Fallacies and Biases Flashcards
What is the appeal to probability?
Taking something for granted because it would probably or possibly be the case.
What is the argument from fallacy (fallacy fallacy)?
Assuming that if an argument for a conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.
Define base rate fallacy.
This fallacy happens when we ignore how rare something is and rely only on specific details (like test accuracy), leading to a misleading conclusion. • example: A rare disease affects 1 in 10,000 people (0.01%). “The test says I have the disease, and it’s 99% accurate, so I must have a 99% chance of having it!”
What is the conjunction fallacy?
Assuming an outcome satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying just one of them.
What does non sequitur fallacy mean?
When the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
Describe the masked-man fallacy.
If you replace the same names in a true sentence, the sentence will still be true. (example: “The old ‘Department Managers’ were ineffective, so we’re replacing them with ‘Team Coordinators’ to create a more agile structure.”)
What is affirming a disjunct?
This fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that because one of two options is true, the other must be false—even though both could be true simultaneously. Example: “We’ve transitioned to a self-managed team structure, so we no longer need to invest in leadership training.”
Fill in the blank: The fallacy of denying the antecedent assumes the consequent is false because the _______ is false.
[antecedent]
What is the existential fallacy?
The Existential Fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that because a category or rule exists, at least one actual instance of it must also exist—even when there’s no evidence for that. Example: “We’ve removed departmental silos and implemented open workspaces, so now employees will naturally collaborate across teams.”A structure that enables collaboration doesn’t guarantee collaboration will actually happen.
Define affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
If you say something is not one thing and another thing is not something else, you can’t suddenly prove that something is true.
- No dogs are cats. (Negative statement)
- Some cats are not friendly. (Negative statement)
- Therefore, some dogs are friendly. (Affirmative conclusion—wrong!)
What is the fallacy of exclusive premises?
If both statements in an argument say what isn’t true, there’s no way to reach a solid conclusion about what is true.
I don’t own a bike, and my friend doesn’t have a car—so I must have a skateboard.”
What does the fallacy of four terms refer to?
The fallacy of four terms happens when a logical argument mistakenly uses more than three terms, making the reasoning invalid. In a proper syllogism (a logical argument with two premises and a conclusion), there should only be three terms that connect correctly.
Example of the Fallacy of Four Terms:
1. All dogs are animals.
2. All cats are mammals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. ❌ (Incorrect conclusion)
What is illicit major?
a conclusion says “All” about a group, but the argument never actually proves that, it’s a mistake.
Example:
1. All dogs are mammals. (True statement)
2. No cats are dogs. (True statement)
3. Therefore, no cats are mammals. (False conclusion!)
The mistake here is assuming that because dogs are mammals, only dogs can be mammals. The argument wrongly jumps to an all-or-nothing conclusion about a bigger group than the premises actually support.
What does illicit minor mean?
If the conclusion says “All” about a group, but the premise never actually supports that, it’s a mistake.
Example:
1. All cats are animals. (True statement)
2. Some animals are not dogs. (True statement)
3. Therefore, all cats are not dogs. (False conclusion!)
The mistake here is assuming that some animals not being dogs means all cats are not dogs in a way that makes a logical conclusion. However, the structure of the argument is incorrect, making it an illicit minor fallacy
What is the negative conclusion from affirmative premises fallacy?
A categorical syllogism with a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.
- All senior managers have leadership experience. (Affirmative)
- David has leadership experience. (Affirmative)
- Therefore, David cannot be a senior manager. (Negative Conclusion)
What is the fallacy of the undistributed middle?
If two things share a trait, it doesn’t mean they are the same.
Example:
1. All dogs are animals.
2. All cats are animals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are cats. (Wrong conclusion!)
Define modal fallacy.
Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it must happen.
Example:
1. It is possible that I will win the lottery.
2. Therefore, I will win the lottery. (Wrong conclusion!)
The mistake here is assuming that because something can happen, it must happen. The same mistake can happen in reverse, assuming that if something isn’t always true, it must never be true.
What is the modal scope fallacy?
Mistakenly claims something is only possibly true when it’s actually necessarily true.
Premise 1: Necessarily, if an employee is promoted, they must have strong leadership skills. • Premise 2: Blake was promoted. • Conclusion: Necessarily, Blake has strong leadership skills
What does the argument from incredulity entail?
Assuming something must be false because it is difficult to imagine as true.
What is the argument to moderation fallacy?
Assuming a compromise between two positions is always correct.
Fill in the blank: The continuum fallacy is also known as the _______.
[sorites fallacy]
What is the suppressed correlative fallacy?
someone redefines a concept in a way that makes its opposite impossible, effectively removing any real distinction.
Everyone is strong because even a weak person has some strength.”
Define definist fallacy.
Defining a term in a biased manner to make an argument difficult to refute.
“Any wage that is not determined through collective bargaining is exploitation.”
Why This Is a Definist Fallacy:
• The union redefines “exploitation” to mean any wage not set by a union contract, rather than the broader economic or ethical meaning of exploitation (such as unfair labor practices or poverty wages).
• This excludes the possibility that a company might offer fair, competitive wages without a union.
• It frames the company as automatically unethical, even if the wages are in line with market rates or better than industry standards.
What does divine fallacy refer to?
Assuming something phenomenal must be due to divine, alien, or paranormal forces.
What is double counting?
Counting occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, leading to inflated probability sums.
when multiple related factors are treated as independent, even though they overlap
Define equivocation.
Using a term with multiple meanings without specifying which is intended.
What is the ambiguous middle term fallacy?
Using a middle term with multiple meanings in an argument.
All great leaders have experience. 2. John has experience in the manufacturing industry. 3. Therefore, John is a great leader
What does definitional retreat mean?
Changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.
HR Manager: “Our training program is highly effective because it improves employee performance.”
Analyst: “But performance metrics show no improvement after training.”
HR Manager: “Well, I meant it improves engagement, not necessarily performance.”
What is the motte-and-bailey fallacy?
Conflating a controversial position with a more defensible one and switching between them when challenged.
What is the fallacy of accent?
Changing the meaning of a statement by altering emphasis.
Define persuasive definition.
Claiming to use the ‘true’ meaning of a term while actually using an uncommon or incorrect definition to persuade the listener.
Employee engagement is just about having a positive attitude at work—so if people aren’t engaged, it’s because of their personal mindset, not anything the company needs to fix.”
What does ecological fallacy refer to?
Making inferences about an individual based on group statistics.
