THE challenges confronting Zimbabwe’s public institutions are often discussed through the lenses of corruption, political interference, maladministration, economic instability and resource constraints.
While these factors undoubtedly influence organisational performance, there is another less visible but equally damaging phenomenon that deserves attention and that is the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE).
First identified by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, the DKE describes a cognitive bias where limited knowledge creates the illusion of expertise, whereby individuals with limited competence in a particular area overestimate their abilities, while genuinely capable individuals tend to underestimate theirs. In simple terms, the people who know the least are often the most confident, while those who know the most are often the most cautious.
The person who understands the problem the least, speaks first, longest and with the most confidence. They are unaware that they do not know what they do not know. Their own incompetence blinds their own incompetence. The person who knows the solution is asked last and starts by saying, “it’s a little more nuanced than that” and then get interrupted half way through their presentation.
Although the DKE is a universal human tendency, its consequences can be particularly severe in organisations where accountability is weak, expertise is undervalued, and decision-making is concentrated among a small group of influential individuals.
In Zimbabwe, especially within state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the effect can manifest in ways that undermine governance, stifle innovation and contribute to institutional decline.
The tragedy of the DKE is not merely that incompetent individuals make mistakes. Rather, it is that they often lack the self-awareness necessary to recognise those mistakes. Because they possess limited knowledge, they are also unable to accurately assess the extent of their ignorance. This creates a dangerous cycle in which poor decisions are made with absolute confidence, while more competent voices are ignored or dismissed.
Anyone who has worked within certain Zimbabwean organisations may recognise this phenomenon. There are occasions when individuals occupying senior positions display remarkable certainty about matters they scarcely understand. They dominate meetings, reject expert advice and insist on pursuing strategies despite clear evidence of their shortcomings. At the same time, technically-competent professionals frequently remain silent, reluctant to challenge authority or overstate their expertise. The result is an organisational culture where confidence is mistaken for competence.
The eight harsh truths of the DKE effect are:
l The less you know, the more confident and wrong you are;
l Confidence and visibility does not make you competent;
l The peak feels like mastery, until reality humiliates you;
l Feedback feels like an attack;
l Your ignorance wastes time, resources and trust;
l Real power comes from knowing how little you actually know;
l Admitting you do not know requires courage and humility; and
l The longer you stay blind, the higher the price for the organisation.
In the play As You Like It, William Shakespeare so eloquently encapsulates the DKE some 400 years ago, in Act 5, Scene 1, “the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool”. SOEs provide fertile ground for the DKE, because many operate within environments where appointments have in the past not always been based solely on technical expertise or proven managerial competence.
In some cases, leadership positions have been influenced by political considerations, patronage networks or personal connections. While such appointments do not automatically imply incompetence, they could potentially create situations where individuals find themselves managing highly-specialised institutions without the necessary experience or knowledge.
Consider an SOE in aviation, energy, transportation, or even banking. These sectors require sophisticated technical understanding, strategic planning, financial literacy and regulatory expertise. If leaders overestimate their capabilities while lacking the required skills, they run the risk of dismissing professional advice from engineers, economists, accountants and operational specialists.
Instead of relying on evidence-based decision-making, they might end up depending on intuition, personal beliefs or assumptions that are disconnected from operational realities.
One of the clearest signs of the DKE illustrations in Zimbabwean organisations is the tendency to equate position with competence. Holding a senior title does not automatically confer expertise. Yet many institutions unconsciously assume that authority and knowledge are synonymous. As a result, decisions are rarely challenged because questioning a superior is interpreted as disrespect rather than constructive engagement.
In such environments, meetings often become performances rather than forums for problem-solving. Senior officials speak with certainty on complex issues while junior experts remain silent. Decisions are reached quickly, not because they are correct, but because no one feels empowered to question them. Over time, organisations lose their capacity for critical thinking and institutional learning.
Another warning sign is resistance to feedback. Individuals affected by the DKE frequently perceive criticism as a personal attack rather than an opportunity for growth. They become defensive when confronted with evidence that contradicts their assumptions.
In Zimbabwean SOEs, this is observed when audit findings, performance evaluations or independent assessments are ignored or minimised. Instead of addressing weaknesses, leadership may blame external factors such as sanctions, funding shortages, economic conditions or political interference.
While these factors do indeed affect organisational performance, excessive reliance on external explanations often prevents institutions from examining their own shortcomings. Effective leaders acknowledge both external constraints and internal weaknesses. Those influenced by the DKE tend to focus exclusively on the former.
The consequences for governance are profound. Good governance depends on transparency, accountability, competence and informed decision-making. When overconfidence replaces expertise, governance structures begin to weaken. Some boards fail to exercise proper oversight because they lack the confidence and independence to challenge executive decisions. Management teams become insulated from criticism. Risk management processes exist only on paper, while strategic decisions are made without adequate analysis.
