File: ~/Desktop/Performance Books/The Halo Effect ...pdf · Tradition: evidence-based / critique of business research
Stance: Ally — the survivorship/attribution critique (backs Part I·b "just talk / survivorship")
Core claim
Most business "knowledge" is the halo effect: we observe an outcome and infer the causes from it. A successful company is called visionary, focused, brilliantly led; a failing one complacent and arrogant — even when they did the same things. The conclusions are delusions dressed as analysis.
Grounded
- Subtitle: "…and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers."
- "if we attribute great performance to a clear vision and brilliant leadership and a strong focus, it's natural to infer that poor performance is due to some error… Ex post facto, it's always easy to say low performance was due to [a flaw]."
- The halo = a general impression drives "favorable attributions across the board" — specific judgments contaminated by overall impression.
Contrast / use
Confirms the epistemic critique in Part I·b: the canon is outcome-selected narrative, not measurement. Rosenzweig is the named authority for "winners narrate luck/advantage as genius." Pairs with Pfeffer & Sutton's smart-talk and Mauboussin's luck-skill (#18).
Where it plugs in
Part I·b [^halo] → upgrade from flagged to confirmed; dossier (the "evidence is narrative" point). Acquired ✓.