“Our company-wide training program increased productivity by 15%, so every employee who took the training must have improved their performance
What is etymological fallacy?
Assuming that a word’s original or historical meaning determines its present-day usage.
What is the fallacy of composition?
Assuming what is true of part of something must also be true of the whole.
“If we hire only high-performing individuals, our entire organization will be high-performing.”
What does the fallacy of division refer to?
Assuming what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts.
Our company has an award-winning performance improvement strategy, so every department must be using the best possible practices
What is false attribution?
Using an irrelevant, unqualified, or biased source to support an argument.
What does the fallacy of quoting out of context mean?
Selectively excerpting words to distort the original meaning.
What is false authority?
Using a dubious expert or a single opinion to support an argument.
What is a false dilemma?
Presenting two alternatives as the only options when others exist.
Define false equivalence.
Describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
What is feedback fallacy?
It assumes all feedback is neutral rather than recognizing that evaluations can be shaped by personal bias, office politics, or unconscious prejudices.
• It treats subjective assessments as objective truth, leading to flawed decisions about improvement.
• It discourages critical thinking about the source of feedback, leading people to internalize inaccurate or unfair criticisms.
What does historian’s fallacy assume?
Assuming past decision-makers had the same information as those analyzing their decisions later.
What is historical fallacy?
Assuming specific results occurred only due to a particular process, though the process may be unrelated.
What does the Baconian fallacy refer to?
The Baconian fallacy occurs when someone insists that conclusions must be based purely on empirical data while dismissing reasoning, theory, or other forms of knowledge. It is named after Francis Bacon, who emphasized inductive reasoning but did not actually advocate for rejecting theoretical insights.
Person A: “We’ve conducted interviews, reviewed process documentation, and analyzed workflow inefficiencies. The data suggests that poor system design is a major cause of the performance gap.”
Person B: “Unless we have hard numerical data proving this beyond doubt, we can’t conclude anything. Observations, expert insights, and qualitative data don’t count as real evidence
What is homunculus fallacy?
The homunculus fallacy occurs when an explanation relies on a smaller version of the very thing it is trying to explain, leading to an infinite regress
Person A: “Our employees struggle with following safety protocols. We need to improve their self-discipline.”
Person B: “How do we improve their self-discipline?”
Person A: “We just need to instill a stronger internal sense of discipline.
What is inflation of conflict?
Arguing that expert disagreement means no conclusion can be reached or the field is illegitimate.
“Well, if even the safety experts can’t agree on what’s best, then there’s no way to know what the right answer is. We might as well do nothing.”
What does if-by-whiskey mean?
Supporting both sides of an issue by using emotionally ambiguous terms.
If by whiskey you mean the devil’s brew that destroys families and leads men to ruin, then I am against it. But if by whiskey you mean the noble spirit that brings camaraderie and joy to hardworking men, then I am for it!”
What is incomplete comparison?
Providing insufficient information for a complete comparison.
Define intentionality fallacy.
Insisting that an expression’s meaning must align with the author’s intent.
We don’t need to analyze this poem because the poet said in an interview that it doesn’t have any hidden meaning.”
What is kettle logic?
Defending a position using multiple, inconsistent arguments.
- “Employees should already know how to do this.”
- “Even if they don’t, they’ll figure it out on their own.”
- “We don’t have time to train them anyway.”
What does ludic fallacy refer to?
Ignoring real-world unknown variables when calculating probability.
A company trusts an AI hiring tool with an 80% success rate in tests, assuming it will work just as well in real-world hiring. This is the ludic fallacy—it wrongly treats the messy, unpredictable nature of workplaces as if they follow the clean, controlled rules of a game or simulation.
What is the lump of labour fallacy?
The misconception that jobs in an economy are fixed and can simply be redistributed.
What is McNamara fallacy?
Prioritizing quantitative data while ignoring qualitative aspects.
What does mind projection fallacy mean?
when someone assumes that their own perceptions, beliefs, or limitations reflect reality itself. In other words, they mistake their mental model for an objective truth.
I wouldn’t care about recognition or training opportunities—I just work for the paycheck. So obviously, that’s the only thing that motivates my employees too.”
What is moralistic fallacy?
Assuming something must be true because it aligns with moral beliefs.
“Humans are naturally peaceful because violence is wrong.
Diverse teams must always perform better because diversity is a moral good.”
What is moving the goalposts?
Dismissing presented evidence and demanding stronger proof.
What is nirvana fallacy?
Rejecting solutions because they are not perfect.
Define package deal.
The package deal fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because certain ideas, beliefs, or traits are often grouped together, they must always be inseparable. This fallacy forces a false dichotomy or association between concepts that may not necessarily be linked.
“If you support capitalism, you must also support corporate greed and exploitation.”
What is prevalent proof fallacy?
Using consensus or majority opinion as proof of truth without expert validation.
What does proof by assertion entail?
Repeatedly restating a proposition despite contradiction.
What is prosecutor’s fallacy?
Assuming a low probability of false matches means a low probability of any false match occurring.
company uses integrity tests that correctly identify 90% of dishonest employees. An employee fails the test, and HR mistakenly concludes there’s a 90% chance the employee is dishonest. However, because employee theft is rare (only 5%), the actual likelihood of dishonesty after a failed test is much lower.
What does proving too much mean?
An argument leading to an overly generalized or extreme conclusion.
If great leaders always communicate clearly, then anyone who struggles with communication can never be a great leader.”
What is psychologist’s fallacy?
Assuming an observer’s perspective is objective when analyzing behavior.
“If an employee is dissatisfied with their job, it must be because they are unmotivated.”
This is the psychologist’s fallacy—it assumes that the manager’s own perspective and interpretation of motivation applies universally to all employees
What is referential fallacy?
Assuming all words refer to existing things.
An employee says, “I feel undervalued,” and the manager assumes they mean salary, ignoring other possibilities like lack of recognition or growth.
What does reification mean?
Treating abstract concepts as real, physical entities.
A manager says, “Our company culture demands that employees always go the extra mile.”
This is reification—treating “company culture,” an abstract concept, as if it has agency or the ability to demand anything. In reality, culture is shaped by people and policies, not an independent force imposing expectations
What is retrospective determinism?
Believing that because an event happened, it was inevitable.
A company implements a new performance management system, but it fails due to employee resistance and poor leadership buy-in. Later, an HR consultant claims, “It was obvious from the start that this would fail; employees always resist change.”
What is slippery slope?
Arguing that a small first action will inevitably lead to a significant negative outcome.
What does special pleading refer to?
