Most of us tend to think a little too highly of ourselves, according to the science. Researchers have consistently found that we humans tend to overestimate our own performance. This creates a challenge for peers who give us critical feedback: even friendly colleagues are likely to perceive us as having more weaknesses than we would attribute to ourselves. When faced with conflicting information about our skills – our own opinions as well as other people’s – how do we respond?

Research has examined the short-term effects of peer feedback, but little is still known about how long these responses last. Because receiving feedback from peers calls into question our self-perceptions, it is not unreasonable to expect that some of us will develop psychological defense mechanisms. In other words, receiving feedback involves some emotional fallout that may block the very same learning processes they are intended to boost.

We put this theory to the test in a study with MBA teams published in the Academy of Management Learning and Education. With my research team, I investigated how MBA students react to feedback they received about their leadership competences from their peers.

Our study involved 221 MBA students, 169 males and 52 females, with an average age of 30 and with around six and a half years of work experience. At the beginning of the one-year MBA program, students were assigned to learning teams of five or six members. These teams worked together every day, getting to know each other well so that each member could provide constructive, accurate feedback to one other.

Peer feedback was collected at the end of each trimesters (that is, in January, April, and June). We asked students to complete an online survey that asked them to rate themselves and their teammates using a 5-point response format (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree) on four key leadership competences – “shows confidence when facing unforeseen situations,” “knows when to work and when to relax,” “doesn’t feel stressed or frustrated when doing several tasks at the same time,” and “actively seeks the opinions of others.” One week after completion of the leadership survey, students received the results, including their average rating from team members compared to their self-rating on each of the four leadership competences.

All the students initially rated themselves higher on each competence than their peers did, supporting the notion that people overestimate their leadership competences. Over time, the average self-ratings declined in response to feedback from others. For example, the average self-rating for self-confidence in January was 3.95 compared to an average peer rating of 3.69, while the corresponding figures for April were 3.85 and 3.59 and for June were 3.74 and 3.60.

Thus, the results showed that students’ views of their own leadership skills went down after receiving feedback, and continued to drop in response to more feedback. Feedback from others leads us to compare others’ ratings with our own self-evaluations. This comparison triggers reflection about ourselves and a readjustment of our own inflated views so as to align them with the more realistic evaluation of others. Thus, our self-ratings of our leadership competences decrease over time.

This effect was stronger for women. We found that women more quickly aligned their self-awareness with peer feedback, whereas men continued to rationalize and inflate their self-image over time. That is, in our survey, women were a lot more sensitive to peer feedback than men. After six months, women perfectly aligned their views of leadership with their peers’ assessment. In contrast, men continued to inflate their leadership qualities. For example, for self-confidence the pattern was quite different for men than it was for women. For men, it was 3.99 (self-rating) vs. 3.70 (peer rating) in January; 3.92 vs. 3.64 in April; and 3.84 vs. 3.64 in June. These results suggest that women close the gap between self-perception and peers feedback faster than men, demonstrating greater sensitivity to social cues.

All in all, our results show that men and women deal differently with the emotional fallout associated with receiving feedback. The incorporation of peer feedback requires changing our personal frame of reference. But whereas women tend to assimilate new information into the way they see themselves; men tend to overestimate their leadership views to preserve their sense of personal efficacy.

Could women’s greater sensitivity to their peers’ feedback be an advantage in gaining positions of leadership? Women’s alignment of their self-image to reflect what others think of them increases self-awareness, which is the first step for learning. Thus, women should be motivated to seek out training and advice to develop their leadership competences and improve their chances of promotion. However, when assimilation of negative feedback involves doubts about one’s competences and lowers confidence, it can discourage women to take on new challenges.

Equally, does men’s overestimation of their leadership abilities when given feedback impair or facilitate their leadership development? Preserving their positive self-views can encourage them to seek out new challenges and take advantage of opportunities. At the same time, ignoring what others are saying so as to protect their sense of psychological security is hardly a prescription for success in the long run.