Training in biases is standard fare these days. However, I see managers regularly fall for one particular bias: the fundamental attribution error. Unlike other biases, FAE directly affects several aspects of leadership.
In this piece, I dive into what fundamental attribution error is, how it trips up leaders, and ways to counter its effects.
Imagine being trained for years to investigate aviation accidents objectively. You have sophisticated tools, protocols, and black box data at your disposal. Yet 90% of the time, your first instinct is still to blame the pilot. As one investigator noted:
When you see an incident, your brain just seems to scream out: ‘What the hell was the pilot thinking!’ It is a knee-jerk response. It takes real discipline to probe the black box data without prejudging the issue. [2]
If highly trained investigators struggle with this instinct to blame the individual, what chance do leaders and managers have?
This tendency - to focus on personal characteristics while downplaying situational factors - is what psychologist Lee Ross called the fundamental attribution error (FAE).
You see it everywhere, from the playground to the boardroom. CEOs attribute record profits to their brilliant "strategy" while blaming poor performance on "challenging market conditions." Managers praise high-performing teams for their work ethic while dismissing struggling ones as unmotivated.
The list of cognitive biases is endless - confirmation bias, anchoring bias, survivorship bias... the human mind is a minefield of errors. While understanding these is useful, most have limited practical impact on day-to-day leadership and management.
But FAE deserves special attention.
Consider Scott Snook’s reflection on his analysis of a friendly fire tragedy:
I could have asked, “why did they decide to shoot?” However, such a framing puts us squarely on a path that leads straight back to the individual decision maker, away from potentially powerful contextual features ….
“Why did they decide to shoot?” quickly becomes “Why did they make the wrong decision?” Hence, the attribution falls squarely onto the shoulders of the decision maker and away from potent situation factors that influence action.
Framing the individual-level puzzle as a question of meaning rather than deciding shifts the emphasis away from individual decision makers toward a point somewhere “out there” where context and individual action overlap. . . .
Such a reframing — from decision making to sense- making — opened my eyes to the possibility that, given the circumstances, even I could have made the same “dumb mistake.” This disturbing revelation …underscores the importance of initially framing such senseless tragedies as “good people struggling to make sense,” rather than as “bad ones making poor decisions”. [1]
This reframing is crucial for leaders as well.
Attributing failures solely to individual choices ignores systemic factors that shape behavior. Poor performance might stem from unclear objectives, resource constraints, or organizational barriers rather than lack of effort.
Recognizing FAE's influence means asking "What circumstances led to this outcome?" instead of "Who's to blame?"
What is the Fundamental Attribution Error?
The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is our tendency to overemphasize internal, personal characteristics and downplay external, situational influences when interpreting others' behavior. It's the mental shortcut that assumes someone is lazy when they miss a deadline, rather than considering possible workload overload, unclear instructions, or conflicting demands.
When others fall short, we're quick to blame character - "they're lazy," "they lack drive," "they're not cut out for this." When we ourselves stumble, we readily point to circumstances - "I had impossible deadlines," "the brief wasn't clear," "I didn't have the resources."
This blind spot works in reverse too. When others succeed, we attribute it to favorable circumstances - "better opportunities," "the right connections," "luck." But our own victories? Those we chalk up to inherent talents and hard work.
Psychologists Lee Ross and Edward Jones documented this phenomenon in the 1970s, showing we see others’ actions as a reflection of their character rather than a reaction to context. We lack access to others’ internal states—we don’t fully understand their pressures, motives, or contexts—while our own situational factors are vividly apparent to us. As a result, we misjudge others while always cutting ourselves slack.
This asymmetry between our self-perception and how we see others is deeply ingrained.
It's seductive because it protects our ego while simplifying a complex world. It's easier to label someone as "incompetent" than to untangle the situational forces, organizational tensions, and systemic pressures that shape their behavior.
Malcolm Gladwell writes:
When we perceive the actions and intentions of others, we tend to make mistakes. We see things that aren’t there and we make predictions that we ought not to make: we privilege the “person” and we discount the influence of the “situation.” …
I found this idea so disturbing and subversive that I think I have been wrestling with it ever since. Just the other day, for example, I gave a short talk at a gathering of sports-types on one of my favorite topics – professional quarterbacks. I argued that the idea that quarterbacks can be ranked – that there is such a thing as a good quarterback and a not so good quarterback and that we can say, with certainty, that, say Peyton Manning is x number of points better than Brett Farve – is nonsense.