Citing an exception to a rule without justification.
A manufacturing company enforces a strict attendance policy, terminating employees who exceed the allowed absences. However, when a high-performing engineer repeatedly violates the policy, HR argues, “He’s too valuable to lose, so we should make an exception.”
Define begging the question.
Using a conclusion as a premise to support itself.
What is loaded label?
Using emotionally charged terms to support a conclusion.
What does circular reasoning mean?
Using the conclusion as a premise to justify itself.
What is the fallacy of many questions? (Loaded Question)
Asking a question that assumes an unproven premise.
“Why do you feel disengaged and dissatisfied with your job?”
What does faulty generalization refer to?
Drawing a conclusion from weak premises.
What is accident fallacy?
Ignoring exceptions to generalizations.
A company has a strict “no personal phone use” policy during work hours to maintain productivity. One day, an employee is reprimanded for using their phone to call 911 after witnessing a workplace accident.
This is the accident fallacy—applying a general rule too rigidly without considering reasonable exceptions. The policy is meant to prevent distractions, but emergency situations warrant flexibility.
What does no true Scotsman mean?
Altering a generalization to exclude counterexamples.
“Well, no true great leader would fail like that. They must not have applied the training correctly.”
Claim: “All members of group X have quality Y.” 2. Counterexample: “But here’s a member of X who lacks quality Y.” 3. Response: “Well, no true member of X would lack quality Y.
What is cherry picking?
Selecting data that supports an argument while ignoring contradictory evidence.
What does nut-picking entail?
Selecting extreme examples that misrepresent the overall argument.
What is survivorship bias?
Focusing on successful cases while ignoring failures.
What does false analogy refer to?
Making an inappropriate comparison to support an argument.
Define hasty generalization.
Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient data.
What is argument from anecdote?
Using anecdotal evidence as proof without additional support.
What does inductive fallacy mean?
Drawing conclusions from insufficient premises.
Premise 1: The last two employees we hired from Company X became top performers within three months.
• Conclusion: Anyone we hire from Company X will be a top performer.
What is misleading vividness?
Using emotionally striking but rare examples to argue a point.
What does overwhelming exception refer to?
A generalization with so many exceptions that it becomes meaningless.
General Rule: We promote employees based on leadership potential.
• Exception: However, we only promote employees who have worked here for at least 10 years, have managed a team of 50+ people, and have a perfect performance record.
• Conclusion: Leadership potential is our promotion criterion.
What is thought-terminating cliché?
Using a cliché to dismiss further debate.
Manager: “Well, turnover is just a fact of life in this industry. It is what it is.”
• Implicit Conclusion: There’s no need to discuss or explore solutions—just accept it.
What does questionable cause mean?
Confusing association with causation.
Premise 1: After implementing leadership training, employee retention improved.
• Premise 2: Therefore, the leadership training caused the retention increase.
What is cum hoc ergo propter hoc?
Assuming that correlation implies causation.
What does post hoc ergo propter hoc mean?
Assuming that because one event followed another, it was caused by the first.
What is wrong direction?
Reversing cause and effect.
A company notices that employees with high engagement scores also have the best performance ratings. Leadership concludes that high engagement causes high performance and invests heavily in engagement initiatives to boost productivity.
2. Incorrect reasoning (fallacy):
• Premise 1: High engagement is correlated with high performance.
• Premise 2: Therefore, engagement causes high performance.
What does ignoring a common cause refer to?
Overlooking a shared underlying cause for two correlated events.
• “Employees who receive more training get promoted faster, so training causes promotions.”
• (It’s possible that high-potential employees both seek training and get promoted more frequently, rather than training itself being the cause.)
What is fallacy of the single cause?
Oversimplifying causation by assuming one cause for an outcome.
What does furtive fallacy mean?
Assuming an outcome was caused by the malfeasance of decision-makers.
• Premise 1: The company has hired external candidates for the last three management positions. • Premise 2: Internal employees were not promoted. • Conclusion: Leadership is deliberately suppressing internal promotions to keep employees from advancing.
What is magical thinking?
Magical thinking occurs when someone assumes a superficial or symbolic change will cause deep, complex organizational improvements without addressing the underlying issues.
Premise 1: Our company has low engagement and collaboration.
• Premise 2: We are redesigning the office with an open floor plan.
• Conclusion: The new office layout will transform company culture and improve engagement.
What does observational interpretation fallacy refer to?
Misinterpreting observational study associations as causation.
What is regression fallacy?
Attributing cause to a natural fluctuation rather than randomness.
A company launches a performance improvement coaching program for employees whose productivity scores have recently declined. After a few months, many of these employees show improvement. Leadership assumes that the coaching program caused the turnaround and decides to expand it company-wide.
What is gambler’s fallacy?
Incorrectly believing past independent events affect future probabilities.
What does inverse gambler’s fallacy mean?
The incorrect belief that an unlikely outcome means the process must have happened many times before.
A company hires a CEO, and engagement, retention, and productivity soar. Executives assume many failed leaders preceded this success
What is p-hacking?
Belief in the significance of a result without recognizing multiple comparisons were made and only significant results were published.
What is sunk costs fallacy?
Continuing a failed endeavor because of past investments in time or effort.
What is appeal to the stone?
Dismissing a claim as absurd without proving its absurdity.
What does invincible ignorance mean?
Refusing to accept an argument despite evidence.
What is argument from ignorance?
Assuming a claim is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.
What does argument from repetition entail?
Repeating an argument until opposition ceases and claiming the lack of response as support.
What is argument from silence?
Assuming a claim is true due to the absence of evidence against it.
What does ignoratio elenchi mean?
Presenting a valid argument that does not address the actual issue.
A manager provides feedback to an employee about consistently missing deadlines. The manager explains that meeting deadlines is critical for the team’s overall success and asks the employee to improve their time management skills.
Instead of addressing the concern, the employee responds:
“But I always stay late and put in extra effort! No one works harder than me.”
What is a red herring?
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert from the main argument.
What does ad hominem refer to?
Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
What is circumstantial ad hominem?
Claiming someone’s argument is invalid because of their personal situation.
What is poisoning the well?
Discrediting a person before they make an argument.
What does appeal to motive mean?
Dismissing an argument by questioning the motives of its proposer.
What is tone policing?
Criticizing the emotional delivery of an argument rather than addressing its content.
What does traitorous critic fallacy mean?
Dismissing a critic’s argument based on their perceived affiliation.
What is bulverism?
Dismissing an argument based on speculation about the arguer’s psychological motives.
