The new CMO walked in with a track record most executives would envy. Three successful product launches. Two brand turnarounds. A Harvard MBA and a shelf of awards. On day one, she sat across from the CEO and listened while he explained the market. He had been in the industry for twenty-two years. He knew what customers wanted. He knew why the last strategy had underperformed. He knew exactly what needed to happen next. She nodded. She had heard this kind of certainty before — usually right before a company spent eighteen months learning something the market already knew.
Here is a pattern I have watched repeat itself across thirty years of boardrooms: the people most certain about the growth strategy are often the least calibrated about what is actually driving — or stalling — it. That gap is not a character flaw. It is behavioral science. And it has a name.
The Dunning-Kruger problem in the C-suite
In 1999, Kruger and Dunning published findings that stopped researchers in their tracks. People performing poorly on tests of logic, grammar, and reasoning didn’t just score badly — they dramatically overestimated how well they had done. The mechanism was unsettling: the skills needed to perform a task well are often the same skills required to evaluate how well you performed it. Without those skills, you can’t see the gap (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
Later research refined the picture. The effect is partly statistical, and metacognitive deficits aren’t the only explanation (McIntosh et al., 2019; Magnus & Peresetsky, 2022). But the core finding endures: self-assessment goes badly wrong, especially in domains where feedback is delayed, complex, or filtered.
Sound familiar?
In the C-suite, feedback rarely arrives clean. It comes through dashboards summarizing lagging indicators, through a sales team that softens the message before it reaches the top, through quarterly reviews that confirm whatever the plan needed confirmed. Graham, Harvey, and Puri (2013) found that CEOs are measurably more optimistic and risk-tolerant than comparable populations — and Malmendier and Tate (2015) showed that overconfidence distorts investment decisions, M&A outcomes, and disclosure choices in ways that hurt shareholders.
The problem isn’t confidence itself. The problem is confidence that has been cut loose from disconfirming evidence.
Confirmation bias closes the loop: we seek information that validates what we already believe (Nickerson, 1998). The illusion of explanatory depth adds another layer — most executives believe they understand their customers’ decision process in far more detail than they actually do, until they’re forced to explain the mechanism out loud (Rozenblit & Keil, 2002). And the availability heuristic lets the most recent anecdote — the last big win, the last customer call — stand in for the full picture (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
What this costs in revenue
The data isn’t abstract. Gartner found that only 14% of CEOs and CFOs view their CMO as effective at market shaping — yet companies with market-shaping CMOs are 2.6 times more likely to exceed annual revenue and profit targets. Meanwhile, 84% of CMOs report high levels of strategic dysfunction inside their own organizations, and companies with high dysfunction are 36% less likely to report strong business performance (Gartner, 2024, 2025a).
McKinsey’s numbers are equally direct: when marketing leaders are embedded in strategic decision-making, companies achieve 1.4 times higher top-line growth. When a single integrated customer-centric executive owns the customer at the top, that figure rises to 2.3 times the growth of organizations with fragmented customer ownership (McKinsey & Company, 2023, 2025).
Misalignment between sales and marketing is where the overconfidence becomes structural. Peterson, Gordon, and Krishnan (2015) found that alignment between the two functions drives significant improvement across qualified lead growth, conversion rates, and new account acquisition. When each function is certain it understands the customer while neither reconciles its view with the other’s evidence, Dunning-Kruger stops being an individual bias and becomes a companywide growth tax.
Two companies, two very different endings
Ron Johnson arrived at J.C. Penney in 2011 with a sterling pedigree: he had built Apple’s retail stores and Target’s design reputation. He was certain that Penney’s customers — like Apple’s — wanted clean, honest pricing over coupons and promotions. He didn’t test it. He launched it.
Fiscal 2012 total sales fell 24.8% to $12.985 billion. Comparable-store sales dropped 25.2%. Internet sales declined 33%. The company posted a net loss of $985 million (J.C. Penney Company, Inc., 2013). Harvard’s Rajiv Lal was pointed in his analysis: the strategy misunderstood what promotions actually meant to Penney’s customers — they weren’t obstacles to a better experience, they were the experience (Lal, 2013). Johnson’s prior success had traveled into a behavioral context that hadn’t been understood before the transformation launched.
Domino’s took the opposite path in 2010. Leadership accepted that customers thought the pizza tasted like cardboard, said so publicly, fixed the product, and let the market verify the claim. Q1 2010 domestic same-store sales rose 14.3%. Full-year domestic same-store sales climbed 9.9%. Net income rose from $79.7 million to $87.9 million. Adjusted diluted EPS increased from $0.87 to $1.35 (Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 2010, 2011). They monetized humility.
Satya Nadella institutionalized the lesson at Microsoft — pushing the company’s culture from “know-it-alls” to “learn-it-alls.” The results compounded over time: FY2025 revenue of $281.7 billion, operating income of $128.5 billion (Microsoft, 2025a, 2025b). Culture, when it operates on calibration rather than certainty, scales.