A quarterback’s performance is inextricably tied up in his situation: in the quality of the players around him, his coaches, the skills of his receivers, the plays call for him – and on and on – and in trying to extract some notion of quarterback quality from that jumble of factors we are making an error. [3]
FAE simplifies complex social information, but it comes at a cost, especially in leadership. It distorts performance evaluations, affects talent development, shapes problem-solving, and impacts psychological safety.
Why do we fall for the fundamental attribution error?
FAE's deceptiveness lies in its simplicity. It gives a neat explanation for complex events: They failed because they're incompetent. I failed because I had no choice. Fundamental attribution error occurs due to:
The spotlight effect
In social interactions, the individual is more vivid and attention-grabbing than the situational backdrop. This makes it easier to attribute behavior to personal traits rather than the environment.
When a team member underperforms in a meeting, the manager blames a lack of preparation (a personal trait) instead of considering whether the agenda was unclear, or other pressing commitments that diluted their focus.
Snap judgments
Our brain’s need for quick judgments under pressure makes it easier to default to dispositional explanations. Kahneman’s System 1 thinking — fast, automatic, and intuitive — aligns closely with how FAE operates. System1 is quick to label behaviors with trait-based judgments, requiring less cognitive effort than processing complex situational factors.
This is particularly strong in situations that require swift decisions with limited information. FAE allows rapid interpretation, but the resulting judgments can be incomplete and misguided.
The self-made myth
In the West, there’s a strong emphasis on individual responsibility and autonomy. These norms make dispositional attributions more intuitive and socially reinforced. This makes leaders in individualistic cultures more prone to FAE, attributing failures and successes to personal capabilities rather than team dynamics or structural factors.
Assuming intent
FAE implies that behavior is inherently intentional. When observing others, we assume that actions reflect a deliberate choice rather than a constrained response to situational factors. If a manager sees someone decline to take initiative, they might assume a lack of motivation rather than a lack of psychological safety or clear direction from leadership.
The trap of character labels
FAE leads to viewing personal traits as stable and enduring, while situational factors are seen as temporary or peripheral. This leads to “trait permanence,” where people believe personality traits consistently drive behavior across contexts. In reality, it is contingent on the environment, incentives, pressures, and available resources, which leaders often overlook.
How fundamental attribution error affects leaders
FAE ripples through many aspects of leadership. It impacts three critical areas: decision-making, team culture, and organizational effectiveness.
Decision-Making
Performance evaluations. This is where FAE perhaps does the most direct damage. When evaluating performance, we attribute poor outcomes to individual shortcomings—lack of motivation, talent, or focus—overlooking systemic factors. This creates a double bind: not only do we misdiagnose the problem, but subsequent actions (like performance improvement plans) fail to address the real barriers to success.
The solution isn't just better evaluation forms. It's developing 360-degree feedback systems that explicitly consider context: Were people set up for success? Did they have the right resources and support? Did they receive clear instructions?
For a deeper dive into biases in performance appraisals: Most performance reviews are biased
Sheril Mathews
Managing during a crisis. Crises amplify FAE because stress increases reliance on mental shortcuts. Under pressure, the impulse to find a culprit overwhelms the need to understand systemic failures. In the Columbia Shuttle Disaster, initial reactions focused on individual decisions, missing deeper cultural issues that silenced dissent and neglected critical communication channels.
Flawed decisions. When leaders attribute outcomes to individual actions, they miss systemic patterns that could inform decisions. A manager sees a missed deadline and implements stricter monitoring, when the real issue might be workload imbalance or unclear priorities. This misattribution leads to solutions that treat symptoms rather than causes.
Team culture
Psychological safety. FAE is kryptonite to psychological safety. When people believe their mistakes will be attributed to personal failings instead of learning opportunities, they stop taking risks, sharing ideas, or admitting errors. This creates a vicious cycle: reduced psychological safety leads to less openness, which reinforces attributional biases.
