When Confidence Isn’t Confidence
What psychology teaches us about judgement, leadership and performance
Organisations are investing heavily in strategy, AI, transformation and new ways of working, all of it aimed at performing better. Yet beneath many of those priorities, I keep noticing a quieter pattern, one that quietly undermines the very performance we’re investing so much to improve.
It comes up in coaching sessions, leadership workshops and one-to-one discussions with individual contributors.
It almost always starts with the same question.
“Why do the people who sound the most confident seem to get ahead?”
It’s a fair question, and an important one. Because the pattern has real consequences. Some of the most capable people I work with, high performing, deeply competent, the ones you’d actually want making the decision, don’t always come across as the most confident. Meanwhile someone more average can sound assured, certain and ready, and that is often what gets rewarded and promoted.
We talk endlessly about performance. We measure it, review it, build frameworks around it. But we rarely talk about this. We rarely ask why the signal we respond to in the room can be so disconnected from the judgement we actually need.
And I think it matters that we do, because there’s a psychological aspect to this that we tend to overlook. Understanding it isn’t about blaming anyone. It’s about seeing clearly what’s really driving our decisions when we decide who to trust, who to listen to and who to promote.
These conversations usually arrive at the same conclusion: organisations reward confidence over competence.
The pattern is real. The usual explanation isn’t. It’s not that we reward confidence over competence. It’s that we can’t tell the two apart, because what we’re really responding to is perceived confidence. And there’s a reason for that.
The challenge is that competence is incredibly difficult to observe in the moment. During a meeting, we can’t fast-forward six months to see whose recommendation proved to be right. Results haven’t happened yet, evidence is incomplete and decisions often need to be made quickly.
So our brains do what they are designed to do. They rely on cues that are immediately visible.
Who speaks with certainty?
Who answers quickly?
Who appears decisive?
These mental shortcuts that help us make decisions when we don’t have all the information. One of the best understood is cognitive fluency, the tendency to find information that is easier to process more believable. Someone who speaks clearly, confidently and without hesitation simply feels easier for our brains to understand than someone who carefully explains complexity, uncertainty or trade-offs.
The problem is that ease of processing is not the same thing as good judgement.
There’s also something deeper than a mental shortcut at work here. Uncertainty is uncomfortable. The brain tends to treat ambiguity as a kind of threat, and unresolved questions keep us in a low level state of tension. A person who speaks with certainty relieves that tension for everyone in the room. Their confidence feels like safety, quite separately from whether they happen to be right. So when we’re under pressure, we’re not only drawn to the certain voice because it’s easier to process. We’re drawn to it because it makes the discomfort stop. We tell ourselves we want the truth. A lot of the time, what we’re quietly reaching for is relief.
In fact, some of the most capable leaders I’ve worked with are also the most measured. Not because they lack confidence, but because they understand the complexity of the problem in front of them. They have seen enough to know where assumptions fail, where data can mislead and where seemingly simple solutions often create unintended consequences.
Knowledge introduces nuance, and nuance naturally sounds less certain.
This is one of the reasons the Dunning-Kruger effect continues to be so relevant in organisations. People with limited knowledge often express greater certainty because they simply can’t see what they don’t yet know. Meanwhile, genuine expertise frequently produces more thoughtful judgement, more questions and a greater willingness to say, “I’m not sure yet.”
Ironically, the people who know the most can sometimes sound the least convincing.
That doesn’t make confident people dishonest, and it certainly doesn’t mean quieter people are always right. Most of us are doing the best we can with the information we have. But when confidence becomes the most visible signal in the room, organisations can unintentionally reward certainty before they’ve had the chance to evaluate judgement.
There’s another consequence worth naming. People pay close attention to what organisations reward. Every promotion, every opportunity and every leadership appointment sends a signal about what success looks like here.
When certainty is consistently more visible than judgement, people naturally begin to wonder what is truly valued. Some start believing they need to sound more certain than they feel in order to progress. Others begin to question whether their more thoughtful approach is something they need to change.
Over time, this subtly shapes culture.
Some high performers adapt by performing confidence rather than exercising judgement. Others become quieter, disengage or eventually decide that their strengths are likely to be recognised elsewhere.
