Miscalibration (and overconfidence)
I've been thinking about overconfidence that we see a lot in conductors and other areas of artistic leadership.
Malcolm Gladwell talks about it in the context of how and why experts fail. One idea he explores is miscalibration. This article gives a helpful overview of what Gladwell brings to the table regarding miscalibration, along with some examples of how it manifests
The article describes expert failure as "the paradox that people make mistakes and misjudgments, not because of incompetence or lack of information, but precisely because they have information. The reason is that with all this information comes overconfidence. As we get more information our level of confidence grows, but our level of accuracy does not always follow suit thus increasing the gap between what we know and what we think we know."
When experts think they're better than they are or know more than they really do, they suffer failure due to miscalibration. And their mistakes are hugely influential and consequential since they are experts and leaders who have impact.
Miscalibration can be relevant in hiring processes or making strategic decisions where we rely on collecting an abundance of information to feel more safe and validated regarding our choices. Sometimes we don't realize that we even search for information that corroborates or confirms our biases and inclinations.
Miscalibration can also be seen in a conductor's work in rehearsals. I now realize that I usually calibrate my confidence walking into a rehearsal using the metric of how much time and effort I spent on preparation. The more that I prepared, the more confident I feel. The more confident I feel, the more conviction I demonstrate. While preparation leads to integrity in my work, it may also lead to my being less open to conflicting ideas or what anyone has to say. I end up questioning less and reflecting less because I feel a certain confidence that I've figured things out. On the other hand, when I feel like I still have more to learn about a score and I don't hold the answers to everything (usually because the score is new to me), my confidence level drops significantly. I often feel like there is a decrease in my performance and effectiveness when I suffer from lack of confidence, but interestingly, those are also the moments where I become more curious, open, and accepting of help or insight from others. And I end up gaining much more.
***
I'm certainly not advocating for eliminating confidence as a leader or for ditching the integrity of the work that leads to confidence.
When our confidence markedly increases because we gain one more reason to justify our decisions, the real question is: does our level of accuracy in those decisions increase the same amount?
Aside from measuring the amount of information we have, I wonder if there are additional ways we can better calibrate (and close) the gap between "what we think we know" and "what we actually know."
We can start by recognizing we cannot do this in a vacuum on our own. We need help from others in the organization (at all levels) to reveal our blindspots. We can ask them what they see that we don't see. Ask them what they think and how they might solve problems. Instead of waiting for musicians to come to me with questions, I can work harder to go to them and ask for their opinions. Share what I know and allow them to reveal the information that I thought I knew but didn't actually know. We are always smarter together.
The main goal is to gain a clearer picture of how miscalibration of our confidence (in the past, present and future) may cause us to not perform at our best, not make the most sound decisions, and sometimes fail.
Sign up to receive an email with each new post.
Visit my YouTube channel for all blog videos and my artistic work.
