I have previously written about the problems of hiring people of great character and the danger of making the fundamental attribution error. In that article, I focused on how people of high character in one area are perceived as high character in all areas, and thus received the benefit of a “Halo Effect.”
Today I want to focus on a different aspect of the fundamental attribution error that I see with surprising regularity in the teams and companies I’ve consulted with. It’s called the “Devil Effect” and, as you probably figured out, it’s the reverse of the Halo Effect.
In these cases, if a person or player is perceived as deficient in one area, it is taken as proof that they are deficient in all areas. I see it all the time with freshman college athletes and rookie pro athletes. If they don’t meet expectations upon arrival, they go into the trainer’s hut and once inside it’s very difficult to get out.
In the case of college athletes, I’ve seen players languish in the program for two or three years progressing, but not get credit for their growth until the third or final year. In the pros, you are more likely to be fired or cut off before you have a chance to prove your true worth. Sometimes you get tagged after a single offense for something as simple as being late or chasing him through a drill or practice.
In the business world, I’ve seen similar instances, as well as people placed in a different position than they were originally hired who failed to meet unrealistic expectations. In business, it’s more common to be brushed aside and avoided once they’ve come to the conclusion that you’re not what they thought you were, which makes it even harder to prove your worth.
Another example is a professional athlete I was called to work with who was having trouble managing his finances. In this case, the player was making a lot of money but spending it even faster than he was. His team thought this was evidence that he was impulsive and lacked the discipline to be an accomplished professional athlete, and cut him off before I met him.
What I found in him was a child who simply lacked knowledge of finances and the value of saving. He had an incredible work ethic and impressive self-discipline when it came to his career. He argued that he never would have made it to the league in the first place if he lacked discipline. So what the team saw as immature impulsiveness, I saw as a simple lack of understanding and prioritisation.
I found that once he understood the costs of his impulsiveness about money, he was able to build a nice nest egg that worked for him and had a successful career with another team. I’m pretty sure the team that eliminated him soon regretted that decision once they saw what he became. I’ve seen the Devil Effect ruin many players who might otherwise have had successful or even exceptional careers.
Having documented all of the above, the bottom line is that it is up to the person to avoid giving their boss or coach reasons to make an attribution error. You have to take advantage of all the things that are in your control, because when you don’t, you open yourself up to the possibility of others making attribution errors on you.
A final note for coaches, managers, etc. If you have an employee who is performing well but has some behaviors that bother you, it’s better to separate the two and work on those behaviors you don’t like, rather than paint the employee with a broad brush and throw the baby out with the toilet. water, as they say.