally, the ongoing need to manipulate and deceive can contribute to personal stress, as maintaining the facade requires constant vigilance and effort (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
Ultimately, reliance on superficial charm and social manipulation reflects a deeper issue of insecurity and a fundamental unwillingness to engage in the genuine self-improvement needed to match their self-esteem with real competence. Addressing these behaviors requires fostering an environment where feedback is valued, learning is encouraged, and authenticity is prioritized over appearances.
Dismissiveness of Others’ Expertise
Individuals with high self-esteem but low competence often exhibit a dismissive attitude toward the expertise and opinions of others, which serves as a protective mechanism for maintaining their inflated self-image. This behavior is marked by a refusal to acknowledge the value of others' input, often accompanied by a tendency to undermine, or disregard expert advice. The dismissiveness of others’ expertise stems from an overestimation of their own knowledge and abilities, coupled with a fear that recognizing others’ competence would expose their inadequacies (Dunning, 2011; Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
Overestimation of Self and Underestimation of Others
A hallmark of individuals who lack competence yet possess high self-esteem is their chronic overestimation of their abilities. This cognitive bias, known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, leads them to believe that they are as knowledgeable or skilled as true experts, even when they lack basic understanding (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). As a result, they tend to dismiss the contributions of those with more expertise, perceiving them as unnecessary or irrelevant. This overestimation prevents them from recognizing the value of specialized knowledge, leading to poor decision-making, and missed learning opportunities.
For instance, in a workplace setting, a manager with high self-esteem but limited competence might ignore the recommendations of technical experts, believing that their generalist perspective is sufficient. This dismissiveness can result in suboptimal solutions and inefficiencies, as expert insights are sidelined in favor of the individual’s misguided confidence (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). This behavior is not only detrimental to decision quality but can also demoralize team members, reducing overall group performance.
Insecurity and Fear of Comparison
Dismissiveness toward others’ expertise is also fueled by underlying insecurities. Acknowledging someone else’s competence requires confronting one’s own limitations, which is uncomfortable for individuals who rely on their self-esteem to mask their lack of skill. As a defense mechanism, they may belittle or question the credentials of others, attempting to level the playing field by casting doubt on others’ expertise (Leary et al., 2007). This behavior allows them to avoid feelings of inferiority and maintain their self-perception as competent and capable.
The dismissiveness of others’ expertise is often accompanied by rationalizations that downplay the importance of specialized knowledge. For example, an individual might argue that practical experience outweighs formal education or that unconventional thinking is more valuable than traditional expertise (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). These justifications serve to protect their ego by reframing their lack of competence as an advantage rather than a deficiency.
Impact on Collaboration and Decision-Making
The dismissiveness of others' expertise can have significant negative impacts on collaboration and decision-making processes. In team environments, the unwillingness to consider expert advice can stifle innovation and prevent the group from fully leveraging its diverse knowledge base (Edmondson, 1999). This behavior is particularly problematic in high-stakes situations where the input of experts is critical to success, such as in medical, technical, or strategic contexts. By disregarding expert opinions, individuals can lead teams toward decisions that are poorly informed and potentially harmful.
Moreover, the constant undermining of experts can create a culture of distrust and resentment within organizations. Team members who feel that their expertise is undervalued may become disengaged or less willing to contribute, fearing that their input will be dismissed (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). This dynamic not only reduces the quality of group outcomes but also harms morale, as skilled professionals find their efforts undervalued and ignored.
Resistance to Collaborative Learning
Individuals who dismiss others’ expertise also tend to resist collaborative learning, as they are unwilling to admit that they could benefit from the knowledge of others. This resistance is a significant barrier to personal and professional growth, as it prevents the individual from engaging in meaningful exchanges of ideas and learning from those around them (Argyris & Schön, 1978). In organizational settings, this resistance can lead to a lack of continuous improvement, as feedback loops and learning opportunities are disrupted by the individual’s refusal to acknowledge the contributions of others.
In leadership positions, this behavior is especially damaging. Leaders who dismiss expert input may not only make poor decisions but also set a negative example for their teams, fostering a culture where feedback is undervalued, and expertise is undermined. This can create a cascade effect where poor decision-making becomes normalized, and organizational performance suffers as a result (Edmondson, 2012).
Being dismissiveness of others’ expertise is a key behavior of individuals with high self-esteem but low competence. By undermining the value of specialized knowledge, these individuals protect their self-image at the expense of effective decision-making and collaborative growth. Addressing this behavior requires promoting humility, encouraging open dialogue, and creating environments where diverse perspectives are respected and valued.
Conclusion
Individuals with high self-esteem but low competence exhibit a range of maladaptive behaviors that reflect the disconnect between their perceived and actual abilities. These behaviors, including overconfidence, defensiveness, resistance to feedback, superficial charm, social manipulation, and dismissiveness of others' expertise, serve as mechanisms to protect their inflated self-image from the reality of their limitations. However, these protective behaviors ultimately hinder their personal and professional growth, undermine relationships, and negatively impact group and organizational dynamics.
Overconfidence leads these individuals to take unnecessary risks and make decisions without adequate preparation, often resulting in repeated failures (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Schaefer & Williams, 2020). Defensiveness and blame-shifting behaviors prevent them from learning from their mistakes, as they deflect responsibility and refuse to engage in the self-reflection necessary for improvement (Baumeister et al., 2003; Leary et al., 2007). Their resistance to feedback and learning further exacerbates this issue, as they avoid constructive criticism and opportunities for growth, clinging instead to an unrealistic self-image (Dunning, 2011).
Superficial charm and social manipulation allow these individuals to temporarily mask their incompetence, gaining social or professional advantages without the substance to back them up. However, these behaviors can erode trust and lead to disillusionment among peers and colleagues, creating a toxic environment that discourages genuine collaboration and honesty (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Back et al., 2010). Similarly, dismissiveness of others’ expertise reflects an unwillingness to recognize the value of diverse perspectives, ultimately stifling innovation, teamwork, and effective decision-making (Edmondson, 1999; Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
Addressing these maladaptive behaviors requires targeted interventions that promote self-awareness, humility, and a willingness to engage in continuous learning. Encouraging a growth mindset—where abilities are seen as improvable through effort—can help individuals shift from protecting their self-esteem to actively developing their skills (Dweck, 2006). Organizational cultures that value feedback, embrace diverse expertise, and foster psychological safety can also play a critical role in helping these individuals align their self-perceptions with reality, ultimately improving both personal outcomes and group effectiveness (Edmondson, 2012).
By recognizing and addressing the behavioral patterns associated with high self-esteem and low competence, individuals can be guided toward more constructive ways of interacting, learning, and leading. This shift not only benefits the individuals themselves but also enhances the overall functioning and culture of the teams and organizations in which they operate.
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132-145.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 459-491.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3(1), 23-43.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 392-414.
Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247-296.
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2004). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 83-87.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. John Wiley & Sons.
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(2), 98-121.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552-564.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). General Learning Press.
Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2006). A hubris theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52(2), 160-172.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). Leadership Library of America.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2012). Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 10(1), 1-7.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
Kramer, R. M. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 199-230.
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.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2007). Interpersonal consequences of self-esteem. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), The self: Frontiers in social psychology (pp. 69-92). Psychology Press.
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1271-1288.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.
Schaefer, J., & Williams, D. (2020). Overconfidence and incompetence: Exploring the effects of high self-esteem on behavior. Journal of Behavioral Psychology, 32(3), 189-203.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863-871.
Sedikides, C., & Alicke, M. D. (2012). Self-enhancement and self-protection motives. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 327-353). The Guilford Press.
Comments