We’ve all done it. Someone doesn’t have a lot of money. Gets divorced. Injures themselves.
“They should’ve worked harder in school,” we say. “They should’ve known that guy was a bad egg.” “They’ve always been reckless.”
When something bad happens to someone else, we have a habit of saying it was their own fault. On the other hand, when something good happens to someone, we say they got lucky.
“He only got that job because he knows someone in the company.” “She only gets good grades because she picks easy classes.” “He’s not that good at that game: he’s just tall.”
When we talk about ourselves, it’s the opposite: we say the bad things happened to us by chance, and the good things were because of good decisions we made.
The phenomenon is so common that psychologists have a name for it—the fundamental attribution error. In short, it says that human beings tend to blame the faults of others on their character and their own faults on the situation. While less prevalent, the opposite is true of positive outcomes.
| Outcome | Me | Someone else |
| Positive | I did it | They didn’t do that |
| Negative | It’s not my fault | It’s their fault |
There’s some scholarly debate on the extent to which this principle still holds and whether it is unique to Western societies. Regardless, I think the fundamental attribution error is a helpful principle to remember when dealing with other people and evaluating our own lives.
Take a performance review, for example. The manager is likely to discount an employee’s role in accomplishing positive outcomes while blaming them for negative outcomes. The employee, on the other hand, is likely to think that their successes were completely a result of their hard work and their failures were due to the circumstances. It’s not exactly a recipe for a good conversation.
Keeping the fundamental attribution error in mind though might help you guide the conversation in a way that is productive for both parties. If you are giving negative feedback, sympathize with anything about the employee’s situation that helped contribute to the negative outcome. After all, the employee is more likely to think their situation caused a problem than anything he or she did directly. For example, “I know that you were operating under a tight deadline and that it would have helped to receive more training. Next time, I’m looking for you to prioritize this task so that we can get it done first.” If you don’t demonstrate, at least to some extent, that you understand the employee’s situation, he or she is going to stop listening to you.
The opposite is true when receiving negative feedback. Remember, your first reaction is probably going to be annoyance—there’s likely a situational factor unbeknownst to your manager that contributed to the negative outcome. That’s ok — wait a few days for your feelings of annoyance to subside before examining the feedback critically. Try to determine how much your circumstances truly contributed to the negative outcome and what you might be able to improve for next time.
Also, your manager has a lot of things demanding their attention and isn’t a psychic. Keep them aware of any difficult circumstances you are facing and come prepared with solutions. For example, “Since Linda left, I’ve definitely been experiencing an increased workload. I’m staying late to make sure the work gets done, but I can tell the situation will be unsustainable for the team in the long run. Our team did a brainstorm and suggested that someone with a sales background and knowledge about emerging markets would be a good replacement.” Coming prepared with solutions is important. Otherwise, it will look like you are complaining and asking your manager to solve everything for you.
In general, awareness of the fundamental attribution error should make us be more forgiving of others. People aren’t primed to understand what you are going through at all times. Just like you aren’t primed to understand them. Next time you’re ready to criticize someone, stop and think about the circumstances they may be facing first.