One consequence is poor resource allocation. Zimbabwe’s SOEs often operate under severe financial constraints, making efficient use of resources essential. Yet leaders who overestimate their abilities often pursue unrealistic projects, underestimate costs or ignore operational risks. Resources are diverted toward initiatives that are poorly conceived, while critical maintenance, training and service delivery functions are neglected.
The DKE also contributes to a culture of mediocrity. When overconfidence is rewarded more than competence, employees quickly learn that appearing knowledgeable is more valuable than actually being knowledgeable. Talented professionals become frustrated and disengaged. Some leave for the greener pastures locally or opportunities abroad, contributing to the brain drain that has affected Zimbabwe for decades.
Those who remain often adopt a strategy of silence. They stop offering innovative ideas because they know their expertise will be ignored. In this way, the organisation gradually loses its most valuable asset, which is, intellectual capital. Ironically, the individuals most capable of improving performance are often the least likely to promote themselves aggressively, while those with the least expertise dominate discussions and decision-making processes.
The DKE tends to undermine organisational ethics. Overconfident leaders frequently believe they are incapable of making poor decisions. This sense of infallibility reduces the likelihood of self-scrutiny and increases the risk of ethical lapses. Governance failures often begin with the assumption that leaders do not need checks and balances because they already know what is best. History shows that institutional collapse rarely occurs overnight. It is usually the result of accumulated poor decisions, ignored warnings and an unwillingness to learn from mistakes. The DKE accelerates this process because it prevents organisations from recognising their own weaknesses until problems become crises.
How, then, can Zimbabwean organisations identify and address this DKE phenomenon?
The first step is to cultivate a culture of humility. Effective leaders understand that expertise is never complete and that continuous learning is essential. Humility should not be confused with weakness. On the contrary, the strongest leaders are often those who acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and actively seek advice from others.
Second, organisations should institutionalise constructive dissent. Employees at all levels must feel safe to challenge assumptions and present alternative viewpoints. Governance systems should encourage debate rather than suppress it. When disagreement is viewed as a contribution rather than an act of disloyalty, decision quality improves significantly.
Third, meritocracy must be strengthened. Recruitment and promotion processes should prioritise competence, qualifications, experience and demonstrated performance. While no system is perfect, organisations that reward expertise are less vulnerable to the DKE than those that reward loyalty alone.
Fourth, regular performance evaluations should be linked to measurable outcomes rather than subjective perceptions. One of the reasons the DKE persists is that individuals receive insufficient feedback about their actual performance. Objective metrics provide a reality check that can expose gaps between perceived and actual competence.
Fifth, boards of directors must play a more active governance role. Effective boards challenge management, demand evidence and insist on accountability. They serve as an important safeguard against overconfidence and poor decision-making. Where boards merely rubber-stamp executive decisions, governance failures become more likely.
Finally, organisations should invest in continuous professional development. Training programmes, leadership development initiatives and exposure to international best practices help individuals recognise knowledge gaps and develop the skills necessary to address them. Learning is one of the most effective antidotes to overconfidence.
The DKE may appear to be an abstract psychological concept, but its consequences are visible in the everyday realities of organisational life. In Zimbabwe’s public institutions, it can manifest through overconfident leadership, resistance to feedback, weak accountability and poor decision-making. Left unchecked, it undermines governance, wastes resources, discourages talent and erodes public trust.
Yet the phenomenon is not inevitable. Organisations that value humility, evidence, competence and accountability can mitigate its effects. The challenge for Zimbabwe is not merely to identify individuals who suffer from the DKE but to create institutional cultures that prevent overconfidence from becoming a substitute for expertise.
Ultimately, the future of Zimbabwe’s public institutions depends not on leaders who claim to know everything, but on leaders who are wise enough to recognise what they do not know. In governance, as in life, genuine competence is often accompanied by humility, while unwarranted certainty is frequently a warning sign. The organisations that thrive will be those that understand the difference.
Ndoro-Mkombachoto is a former academic and banker. As a systems transformation strategist, she has helped multilateral agencies like the UN, IFC/World Bank, DANIDA, CIDA, GTZ, etc, future-proof their operations in markets where the rules are still being written, including private and public sector companies like Seed Co Zimbabwe/International and Hwange Colliery, operating in volatile emerging markets and constrained ecosystems, solve the complexity of institutional alignment, by using strategy frameworks that turn systemic constraints into growth engines. She is the current chairperson of NetOne Financial Services PLC, a subsidiary of the MNO NetOne. Follow Gloria on YouTube @HeartfeltwithGloria or email: gloria@sustainwisestrategies.co.za