I am big fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s work, as is my daughter Hannah, and a number of people in my MA class, so we went down to see him speak at the Brighton Dome on Tuesday night.
MG decided to talk about ‘overconfidence’ instead of taking any extracts from his existing books – which was very interesting and rather refreshing.
So what did he say? As usual Malcolm Gladwell showed himself to be the master of the ‘engaging narrative’. I know of no other speaker with his talent, not as a master public speaker as such, but as a weaver of new complex observations, applied research and historical perspectives.
Gladwell described research, now about 50 years old, where a clinical psychologist gathered a large group of other psychologists and asked them 20 or so questions on a case. The psychologists were asked to answer the same questions a further 4 times, with additional case information being added between each set. The percentage of correct answers did not increase as the information increased, in fact they mostly stayed around the 29-30% mark.
In addition to asking the participants to answer the questions, they were asked to estimate their correct answers for each set. In this instance the estimates for accuracy kept increasing as their information increased… in some instances they estimated that they had answered 90% of the questions correctly – while in reality they had only answered about 30% correctly.
Gladwell describes this as being ‘over-calibrated’ – where our confidence is massively increased with the volume of information – which actually diverts us from actually thinking clearly. Often more information confuses us rather than informs us. To support this thinking Gladwell relates this to two stories – one from the US Civil War and the other to the stock market crash.
His main example of overconfidence was the behaviour of the CEO of Bearn Stearns, James Cayne, as the company reached crisis point. Instead of taking any action Cayne went to a 10 day bridge tournament where phones were not permitted. This story is well known in financial markets.
The Civil War example described the overconfident behaviour of Union Commander Joseph Hooker at the battle of Chancellorsville. The Confederate Commander, Robert Lee, surrounded Hooker’s men and defeated them despite being at a great troop disadvantage (2:1), and Hooker having advanced information gathering systems. The overconfidence took the form of delaying action in favour of meals – although I suspect this detail was included in part for amusement. Robert Lee went on to loose his next battle due to overconfidence of his own.
In closing his story and arguments Gladwell observed that society encouraged over-calibration by elevating the over-confident, almost requiring this false sense of authority, in leaders especially, and said that what we should be encouraging our experts to cultivate and demonstrate humility instead.
A hour was too short – but he did sign books and was very accommodating about taking photos with fans. We liked that….
Tessy Britton
Thanks Tessy! I too am a big fan of MG. I appreciate the concluding comment about the cultural penchant for elevating those who never doubt themselves. I hope workers in EQ can help shift the tone and help leaders to acknowledge their doubts and fears–to themselves and others.
I, too heard MG speak on the psychology of overconfidence and, while I think his books are masterfully supported and I subscribe to his philosophies and tenets on a daily basis, I find his view of ‘overconfidence’ somewhat flawed.
I think it would be difficult for MG to argue against the idea that what he calls overconfidence is actually just sheer hubris and arrogance. These are qualities hardly worth analysis, so MG calls it overconfidence and it becomes a relevant topic.
If you look at the examples he cites – most notably the guys on Wall Street and General Hooker in the Battle of Chancelorsville – these are clearly examples of hubris getting the better of an individual.
The difference is really a matter of timing. What would be called confidence is only dubbed ‘overconfidence’ when it yields a negative result. For instance, everyone know Mohammed Ali for his confidence before his fight with Frasier. Had Ali lost, we would be talking about his overconfidence… Overconfidence can only be identified in the light of the result. Patton, Montgomery, Ali and Ruth all displayed the sort of confidence that we hope our children will aspire to. Had they lost, they’d be the subject of MG lectures.
Also, in his lecture, MG touches on the inability or unwillingness to listen to those around you as one of the hallmarks of overconfidence as he sees it. Again, this is arrogance, not overconfidence. I’m quite sure that more than one person told Edison that the quest for artificial light was something better left behind. Also, there were enough people telling Chamberlain to negotiate with Hitler that he took their advice.
Bottom line is that while Malcolm Gladwell has given us some really great social analysis in his books, his current lecture is revealed as deeply flawed with a short objective glance. If I subscribed to the tenets of his argument, i might suggest that MG has become so successful at the contextual analysis of social phenomenon that he’s come to believe that any passing connections he makes between cause and effect are, in fact, brilliant by simple virtue of him having thought of them. Overconfidence? I’ll let you decide.
I did not attend the lectures so my comments lack full context. This is curious when placed beside the premise of Gladwell’s book “Blink” in which “confidence” was the result of years of experience and understanding, and celebrated for that. But that would seem to be contradicted by the premise of this current lecture.