What is appeal to authority?
Asserting a claim is true because an authority figure says so.
What is appeal to accomplishment?
Evaluating an argument based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
What does courtier’s reply mean?
Dismissing criticism by claiming the critic lacks sufficient expertise.
What is appeal to consequences?
Supporting or rejecting a claim based on its consequences rather than its validity.
If X is true, it would lead to undesirable consequences, so X must be false.
2. If X is false, it would lead to undesirable consequences, so X must be true.
What does appeal to emotion refer to?
Using emotions rather than reason to persuade.
What is appeal to fear?
Using fear or anxiety to influence an argument.
What does appeal to flattery mean?
Using excessive praise to gain agreement.
What is appeal to pity?
Using sympathy to support an argument.
What does appeal to ridicule entail?
Mocking an argument rather than addressing its substance.
What is appeal to spite?
Using resentment or hostility to sway opinion.
What is judgmental language?
Using pejorative language to frame an argument.
What does pooh-pooh mean?
Dismissing an argument as unworthy of consideration.
What is style over substance?
Using persuasive language rather than valid reasoning.
What does wishful thinking refer to?
Believing something is true because it would be pleasing if true.
What is appeal to nature?
Judging something as good or bad solely based on whether it is ‘natural.’
What is appeal to novelty?
Asserting something is better simply because it is new.
What does appeal to poverty mean?
Supporting a claim because the proposer is poor.
What is appeal to tradition?
Supporting a claim because it has been traditionally accepted.
What does appeal to wealth refer to?
Supporting a claim because the proposer is wealthy.
What is argumentum ad baculum?
Using coercion or threats to support an argument.
What does argumentum ad populum mean?
Claiming something is true because many people believe it.
What is association fallacy?
Assuming two things share properties simply because they are associated.
What does logic chopping fallacy mean?
Focusing on trivial details instead of the main argument.
What is ipse dixit?
Claiming something is true without providing evidence.
What does chronological snobbery refer to?
Dismissing a belief because it was commonly held in the past.
What is fallacy of relative privation?
Dismissing an argument by pointing to worse problems.
What does genetic fallacy mean?
Evaluating an argument based on its origin rather than its merit.
What does I’m entitled to my opinion mean?
Claiming immunity from criticism by asserting a right to an opinion.
What is naturalistic fallacy?
Assuming what is natural must also be good or right.
What does is–ought fallacy refer to?
Assuming that because something is a certain way, it ought to be that way.
What is naturalistic fallacy fallacy?
Assumes that what is “natural” or how things “are” determines what is “right” or “ought to be.”
For centuries, work has always been done in an office. Therefore, in-person work is the natural and correct way to run a business.”
This is the Naturalistic Fallacy—just because something has historically been the norm (“is”) does not mean it ought to remain that way. The argument incorrectly assumes that what is “natural” (traditional office work) is inherently “better” or “right,” without considering practical benefits or ethical reasoning.
What is straw man fallacy?
Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
What does Texas sharpshooter fallacy mean?
Assigning causation to coincidental patterns in data.
What is tu quoque?
Dismissing an argument because the arguer does not practice what they preach.
What does two wrongs make a right mean?
Justifying one wrong action with another wrong action.
What is vacuous truth?
Making a claim that is technically true but meaningless due to a lack of applicability.
What does common source bias refer to?
Comparing research studies without recognizing they use the same data or methodology.
What is conservatism bias?
Failing to update beliefs when presented with new evidence.
What does functional fixedness mean?
Viewing an object as usable only in its traditional function.
What is law of the instrument?
Over-reliance on a familiar tool or method, ignoring alternatives.
What is apophenia?
Seeing patterns in random data.
What does clustering illusion refer to?
Overestimating the significance of small patterns in large data sets.
What is a claim that is technically true but meaningless due to a lack of applicability called?
A technically true but meaningless claim
What is common source bias?
Comparing research studies without recognizing they use the same data or methodology
What is conservatism bias?
Failing to update beliefs when presented with new evidence
What does functional fixedness refer to?
Viewing an object as usable only in its traditional function
What is the law of the instrument?
Over-reliance on a familiar tool or method, ignoring alternatives
What is apophenia?
Seeing patterns in random data
What does clustering illusion mean?
Overestimating the significance of small patterns in large data sets
What is illusory correlation?
Perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events
What does pareidolia refer to?
Seeing meaningful images or sounds in random stimuli (e.g., seeing faces in clouds)
What is the availability heuristic?
Overestimating the likelihood of events based on how easily they come to mind
What does anthropocentric thinking mean?
Using human experiences as a basis for reasoning about non-human phenomena
What is anthropomorphism?
Attributing human traits to animals, objects, or abstract concepts
What is attentional bias?
Letting recurring thoughts influence perception
What is frequency illusion also known as?
Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
What does frequency illusion describe?
Noticing something frequently after first becoming aware of it
What is salience bias?
Focusing on emotionally striking or prominent items while ignoring unremarkable ones
What is selection bias?
When a statistical sample is not randomly chosen, leading to an unrepresentative population
What is survivorship bias?
Concentrating on successful cases while overlooking failures
What does quantification bias refer to?
Giving more weight to measurable metrics over qualitative factors
What is the well-traveled road effect?
Underestimating the time taken on familiar routes and overestimating it on unfamiliar ones
What is cognitive dissonance?
The mental discomfort of holding contradictory information
What is normalcy bias?
Refusing to plan for or react to unprecedented disasters
What is effort justification?
Attributing greater value to something because of the effort put into achieving it.
What is the Ben Franklin effect?
A person who has done a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for them.
Define confirmation bias.
Searching for, interpreting, and remembering information that supports preexisting beliefs.
What is the backfire effect?
Strengthening prior beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence.
Explain congruence bias.
Testing hypotheses only in ways that confirm them instead of considering alternatives.
What is experimenter’s bias?
Favoring data that supports expected outcomes in an experiment.
Define observer-expectancy effect.
Unconsciously influencing an experiment to achieve the expected result.
What is selective perception?
Expectations influencing what is perceived.
Explain egocentric bias.
Over-reliance on one’s own perspective or perception.
What is bias blind spot?
Seeing oneself as less biased than others.
A supervisor, Alex, confidently claims he evaluates employees objectively based on metrics like productivity, criticizing other managers for showing favoritism. Yet, Alex unknowingly favors employees similar to himself, demonstrating a bias blind spot by failing to see his own susceptibility to similarity bias.
Define false consensus effect.
Overestimating how much others share one’s beliefs.