Misinterpreting conflict. When conflicts arise, FAE makes you focus on personality clashes rather than structural tensions. Two team members might appear to have "communication issues" when the real problem is competing incentives or unclear role boundaries. Focusing on interpersonal solutions (like communication training) while ignoring systemic causes ensures that conflicts recur.
Resistance to change. When change initiatives fail, FAE tempts us to blame "resistant" employees instead of examining the management approach. This misattribution leads to pushing harder rather than understanding deeper: Why does this change feel threatening? What factors are creating resistance?
Organizational effectiveness
Capability traps. FAE creates and perpetuates capability traps — situations where organizations fail to develop because they're stuck reacting to symptoms instead of addressing root causes. When leaders blame individuals for performance issues while ignoring structural barriers, they create a downward spiral: increased pressure leads to more shortcuts, further degrading capabilities.
The myth of leadership. FAE reinforces the "heroic leadership" myth — the belief that success stems primarily from individual leaders rather than systemic factors. This not only creates unrealistic expectations but also blinds you to the interdependencies that actually drive performance.
Misattributing outcomes to individual leaders means missed opportunities to build robust systems and processes that could sustain success beyond any single person's tenure.
The inseparability of person and situation
Before exploring solutions, we need to confront an uncomfortable truth: the very way we think about person versus situation might be fundamentally flawed.
Researchers discuss FAE as if person and situation are clearly separable; as if we could neatly divide the world into "dispositional" and "situational factors." But this distinction is an illusion, particularly in leadership contexts.
Consider a high-performing executive who consistently delivers results. Is their success due to innate capabilities (person) or the accumulated advantages of education, network, and opportunities (situation)? Their current performance shapes future situations: track record opens doors, creating new opportunities and building capabilities. Person shapes situation shapes person in an endless loop.
This creates what systems thinkers call "circular causality" which challenges simplistic assumptions about leadership and performance.
This means:
- Your "personality" might just be the crystallized history of your experiences.
- "Strong culture" may just be creating situations that force certain behaviors.
- When we praise someone's "leadership qualities," we might really be praising the institutional structures that enabled those qualities to emerge.
Solutions to counter FAE
Given this complexity, how can you move beyond fundamental attribution error to make better decisions and build stronger organizations? Here are some suggestions:
1. Reframe your questions
Instead of asking "Who's at fault?" ask:
- What circumstances led to this outcome?
- What systemic pressures might be influencing behavior?
- How is organizational structure contributing to this situation?
2. Design for success
- Focus on creating enabling environments rather than "natural talents"
- Build systems and processes that encourage desired behaviors.
- Design roles and responsibilities with high standards but also clear expectations
3. Develop systemic evaluation methods
- Implement 360-degree feedback that explicitly considers contextual factors.
- Create performance metrics that capture both individual and systemic influences.
- Use after-action reviews that examine the full spectrum of contributing factors.
4. Build psychological safety
- Normalize discussion of situational pressures.
- Encourage open dialogue about systemic challenges.
- Create forums for people to safely surface organizational barriers.
5. Practice anti-heroic leadership
- Publicly acknowledge the role of timing, teamwork, and circumstances in successes.
- Share stories that highlight systemic factors in both victories and setbacks.
- Model fallibility by discussing your own challenges.
Wrapping up
Like aviation investigators resisting the instinct to blame the pilot, leaders must consciously resist fundamental attribution error. The cost of failing to do so is steep.
The solution isn't about eliminating FAE, but developing a new reflex: when making quick personality-based judgments, pause and ask what situational or systemic factors are at play. This shift - from judging character to understanding context - opens up new possibilities for action.
When you think "What's wrong with these people?", remember: even expert accident investigators have to fight the same instinct. The difference between good and great leadership is not in having better answers, but asking better questions.
Sources
- Weick, K. E. (2009). Making Sense of the Organization, Volume 2: The Impermanent Organization.
- Syed, M. (2015). Black Box Thinking.
- Malcolm Gladwell in Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The Person and the Situation.
- Snook, S. A. (2002). Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow.
- Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization.
- Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process.
- Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes.