Ever caught yourself thinking you’re not that good at something, only to be surprised when others seem genuinely impressed by your work? Or maybe you’ve hesitated to apply for a job, fearing you’re "not qualified enough" despite meeting most requirements. This self-doubt isn’t rare—it’s almost universal. So, why do people (me, my colleagues, and probably you too at some point) chronically underestimate their own abilities? This article unpacks psychological reasons, real-life observations, some straight-from-the-field stories, and even a dash of research, all to help you (and me!) get a clearer picture of this underestimated phenomenon.
First things first: self-underestimation can hit anyone. It pops up in the office, in classrooms, in sports teams, and even in online forums where, let's be honest, people love showing off. So let me walk you through what I’ve seen and read—and, yeah, sometimes experienced myself.
Maybe you’ve heard of impostor syndrome. It’s this weird little voice that whispers, “You’re a fraud, everyone will find out.” A lot of highly skilled people—think scientists, executives, or that coder who automates half your workflow—suffer from it. A Harvard Business Review article points out this can be especially strong in marginalized groups and high-pressure fields.
Let’s get personal: I used to run training sessions for new hires. Despite delivering workshops for months, every single time I’d worry, “What if they ask something I don’t know?” (True story: at one session, a trainee actually stumped me with a question about database indexing. My mind blanked. But the session didn’t fall apart. I admitted I didn’t know, promised to follow up, and nobody lost faith. That startled me more than my slip-up.)
Here’s one that comes up in psychology texts and water cooler chats alike. The Dunning-Kruger Effect, famously detailed in the original paper by Kruger & Dunning at Cornell, says people with low skill tend to overestimate themselves—while those with actual smarts tend to underestimate their competence.
Weird, right? If you excel, you’re often more aware of what you don’t know. That self-awareness can weirdly erode your confidence. When I started in my field, I was all bravado. After a few years and learning just how much there is left to learn—I found myself second-guessing everything. Turns out, that's practically textbook.
Depending on where you grew up, you might have been taught to “stay humble,” “not show off,” or “let your work speak for itself.” Great ideals, but in real life? Sometimes they just mean you never really learn to state your strengths openly.
A London-based recruiter once told me: “British candidates often undersell themselves compared to US ones. Americans are trained to pitch, Brits to play it coy.”
Plenty of global organizations are aware of these cultural divides—see the OECD’s report on gender and confidence gaps, which highlights how women especially are encouraged to be modest, leading to self-doubt bubbling up even in expert circles.
This one’s basically hardwired into us. It makes total sense from an evolutionary angle (“Don’t get kicked out of the tribe!”), but in a job interview or creative pursuit, it holds us back unnecessarily.
Here’s a direct quote from a Reddit career thread (usernames blurred for privacy):
“Anyone else feel like they never apply for jobs unless they tick every box in the listing? I know logically you don’t have to, but I just freeze up.”
Yeah. Been there. The result? People don’t even give themselves the chance to stretch.
If you do something every day, you stop noticing how much you’ve improved. Suddenly, everyone’s like: “Wow, how did you do that?” and you’re genuinely confused—it feels normal to you.
A fun personal anecdote: After five years of coding, I noticed I could design an API in under an hour—a task that took me a week at the start. But it never felt special. Until a junior dev shadowed me and said, "I had no idea you could think up structure like that."
There’s even a catchy name for this in research: “unconscious competence.” The more automated a skill becomes, the more you tend to undervalue it (see PsychCentral’s explainer).
No, I can’t actually paste a photo of my awkward face during that training debacle, but here’s an actual snapshot of a Slack thread from last November (edited for privacy):
I’m not Olivia, but substitute my name and I could’ve written that last line. What matters is how common this script is—it’s everywhere.
Let’s switch gears a bit and peep at a scenario where even national agencies seem to underestimate—or, at least, undervalue—each other's standards. This gets super concrete in the real world of international trade, relying on certifications or “verified trade” labels.
Say Country A certifies organic cotton using their best lab tech, while Country B doesn’t recognize it. Now, exporters from A get slammed with new inspections, paperwork, maybe tariffs. Both sides insist they're technically correct.
Here's what actually happened (loosely based on USTR documentation): The US and the EU clashed over “organic” label verification. The US National Organic Program (NOP) runs under the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service; the EU has its own regulations (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, if you fancy details).
Country/Block | Standard Name | Legal Basis | Authority |
---|---|---|---|
USA | National Organic Program (NOP) | 7 CFR Part 205 | USDA Agricultural Marketing Service |
European Union | Organic Production & Labelling | Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 | European Commission |
Japan | Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS) | MAFF Official Website | Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries |
In this tangle, both sides had authorities, rigorous systems, but mutual suspicion. It took years—and lots of negotiation—to get equivalency agreements (source: WTO SPS Agreement Guide).
What’s the lesson here, looping back? Even highly experienced national agencies can underestimate, or at least undervalue, each other’s expertise. Sound familiar?
During a panel on international agriculture certification, a compliance officer blurted out, “We spend so much time worried our standards won’t be ‘good enough’ for partners—when half the time, they’re just as anxious about ours.” That insecurity isn’t limited to people!
Over the years, here’s what tends to help, at least from my trial and error (sometimes lots of error):
One confession: I once kept a “Failure Journal” thinking I’d track my mistakes and learn. But that just made me hyper-self-critical. When I added a “Thanks Journal” for good feedback, my perspective evened out.
People (and organizations, and sometimes even governments) underestimate themselves for a wash of reasons: impostor syndrome, cultural background, weird quirks of the brain, or just habit. That means if you’ve ever hesitated to apply for a job, pitch an idea, or claim your expertise, you’re in good company.
Next time you start doubting your chops, pause and ask: “Is this just my brain being weird? Did I actually check my record, or am I guessing?” Try looping in a friend or mentor—they usually see what you can’t.
My own takeaway, after years of second-guessing (and still sometimes falling into that trap): trust the positive feedback, not just your internal monologue. And when in doubt—just go for it. Odds are, you know (and can do) more than you think.
If you want to dive deeper, the OECD Skills Database has some wild data on self-assessment versus actual performance—well worth skimming for a reality check.