What is false uniqueness bias?
Seeing oneself or one’s project as more unique than it actually is.
Explain the Forer effect (Barnum effect).
Believing vague personality descriptions are highly accurate.
What is the illusion of asymmetric insight?
Believing one understands others better than they understand oneself.
A manager overseeing a team believes that he fully understands why an employee is struggling—he assumes the employee is unmotivated and resistant to feedback. However, when the employee is asked, she explains that she’s overwhelmed due to unclear expectations and lacks proper training
Define illusion of control.
Overestimating personal influence over external events.
What is the illusion of transparency?
Overestimating how well one’s thoughts or feelings are understood by others.
Explain the illusion of validity.
Overestimating the accuracy of one’s judgments.
What is illusory superiority?
Overestimating one’s own abilities and qualities relative to others.
Define naïve cynicism.
Believing others are more biased than oneself.
What is naïve realism?
Assuming one’s perception of reality is objective and others who disagree are irrational.
Explain the overconfidence effect.
Having excessive confidence in one’s own knowledge or judgments.
What is planning fallacy?
Underestimating the time needed to complete a task.
Define restraint bias.
Overestimating one’s ability to resist temptation.
What is trait ascription bias?
Viewing oneself as more variable and others as more predictable.
Explain the third-person effect.
Believing others are more influenced by media than oneself.
What is base rate fallacy?
Ignoring general probability in favor of specific case information.
Define compassion fade.
Being more compassionate toward a few identifiable victims than a large group.
What is conjunction fallacy?
Assuming that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
Explain duration neglect.
Ignoring duration when evaluating experiences.
What is hyperbolic discounting?
Preferring immediate rewards over larger future rewards.
Define insensitivity to sample size.
Underestimating variations in small samples.
What is less-is-better effect?
Preferring a smaller set over a larger one when judged separately.
What is neglect of probability?
Ignoring probability when making uncertain decisions.
Explain scope neglect.
Being insensitive to the size of a problem.
What is zero-risk bias?
Preferring a complete elimination of small risks over reducing larger risks.
Define agent detection bias.
Assuming events are caused by a sentient agent.
What is automation bias?
Over-reliance on automated systems, even when they are incorrect.
What is gender bias?
Implicit biases that discriminate based on gender.
Define sexual overperception bias.
Overestimating or underestimating another person’s interest in oneself.
What is stereotyping?
Expecting an individual to have characteristics based on group membership.
Explain contrast effect.
Perception changes when comparing a stimulus to a recently observed contrast.
What is decoy effect?
Changing preferences when an inferior option is introduced.
Define default effect.
Favoring the default option in decision-making.
What is denomination effect?
Spending more when money is in smaller denominations.
Explain distinction bias.
Seeing two options as more different when comparing them together.
What is domain neglect bias?
Ignoring relevant knowledge from another field when solving interdisciplinary problems.
Define context neglect bias.
Ignoring human factors when evaluating technological challenges.
What is Berkson’s paradox?
Misinterpreting conditional probabilities in statistical experiments.
Explain escalation of commitment.
Increasing investment in a failing decision based on prior investment.
What is G. I. Joe fallacy?
Assuming that knowing about a bias eliminates its influence.
Define gambler’s fallacy.
Believing past random events affect future probabilities.
What is hot-hand fallacy?
Believing a streak of successes increases the likelihood of continued success.
Explain plan continuation bias.
Sticking to an outdated plan despite new evidence.
What is subadditivity effect?
Underestimating the probability of a whole compared to its parts.
Define time-saving bias.
Misjudging time saved when increasing or decreasing speed.
What is zero-sum bias?
Incorrectly perceiving a situation as zero-sum.
Explain ambiguity effect.
Avoiding options with unknown probabilities.
What is disposition effect?
Selling assets that have gained value and holding onto those that have lost value.
Define dread aversion.
Dreading an anticipated negative event more than enjoying a positive one.
What is endowment effect?
Valuing owned items more than identical unowned items.
Explain loss aversion.
Feeling losses more strongly than equivalent gains.
What is pseudocertainty effect?
Being risk-averse for positive outcomes and risk-seeking to avoid losses.
Define status quo bias.
Preferring things to stay the same.
What is system justification?
Defending and favoring the status quo, even against self-interest.
Explain Dunning–Kruger effect.
Unskilled individuals overestimate their ability, while experts underestimate theirs.
What is hot-cold empathy gap?
Underestimating how visceral states (hunger, pain, etc.) affect behavior.
Define hard–easy effect.
Overestimating the difficulty of easy tasks and underestimating the difficulty of hard tasks.
What is illusion of explanatory depth?
Believing one understands a topic better than they actually do.
A department manager believes he fully understands the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and confidently tells an employee:
“You can’t take FMLA because you haven’t worked here for a full year.”
The employee challenges this, and when the HR team asks the manager to explain the details of FMLA eligibility, he stumbles, realizing he doesn’t actually understand the specific criteria (such as the 1,250-hour requirement and how it applies to different cases).
Explain impostor syndrome.
Doubting one’s abilities despite evidence of success.
What is objectivity illusion?
Believing oneself to be more objective than others.
Define belief bias.
Judging an argument’s strength based on whether one believes its conclusion.
What is illusory truth effect?
Believing statements are true if they are repeated or easy to process.
Explain rhyme as reason effect.
Perceiving rhyming statements as more truthful.
What is subjective validation?
Believing statements are true if they match one’s existing beliefs.
Define action bias.
Acting impulsively in response to a problem instead of considering inaction.
What is additive bias?
Preferring solutions that involve adding elements rather than removing them.
Explain curse of knowledge.
Difficulty for knowledgeable people to consider problems from a less-informed perspective.
What is declinism?
Viewing the past favorably while expecting the future to worsen.
Define end-of-history illusion.
Believing one will change less in the future than in the past.
What is exaggerated expectation?
Expecting more extreme outcomes than what actually happens.
Explain form function attribution bias.
Expecting a robot’s abilities based on appearance rather than actual function.
What is fundamental pain bias?
Believing one accurately reports their own pain but assuming others exaggerate.
Define hedonic recall bias.
Overestimating earnings when satisfied with wages and underestimating when dissatisfied.
What is hindsight bias?
Believing past events were predictable before they happened.
Explain impact bias.
Overestimating the duration or intensity of future emotional states.
What is information bias?
Seeking information even when it does not affect action.
Define interoceptive bias (Hungry judge effect).
Letting bodily sensations (hunger, fatigue) influence external judgments.
