The Dunning-Kruger Effect and Safeguarding
I cannot take credit for the below article. It was written and posted on November 4, 2024, by Global Safeguarding, a specialist agency, providing safeguarding consultancy, services and support.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that occurs when people with limited knowledge or skills in a certain area overestimate their own abilities. The Global Safeguarding article discusses the challenges when non-specialist leaders, with only a cursory understanding of safeguarding principles, take on roles and responsibilities that should be left to specialists, and how to navigate these challenges. I hope you find the below article as useful as I did.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect and Safeguarding: Challenges for Safeguarding Specialists in Non-Specialist Organisations
In safeguarding, where the welfare and protection of vulnerable people is paramount, the role of the safeguarding specialist is both essential and demanding. These professionals are often highly trained and equipped to identify, address, and manage risks. However, working within organisations where non-specialist leaders hold authority can present significant challenges. One of the often under-acknowledged issues is the impact of the Dunning-Kruger Effect on decision-making and operational dynamics.
Understanding the Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect, first described by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, refers to a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or expertise overestimate their competence in a particular area. Conversely, those with more expertise tend to underestimate their own abilities. This imbalance can result in overconfident non-specialists making decisions that are outside their scope of knowledge.
In the context of safeguarding, the effect manifests when non-specialist leaders, with only a cursory understanding of safeguarding principles, take on roles and responsibilities that should be left to specialists. Their limited knowledge might lead them to feel competent enough to make key decisions, often with grave consequences.
Challenges Faced by Safeguarding Specialists
- Undermined Expertise: One of the most frustrating experiences for safeguarding professionals is having their expertise undermined. Non-specialist leaders, influenced by the Dunning-Kruger effect, may question or dismiss the insights and recommendations of specialists. This not only hinders the effectiveness of safeguarding efforts but can also create an environment where the safeguarding professional feels undervalued or ignored. When leaders believe they have a sufficient grasp of safeguarding without truly understanding its complexities, they might deprioritise specialist advice or dilute the importance of training and protocols. This can lead to a dangerous gap between the perceived and actual levels of safety within the organisation.
- Resistance to Training and Development: Non-specialist leaders might assume that they already “know enough” about safeguarding and may resist investing time and resources into further training and development. This resistance can create tension between safeguarding professionals, who know that continuous education is crucial, and leadership teams who feel that such training is unnecessary or burdensome. This can also lead to poor-quality safeguarding policies being implemented or the enforcement of outdated practices, which might not align with current legislation or best practice guidelines.
- Inappropriate Decision-Making: Perhaps the most critical challenge arises when non-specialist leaders, unaware of their own limitations, make safeguarding decisions without consulting the specialists. These decisions might include managing a safeguarding incident, interpreting legal obligations, or responding to external audits. Without the proper expertise, there’s a real risk of mishandling situations, which can lead to harm or even legal repercussions for the organisation. Safeguarding specialists often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to rectify or challenge poor decisions made by overconfident leaders, further complicating their role and potentially straining professional relationships.
- Creating a Culture of Overconfidence: When organisational leaders, affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect, project overconfidence in their safeguarding knowledge, it can set a dangerous precedent across the organisation. Others within the organisation might adopt a similar overconfident stance, further perpetuating a lack of respect for the importance of safeguarding specialists’ input. This can erode a culture of learning and continuous improvement, replacing it with one of complacency.
How to Navigate These Challenges
While the Dunning-Kruger effect is a difficult bias to counter, there are strategies that safeguarding professionals can adopt to mitigate its impact:
- Build Relationships and Communicate Effectively: Establishing strong, respectful relationships with non-specialist leaders is crucial. Safeguarding specialists can gently challenge misconceptions by explaining the intricacies and legal implications of safeguarding in a way that is accessible and non-confrontational. It is essential to avoid creating a defensive atmosphere; instead, frame conversations as opportunities for mutual learning.
- Advocate for Continuous Training:Insist on the importance of safeguarding training at all levels of the organisation, including leadership. Highlight case studies or real-life examples where the lack of training has led to negative outcomes. Present safeguarding as a dynamic field that evolves with legislation, requiring ongoing development.
- Use Data and Evidence:When communicating with non-specialist leaders, it can be helpful to present evidence-based data that underscores the need for specialised safeguarding input. Statistics, case reviews, and examples of best practice can be compelling ways to demonstrate the importance of expertise in decision-making.
- Empower and Educate:Rather than simply challenging non-specialists, empower them with the knowledge that safeguarding is a complex, evolving discipline. Sharing key resources, inviting them to specialist conferences, or involving them in external audits can increase their understanding and appreciation of the role safeguarding professionals play.
- Work within Governance Structures:Ensure that there are clear governance structures in place that mandate the involvement of safeguarding specialists in key decisions. Establish processes that require regular safeguarding audits and ensure compliance with safeguarding legislation, reducing the risk of overconfident leaders making uninformed decisions.
Conclusion
Safeguarding professionals play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people. However, working within organisations led by non-specialists can pose significant challenges, especially when leaders fall prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect. By advocating for continuous education, fostering open communication, and reinforcing the need for specialist input, safeguarding professionals can navigate these difficulties and ensure the safety and wellbeing of those they protect.
Understanding and addressing the cognitive biases of those we work with is not just an intellectual exercise—it is a crucial step in creating safer, more effective safeguarding environments.