A six-part decision system for leadership teams
Replace the inside view with the outside view. Before any major growth bet — a rebrand, a category entry, a pricing change — ask what happened in the last five similar situations, not just in your own projections. Run a premortem: assume the plan failed, and force the team to name the reasons before the money moves (Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003; Klein, 2007).
Make marketing the custodian of customer truth. Its primary job is not running campaigns. It is bringing unfiltered market signal into the boardroom — win/loss insight, segment-level proof, buyer psychology, conversion friction.
Force disconfirming evidence into every decision memo. Require the strongest argument against the plan, identify what data is missing, and ask what evidence would prove leadership wrong before the decision is made (Nickerson, 1998).
Translate marketing into economic language. CAC payback, price realization, win rate movement, profit per segment. Gartner found that more than 40% of CMOs who push for larger budgets without connecting them to business outcomes will lose C-suite influence — not because the budgets are wrong, but because the argument is (Gartner, 2026).
Build one revenue-learning system across sales and marketing — shared definitions, shared pipeline stages, shared postmortems, shared incentives tied to revenue quality rather than functional scoreboards.
Let the market decide, not the hierarchy. Startups that adopted disciplined A/B testing saw performance gains of 30%–100% after one year of use, along with more product changes and higher new-product launch rates (Koning et al., 2021). Structured experimentation is not a hedge against ambition — it is the fastest antidote to executive illusion.
Before your next strategy review, answer these honestly:
- When did each member of the leadership team last speak directly with a customer who churned — not through a rep, not through a summary deck, but live?
- Where in the current plan is the team using the inside view, and what does the reference class of similar bets actually say?
- Who in the organization is formally responsible for bringing disconfirming evidence into leadership meetings — and have they been rewarded or punished for doing it?
- Can the growth strategy be expressed in CAC payback, win rate, and profit per segment — or only in adjectives?
- What decisions are being made by hierarchy that should be made by experiment?
The gap that will hurt you most this year is not between you and your competitors. It is between how well you believe you understand your customer and how well you actually do.
About Rich Smith: Rich M. Smith is an executive advisor, behavioral marketing strategist, investor, and CMO known for helping leaders finally understand not only how their strategy works, but why. Rich is also the host of the Revenue Science Podcast, a contributing author on Entrepreneur.com, and a keynote speaker. He is completing his forthcoming book, Revenue Science: The Architecture of Predictable Growth. With three decades of experience leading growth across financial services, healthcare, technology, and consumer brands, Rich has guided companies through crises, rebuilt brands from the ground up, and helped position organizations for nine-figure exits. He blends behavioral science, human psychology, and real-world executive experience to take the smoke and mirrors out of marketing—giving CEOs a clear, trustworthy path to growth. Rich is the bridge between marketing and the boardroom, known for translating complex ideas into practical strategies teams can use immediately. Whether he’s speaking to founders, executives, or investors, Rich shows audiences how to think differently, communicate with confidence, and use what sets them apart to win. Connect at RichMSmith.com · LinkedIn
References
Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (2010). Domino’s Pizza announces first quarter 2010 financial results. Domino’s Pizza Investor Relations.
Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (2011). Domino’s Pizza announces 2010 financial results. Domino’s Pizza Investor Relations.
Gartner. (2024). Gartner identifies top three priorities for CMOs to deliver marketing excellence in 2025. Gartner Newsroom.
Gartner. (2025a). Gartner survey reveals 84% of CMOs report high levels of strategic dysfunction. Gartner Newsroom.
Gartner. (2026). Gartner predicts over 40% of CMOs who push for larger brand budgets will lose influence with the C-suite. Gartner Newsroom.
Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Puri, M. (2013). Managerial attitudes and corporate actions. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 103–121.
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (2013). J.C. Penney Company, Inc. reports 2012 fiscal fourth quarter and full year results.
Klein, G. (2007). Performing a project premortem. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 18–19.
Koning, R., Hasan, S., & Chatterji, A. (2021). Experimentation and startup performance: Evidence from A/B testing. Management Science, 68(9), 6434–6453.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
Lal, R. (2013). What went wrong at J.C. Penney? Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.
Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63.
Magnus, J. R., & Peresetsky, A. (2022). A statistical explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Royal Society Open Science, 9, Article 211814.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2015). Behavioral CEOs: The role of managerial overconfidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(4), 37–60.
McIntosh, R. D., Fowler, E. A., Lyu, T., & Della Sala, S. (2019). Clarifying the role of metacognition in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(11), 1882–1897.
McKinsey & Company. (2023). The power of partnership: How the CEO–CMO relationship can drive outsize growth.
McKinsey & Company. (2025). The changing role of the CMO — and what it means for growth.
Microsoft. (2025a). Microsoft annual report 2025.
Microsoft. (2025b). Digitally transforming Microsoft: Our IT journey.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
Peterson, R. M., Gordon, G. L., & Krishnan, V. (2015). When sales and marketing align: Impact on performance. Journal of Selling, 15(1), 29–41.
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