What is money illusion?
Focusing on money’s nominal value instead of purchasing power.
Explain moral credential effect.
Doing a good act gives perceived permission to act less morally later.
What is non-adaptive choice switching?
Avoiding a past optimal choice due to a bad outcome (‘once bitten, twice shy’).
Define mere exposure effect.
Preferring things due to familiarity.
What is omission bias?
Judging harmful actions worse than harmful inactions.
Explain optimism bias.
Overestimating favorable outcomes and underestimating risks.
What is ostrich effect?
Ignoring negative information.
Define outcome bias.
Judging decisions by outcomes rather than the quality of the decision at the time.
What is pessimism bias?
Overestimating the likelihood of negative events, especially in depression.
Explain present bias.
Preferring immediate rewards over future benefits.
What is plant blindness?
Ignoring plants in the environment and their importance.
Define prevention bias.
Believing prevention is more effective than detection and response, even when equally effective.
What is probability matching?
Matching probability of choices with the probability of rewards sub-optimally.
Explain pro-innovation bias.
Excessive optimism toward innovation while overlooking its limitations.
What is projection bias?
Assuming one’s current preferences will remain unchanged in the future.
Define proportionality bias.
Believing big events must have big causes (often linked to conspiracy theories).
What is recency illusion?
Believing a phenomenon is recent because one has only recently noticed it.
Explain systematic bias.
Judgment errors due to regression effects.
What is risk compensation (Peltzman effect)?
Taking greater risks when safety measures are in place.
Define surrogation.
Focusing on a measure instead of the actual concept it represents.
What is teleological bias?
Attributing purpose to events or entities that lack intentional design.
Explain turkey illusion.
It describes the false assumption that past stability guarantees future stability, leading to catastrophic surprises.
• Named after a turkey that is fed every day, growing more confident in its safety—until Thanksgiving arrives.
• Example: A company assumes steady profits will continue indefinitely, ignoring external risks like market crashes or disruptive innovation.
What is unconscious bias (implicit bias)?
Unconscious stereotypes affecting judgments and interactions.
Define unit bias.
Consuming the suggested portion size regardless of personal needs.
What is value selection bias?
Relying on existing numerical data in unfamiliar contexts, even when inappropriate.
Explain Weber–Fechner law.
Difficulty in distinguishing small differences in large quantities.
What is women are wonderful effect?
Associating more positive traits with women than men.
Define authority bias.
Giving undue weight to an authority figure’s opinion.
What is cheerleader effect?
People appear more attractive in a group than alone.
Explain halo effect.
One positive trait influences perception of other traits.
What is actor-observer bias?
Attributing others’ behavior to personality but one’s own to circumstances.
Define defensive attribution hypothesis.
Assigning more blame as harm severity or victim similarity increases.
What is extrinsic incentives bias?
Assuming others are externally motivated while believing oneself is intrinsically motivated.
Explain fundamental attribution error.
Overemphasizing personality over situational influences on others’ behavior.
What is group attribution error?
Believing one member’s traits reflect the whole group.
Define hostile attribution bias.
Interpreting ambiguous behaviors as hostile.
What is intentionality bias?
Assuming human actions are intentional rather than accidental.
Explain just-world hypothesis.
Believing people get what they deserve.
What is moral luck?
Judging morality based on the outcome rather than intent.
Define puritanical bias.
Attributing wrongdoing to moral failure rather than societal factors.
What is self-serving bias?
Claiming more responsibility for success than failure.
What is ultimate attribution error?
Applying fundamental attribution error to entire groups.
Define availability cascade.
A belief gaining credibility through repetition in discourse.
What is bandwagon effect?
Adopting beliefs because others do.
Explain courtesy bias.
Giving a socially correct opinion instead of an honest one.
What is groupthink?
Seeking consensus in a group at the expense of critical thinking.
Define groupshift.
Groups making riskier or more conservative decisions than individuals.
What is social desirability bias?
Overreporting socially desirable traits and underreporting undesirable ones.
What is truth bias?
Assuming communication is truthful by default.
Define not invented here.
Rejecting outside ideas, research, or products.
What is outgroup homogeneity bias?
Seeing members of other groups as more alike than they are.
The union employees all just want the same thing—higher wages and less work. They don’t care about the company’s success
What is assumed similarity bias?
Assuming others share one’s traits more than they do.
What is outgroup favoritism?
Favoring other groups over one’s own.
What is the Pygmalion effect?
Expectations influencing performance.
Define reactance.
Resisting perceived attempts to limit freedom.
What does reactive devaluation refer to?
Rejecting proposals from adversaries solely because of their source.
Explain social comparison bias.
Favoring non-competitive candidates when making decisions.
What is shared information bias?
Preferring to discuss known information rather than unique insights.
Define the worse-than-average effect.
Underestimating one’s own abilities in difficult tasks.
What is misattribution of memory?
Confusing the source of a memory.
What does cryptomnesia mean?
Mistaking a memory for an original thought.
Define false memory.
Remembering events that never occurred.
What is social cryptomnesia?
Forgetting the source of social changes.
Explain source confusion.
Mixing memories with other information.
What does suggestibility refer to?
Mistaking suggested ideas for real memories.
Define the Perky effect.
Real images influencing imagined images.
What is availability bias?
Recalling recent or available examples over others.
Explain the bizarreness effect.
Remembering unusual information better than common information.
What does boundary extension refer to?
Remembering scenes as larger than they were.
Define childhood amnesia.
Retaining few memories from early childhood.
What is choice-supportive bias?
Remembering past choices as better than they were.
Explain attribute substitution.
Replacing a difficult judgment with an easier one.
What is confirmation bias?
Seeking, interpreting, or remembering information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs.
Define conservatism (regressive bias).
Remembering extreme values as less extreme than they actually were.
What does consistency bias refer to?
Incorrectly remembering past attitudes and behaviors as being like present ones.
Explain the continued influence effect.
Misinformation continues influencing memory even after being corrected.
What is the context effect?
Memory recall depends on context; information is harder to retrieve out of context.
Define the cross-race effect.
Difficulty in identifying members of a race other than one’s own.
What is egocentric bias?
Recalling the past in a self-serving manner.
Explain euphoric recall.
Remembering past experiences in a positive light while overlooking negative aspects.
What does fading affect bias refer to?
Negative emotions fade from memory faster than positive ones.
Define the generation effect.
Information self-generated is remembered better than externally presented information.
What are gender differences in eyewitness memory?
Tendency to remember more details about someone of the same gender.
