The Danger of Overconfidence

As a manager, having confidence in your abilities is certainly important for leading teams and making critical business decisions. However, there is a fine line between self-assurance and falling victim to a dangerous cognitive bias called metacluelessness – a lack of awareness about the boundaries of your own competence.

Clifford’s Ethics of Belief

Philosopher William Kingdon Clifford highlighted the ethical importance of not allowing ourselves to remain in a state of false beliefs or delusions. In his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” Clifford argues it is wrong, whenever the occasion arises, to believe something on insufficient evidence. To do so is to erect a “scorner’s chair” for truth and to fail to uphold our fundamental duty as human beings to pursue truth diligently.

Metacluelessness as Unethical Delusion

Metacluelessness directly violates this duty that Clifford lays out. It causes managers to grossly overestimate their skills, knowledge, and overall managerial competence based on delusional confidence rather than objective assessment of the evidence of their understanding. Managers suffering from metacluelessness erect their own “scorner’s chairs” for truth in their areas of responsibility.

They think they have a solid handle on principles, best practices, people, psycvhology, emerging trends, and the complexities involved, when in reality there are gaping holes in their grasp that they fail to acknowledge. Suffering from metacluelessness, managers operate under a false sense of mastery over critical management disciplines. They are clueless about the true extent of their cluelessness and knowledge gaps. This creates disastrous blind spots in their judgment and decision-making.

The Root of Managerial Arrogance

As Clifford states, “The source of all the miserable self-idolatries…the despicable vices…is nothing other than a persuasion existing in men’s minds not based on fair reasoning and evidence.” Metacluelessness breeds overconfidence based on delusional beliefs about one’s true competence. It is the root of managerial arrogance, close-mindedness, dismissal of risks, and poor strategic vision.

Catastrophic Consequences

The consequences can be catastrophic – flawed strategies, missed opportunities, sunk costs from failures, poor leadership examples set for teams, and more. Entire companies have met their demise because executive leadership teams suffered from the “miserable self-idolatry” of individual and collective metacluelessness in critical areas.

Cultivating True Competence

Combating metacluelessness requires cultivating true competence – an awareness of what you don’t know and diligence in addressing those shortcomings. It starts with the intellectual humility that Clifford upheld as critical for a responsible pursuit of truth and knowledge. Admit the limits of your expertise without feeling inadequate. As Clifford wrote, “A generous admission of knowledge gaps is the condition of all real progress.”

The Best Never Stop Learning

Recognise that as a manager, you supervise teams filled with specialised knowledge you cannot possibly match in every domain. True competence means knowing when to rely on the wisdom of others with deeper mastery and looking for opportunities to expand your own understanding through fair reasoning and examination of evidence. It’s about embracing a habit of perpetual learning to strengthen beliefs in alignment with evidential proof.

The best managers never stop questioning their grasp of important principles and best practices based on the ethics of belief laid out by Clifford. Don’t let the “despicable vice” of overconfident metacluelessness derail your judgment through beliefs detached from rigorous evidentiary standards. Proactively identify and confront the boundaries of your competence. Only then can you become a more complete, ethically sound, and effective manager capable of leading teams and companies to success built on a foundation of diligently pursued truths.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect in Tech

Imagine being in a room with people who claim decades of experience in software development. Sounds reassuring, right? Yet experience doesn’t guarantee a firm grasp of the industry’s intricacies. The Dunning-Kruger effect illustrates this well: the less people know about a subject, the more confident they are in their supposed mastery of it. Many seasoned professionals in the software industry fall into this cognitive trap, overestimating their understanding and thereby setting a misleading example for others, especially non-software managers and executives.

The Delusion of Competence

A decade or two in the industry can create a sense of complacency. Technical jargon might roll off the tongue, but that doesn’t mean one understands how to implement effective software strategies or guide a team to success. The fundamentals—effective communication, human factors, psychology, and adaptability—often get lost amidst a focus on technical shiny.

The Disconnect with Non-Tech Executives

If experienced tech folks can’t fully grasp their domain, what chance do general managers and non-software executives have? The sad truth is, these individuals often look to seasoned tech pros for guidance, not realising that experience doesn’t always equate to insight. The failure to appreciate one’s limitations isn’t limited to tech—it’s a human issue that can mislead even the sharpest business minds.