The cost isn’t simply the quality of individual decisions. It’s the message people receive about what the organisation notices, develops and rewards. And those messages have a powerful influence on the kind of culture an organisation creates.
Perhaps what we perceive as confidence isn’t always confidence at all.
Somewhere along the way, confidence became associated with speaking first, speaking loudly and having an immediate answer for everything. Yet in my experience, those behaviours tell us surprisingly little about someone’s ability to make good decisions. It’s worth noting that when researchers look at who is effective as a leader rather than who simply appears to be one, the picture often points the other way, toward people who are more measured, more reflective and more willing to hold back.
Get Aysel Ooi’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Real confidence often looks much quieter.
It is being comfortable saying, “I don’t know yet.”
It is changing your mind when new evidence appears.
It is asking thoughtful questions instead of rushing to provide quick answers.
It is remaining calm when everyone else feels pressure to sound certain.
To me, that is a deeper form of confidence because it is grounded in security rather than performance.
So what can we do differently?
If we want organisations to perform better, this isn’t about encouraging everyone to become louder. It’s about becoming more intentional in how we recognise and develop judgement.
For leaders
The first step is becoming more curious about how you’re forming impressions of people.
When someone immediately stands out as the strongest voice in the room, pause and ask yourself:
Am I responding to evidence or to certainty? What evidence do I have that this person consistently demonstrates good judgement? Who hasn’t spoken yet? Am I creating enough space for different thinking styles to contribute? Have I confused decisiveness with effectiveness?
If someone seems hesitant, resist the temptation to move on too quickly. Hesitation isn’t always a lack of confidence. Often it’s a sign that someone is carefully thinking through the implications.
One small habit can shift a lot here. Before you open the floor, ask the quietest person in the room for their view first, rather than last. By the time the confident voices have filled the space, quieter thinking rarely gets aired at all. Going first protects it.
Rather than asking, “Does anyone have anything else to add?”, invite people into the conversation with curiosity.
“You’ve worked closely with this area. What’s your perspective?”
“What risks might we be overlooking?”
“What assumptions are we making?”
“What evidence would change our minds?”
“Is there another way we could look at this?”
These questions do more than encourage participation. They improve the quality of thinking in the room.
It’s also worth remembering that not everyone thinks by speaking. Some people think while speaking, while others need a moment to reflect before they contribute. Creating space for both styles often leads to better decisions.
For those who don’t naturally speak first
If you’re someone who tends to think before speaking, don’t assume that’s something you need to fix.
Thoughtfulness is not a weakness. The challenge is making your thinking visible.
Rather than trying to compete with the loudest voice in the room, focus on helping the room think more clearly. Ask thoughtful questions. Summarise what you’re observing. Share your perspective before important meetings if that’s where you think best. Capture your recommendations and revisit them over time. Credibility grows when people begin to recognise the quality of your judgement, not just the confidence of your delivery.
You also don’t need complete certainty before contributing.
One of the most helpful shifts is replacing the pressure to have the answer with the confidence to offer a perspective.
Simple phrases such as:
“Based on what we’re seeing…”
“One thing I’m noticing is…”
“Have we considered…”
“The evidence seems to suggest…”
allow you to contribute without pretending certainty you don’t yet have. Most importantly, remember that confidence doesn’t always look like speaking first.
Sometimes it looks like asking the question that changes the entire conversation.
Sometimes it looks like saying, “I don’t know yet.” Sometimes it looks like changing your mind when new evidence appears. Those aren’t signs of weakness. They’re often signs of good judgement.
As AI becomes increasingly capable of generating answers, certainty is becoming cheap to produce. Almost anyone can now sound knowledgeable, instantly and at scale. When a fluent, confident answer is available on demand, the thing that becomes scarce and valuable is no longer the answer itself. It’s the judgement to know which answer to trust, which question to ask next, and when the confident response in front of us is quietly wrong.
The organisations that will thrive over the next decade won’t necessarily be those with the loudest voices or the quickest answers. They’ll be the ones that become better at recognising thoughtful judgement, creating space for healthy uncertainty and building cultures where confidence is measured not by how quickly someone speaks, but by how well they help others make better decisions.
In the end, perceived confidence isn’t the goal. Better judgement is.
And organisations that learn to recognise the difference won’t just build better leaders. They’ll make better decisions, create stronger cultures and ultimately perform better.