What is the Google effect?
Tendency to forget information that can easily be found online.
Explain hindsight bias.
“I-knew-it-all-along” effect; seeing past events as predictable after they occur.
What is the humor effect?
Humorous items are remembered more easily than non-humorous ones.
Define illusory correlation.
Incorrectly perceiving a relationship between unrelated events.
What does the illusory truth effect mean?
Statements are more likely to be believed if they have been heard before, regardless of validity.
What is the lag effect?
Learning is more effective when study sessions are spaced out over time.
Explain leveling and sharpening.
Some memory details fade over time, while others become exaggerated.
What does the levels-of-processing effect refer to?
Different encoding methods impact memory retention.
Define list-length effect.
Longer lists result in fewer items recalled as a percentage, but the total number of remembered items increases.
What is memory inhibition?
Retrieving some list items makes it harder to recall others.
Explain the misinformation effect.
Memory is distorted by incorrect information received after an event.
What does the modality effect refer to?
Spoken information at the end of a list is remembered better than written information.
Define mood-congruent memory bias.
Improved recall of information that matches one’s current mood.
What is the negativity bias?
Humans recall negative memories more vividly than positive ones.
Explain the next-in-line effect.
Poor recall of the person’s speech who spoke immediately before oneself.
What does the part-list cueing effect refer to?
Showing part of a list makes it harder to recall the remaining items.
Define the peak-end rule.
Memories are judged based on the peak moment and how they ended.
What is persistence in memory?
Unwanted, recurring memories of traumatic events.
Explain the picture superiority effect.
Pictures are remembered better than words.
What is placement bias?
Placement bias occurs when the positioning or ordering of information influences how people perceive its importance or credibility. For example:
• A news website places certain political stories at the top, making them seem more important.
• A grocery store puts expensive brands at eye level, making them more likely to be bought.
Define the positivity effect.
Older adults favor positive over negative information in memory.
What is the primacy effect?
Items at the beginning of a list are remembered better.
Explain the processing difficulty effect.
Information that is more difficult to process is remembered better.
What does the recency effect refer to?
Items at the end of a list are remembered better than middle items.
Define the reminiscence bump.
Increased recall of personal events from adolescence and early adulthood.
What is repetition blindness?
Difficulty in remembering multiple instances of repeated items.
Explain rosy retrospection.
Remembering the past as better than it actually was.
What does the saying-is-believing effect refer to?
Altering personal beliefs to match what was said in a conversation.
Define the self-relevance effect.
Information related to oneself is better remembered.
What is the serial position effect?
Items at the beginning and end of a sequence are better recalled than those in the middle.
Explain the spacing effect.
Information is better remembered when exposure is spread over time.
What is the spotlight effect?
Overestimating how much others notice one’s appearance or actions.
Define stereotype bias.
Memory distorted toward stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender-based).
What does the suffix effect refer to?
The addition of an extra sound at the end of a list diminishes the recency effect.
Explain the subadditivity effect.
Judging the likelihood of an event as lower than the sum of its parts.
What is tachypsychia?
Perception of time slowing down or speeding up.
Define telescoping effect.
Displacing recent events backward and remote events forward in time.
What is the testing effect?
Information is recalled better when rewritten instead of reread.
Explain the tip of the tongue phenomenon.
Knowing part of an answer but being unable to recall it fully.
What is Travis syndrome?
Overestimating the significance of the present time.
Define the verbatim effect.
Remembering the general meaning of a statement rather than its exact wording.
What does the von Restorff effect refer to?
Unusual or distinctive items are more likely to be remembered.
Explain the Zeigarnik effect.
Uncompleted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.
What is the term for selecting only evidence that supports a claim while ignoring evidence that contradicts it?
Cherry Picking
What fallacy is committed when one assumes a correlation implies causation, particularly in the context of absenteeism increasing after a change?
False Cause (Post Hoc)
What cognitive bias involves adopting a belief because many others have done so?
Bandwagon Effect
What term describes the belief that increased oversight can prevent unexpected employee turnover?
Illusion of Control
What fallacy occurs when one assumes that new products or systems are inherently better simply because they are new?
Appeal to Novelty
What is the term for the psychological conflict experienced when one’s beliefs are contradicted by their actions?
Cognitive Dissonance
What logical fallacy suggests that strict enforcement of one rule necessitates strict enforcement of all rules?
Proving Too Much
What fallacy is indicated by the statement that a true leader wouldn’t require HR intervention?
No True Scotsman
What cognitive bias occurs when one assumes that their own experiences reflect the views of the majority?
Attentional Bias
What is the term for judging the appropriateness of an action based on its outcome rather than the action itself?
Outcome Bias
What fallacy involves accepting a claim as true based solely on the authority of the person making it?
Authority Bias
What hypothesis suggests that if something bad happens to someone, they must have deserved it?
Just-World Hypothesis
What cognitive bias involves relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions?
Anchoring Bias
What term describes the argument that approving a policy change will lead to negative consequences?
Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum)
What fallacy occurs when someone claims something is true based on their feelings about it rather than evidence?
Circular Reasoning
What cognitive bias is demonstrated when one assumes that past results are indicative of future performance?
Availability Heuristic
What bias occurs when one assumes that a common characteristic among successful individuals is the sole reason for their success?
Survivorship Bias
What fallacy is illustrated by the assumption that both employees and managers share equal blame for communication issues?
False Equivalence
What fallacy occurs when one assumes that what works for one part of a group will work for the entire group?
Fallacy of Composition
What fallacy involves making a comparison without considering all relevant factors?
Incomplete Comparison
The plant manager insists that the union will accept the new contract proposal without much resistance because “they probably won’t want to go through another round of negotiations.”
Appeal to Probability – Just because something is likely does not mean it will definitely happen. The manager assumes the union’s behavior based on probability rather than actual evidence of their intentions.
Example:
A manager claims that grievances at their plant must be increasing because two high-profile cases were filed this month, even though company-wide grievance rates are down by 15%.
Answer: Base Rate Fallacy – The manager ignores the larger trend (grievances decreasing overall) and focuses on a small, anecdotal subset of cases, leading to a misleading conclusion.
The HR director believes that a worker is more likely to be both a union steward and a key influencer in a potential strike than just being a union steward.
Answer: Conjunction Fallacy – It is statistically less likely for someone to have both characteristics than just one, but the director assumes the more specific scenario is more probable.
Example:
An employee argues that the company’s attendance policy violates the union contract. Management refutes their argument by pointing out a flaw in their reasoning. They then conclude that the attendance policy must be fully compliant with the contract.