Gaining Real Insight

A blindspot in one’s understanding isn’t an insurmountable hurdle. It starts with acknowledging that experience doesn’t mean you’ve seen it all. Adopt a learner’s mindset. Open dialogue and collaboration are crucial; consult with different specialiss to get a more rounded view. Self-awareness and self-knowledge are key.

The Uncomfortable Reality

In an arena where expertise is often flaunted like a badge of honour, it’s unsettling to acknowledge that years in the field don’t necessarily translate to genuine insight. It’s not just a cautionary tale for tech industry veterans; it’s a universal warning for executives across the board. Question your assumptions, scrutinise your knowledge, doubt your experts, and maintain a posture of continuous learning. The moment you think you’ve got it all figured out is likely the moment you’re most wrong.

Unveiling the Emperor: Agile’s Non-Existent Clothes

If Agile were a bottle of snake oil peddled by a slick, moustachioed charlatan, would you still buy it? This provocative question necessitates confronting the uncomfortable fact that Agile, the beloved darling of software development, has no merits to speak of. In this exposé, we’ll look at the concept of “mendacious gullibility” through the lens of William Kingdon Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief,” to probe why Agile has garnered such uncritical and unworthy adoration.

Note: Here, we’re talking about Agile as it commonly manifests in software development. Pursuit of agility across a whole organisation is a different kettle of fish. Cf. ABC and agility at scale.

Unpacking Mendacious Gullibility

Mendacious gullibility is a state of wilful self-deception, where the desire to believe is so strong that it eclipses the moral obligation to scrutinise. According to Clifford, beliefs without a sturdy foundation of evidence are not merely misguided, but ethically unsound. When applied to Agile, this means that adopting the concept, and practices, without critical analysis is not only ineffective but morally dubious.

Agile’s Hollow Promises: A Critical Dissection

Agile promises adaptability, collaboration, and speed. Yet, if we’re honest, these promises often fall flat. Efforts don’t necessarily become more efficient, nor do teams always feel more empowered. So, why does the belief persist that Agile is beneficial? The answer likely lies in mendacious gullibility—a collective suspension of critical thinking encouraged by self-interest, catchy jargon and snake oil testimonials.

The Real-World Consequences: Beyond Failed Efforts

The impact of this self-serving self-deception is not restricted to resources and timelines; it penetrates the ethical core of an organisation. Team morale can suffer, trust in leadership may erode, and the overall health of the business could be jeopardised. The price of mendacious gullibility is not just operational but deeply ethical.

Debunking the Agile Myth: An Ethical Imperative

For those who care about ethical governance and responsible leadership, the requirement is clear: Agile must be critically evaluated and, when found wanting, discarded.

• Demand hard evidence rather than relying on industry buzz.
• Challenge the proponents of Agile to provide substantive proof of its applicability.
• Be willing to consider alternatives that may not have Agile’s glamour but offer evidence-based effectiveness.

In Closing: The Moral Duty to Question

If Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” serves as any guide, we must confront the disturbing idea that Agile’s universal adoption might be a manifestation of mendacious gullibility. It’s not simply that Agile is inappropriate for certain efforts; it is that Agile is fundamentally flawed, with no redeeming merits beyond its ability to lever open the wallets of the naively gullible.

Moral integrity demands more than self-deluding acceptance. As we navigate the labyrinth of methods and best practices, how about we commit to an ethical approach that values evidence over hype. And when it comes to Agile, it’s time we stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

I’ve lost count of all the faddish theories of yesteryear, now thoroughly debunked, yet to which proponents still cleave.

Examples:
• Myers-Briggs (MBTI)
• Growth Mindset
• The Agile software development approach
• Learning Styles
• The 10,000 hour rule
• The Pygmalion effect
• The Hawthorne Effect (?)
• The left brain/right brain myth
• The myth of multitasking being OK
• Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
• Jim Collins – Good to Great / Build to Last (?)
• The Stanford Prison Experiment (?)
• The Milgram Experiment (?)
• Stockholm Syndrome (?)
• The Cone of Learning / The Learning Pyramid
…and so on.

#StayCurious #StayAbreast