Answer: Argument from Fallacy – Dismissing the employee’s claim due to a weak argument does not mean the conclusion (that the policy is compliant) is automatically true. The issue itself still needs to be examined on its own merits.
“I know this training program isn’t working as well as we hoped, but we’ve already invested so much time and money into it. We should just keep going rather than starting over.”
Sunk Cost Fallacy - It sounds logical because no one wants to waste resources. However, past investments should not dictate future decisions—if the program isn’t working, it may be better to cut losses and shift to a better alternative.
“Either we fire this employee immediately, or we send the message that we tolerate insubordination.”
False Dilemma (Black-or-White Thinking) - The leader presents only two extreme options when in reality, there may be other solutions (coaching, a performance improvement plan, mediation, etc.).
“Look at all the employees who have been promoted from within! That proves our internal mobility strategy is working.”
Survivorship Bias - It ignores employees who were overlooked, left the company, or were not given growth opportunities—only looking at “survivors” of the system.
“We should avoid hiring from that school. The last two graduates we hired from there didn’t work out.”
Availability Heuristic - The manager is making a generalization based on easily recalled negative experiences rather than considering broader hiring data.
“It was obvious from the start that this employee would cause problems. We should have never hired them.”
It’s easy to say something was predictable in retrospect, but at the time, the information available may not have indicated any red flags.
“I just can’t believe that management didn’t know about this issue sooner. They must have been covering it up.”
Argument from Incredulity - Just because someone finds something hard to believe doesn’t mean it’s untrue. The assumption of deception is based on disbelief rather than evidence.
“Sure, we improved retention in the past six months, but until it’s as good as our best-performing plant, I’m not impressed.”
The criteria for success keep changing, making it impossible to acknowledge progress.
“Everyone here agrees this is the best course of action, so let’s move forward.”
Groupthink - If dissenting voices aren’t encouraged, the team may be making a decision based on consensus rather than critical analysis.
“We’ve always handled shift scheduling this way, so there’s no need to change it now.”
Appeal to Tradition
“We can roll out this new policy by next quarter. It shouldn’t take more than a few weeks to finalize and train everyone.”
Planning Fallacy
“One side wants zero mandatory safety trainings, and the other wants a full-day session every quarter. Let’s compromise and do two hours of training per year.”
Argument to Moderation (False Compromise, Middle Ground Fallacy) - This assumes that the middle position is automatically correct, ignoring the fact that insufficient training could lead to workplace accidents. The compromise doesn’t consider the actual safety data or training effectiveness.
“We can’t say our employee engagement is low just because the survey score dropped from 78% to 75%. Where do you even draw the line between ‘engaged’ and ‘not engaged’?”
Continuum Fallacy (Sorites Fallacy, Line-Drawing Fallacy) - It rejects a valid claim (declining engagement) because there’s no precise point where engagement shifts from “good” to “bad.” Small changes can accumulate into meaningful differences.
“We don’t have any real employee retention issues. If employees are leaving, it just means they were never a good fit to begin with.”
Suppressed Correlative - By redefining “retention issues” to exclude voluntary departures, the concept of poor retention is made impossible. The problem is framed so that it can never exist.
“We define ‘high performance’ as completing tasks without any complaints from managers. Therefore, anyone who gets complaints is not a high performer.”
Definist Fallacy - The term “high performance” is defined in a biased way that excludes valuable but outspoken employees, making disagreement with the argument impossible.
“It’s just impossible that one simple change in scheduling could reduce overtime by 30%. There must be something suspicious going on in the payroll system.”
Divine Fallacy (Argument from Incredulity) - Just because the outcome seems unbelievable doesn’t mean it has a supernatural or suspicious explanation. Rejecting data purely because it defies expectations is flawed reasoning.
“Our leadership training increased engagement by 10% and retention by 15%, so we can say it improved overall workforce effectiveness by 25%.”
Double Counting - Double Counting
“We value ‘flexibility’ in our workforce, so we’ve decided to eliminate remote work. Employees need to be flexible and adapt to being in the office full-time.”
Equivocation - The word “flexibility” is used in two different ways—first to imply employee autonomy, then to justify employer control—without acknowledging the shift in meaning.
“Our best leaders are decisive. Decisive people act quickly. Therefore, our best leaders should make decisions as fast as possible.”
Ambiguous Middle Term - The term “decisive” is used ambiguously—being decisive does not necessarily mean acting without sufficient thought.
“Our policy says we promote based on merit. When challenged: ‘By merit, we mean the person who aligns best with leadership’s expectations.’”
Definitional Retreat The definition of “merit” shifts when questioned, making the argument difficult to contest.
We need to reduce meetings because they’re inefficient.” When challenged: “I’m just saying we should be mindful of how many meetings we have.”
Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy The bold claim (eliminating meetings) is abandoned in favor of a weaker, more acceptable claim (being mindful of meetings) when challenged.
“Our department engagement score is 80%, so Anne must be highly engaged.”
Ecological Fallacy Assuming an individual’s engagement level based on an overall department average ignores individual variation.
“The word ‘manager’ comes from ‘manus,’ meaning hand. A manager must have a ‘hands-on’ approach.”
Etymological Fallacy A word’s historical meaning doesn’t dictate how it should be applied in modern contexts.
“Each of our departments has top-performing employees, so our entire company must be a high performer.”
Fallacy of Composition What is true for the parts (individual departments) is assumed to be true for the whole (company), ignoring potential systemic issues.
“Our company is a great place to work, so every employee must love their job.”
Fallacy of Division What is true for the whole is assumed to be true for each part (employee), ignoring individual differences.
“An anonymous online article says our industry is heading toward a full AI-driven workforce, so we must start eliminating roles.”
False Attribution The source lacks credibility, yet it’s being used to justify a major business decision.
“The employee survey said, ‘I feel supported by my supervisor.’ Clearly, we don’t have an engagement problem.” (Ignoring that the rest of the survey showed dissatisfaction with workload.)
Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context (Contextomy) A selective quote misrepresents the full meaning of the data.
“Our leadership consultant says morale will improve if we remove break rooms, so we should do it.”
False Authority (Single Authority) The consultant might not have expertise in employee morale, but their authority is taken as unquestionable.
“Either we cut costs immediately, or the company will fail.”
False Dilemma (Black-or-White Fallacy) It presents only two options, ignoring potential middle-ground solutions like improving efficiency.
“We need to let go of low performers. Bob is in the bottom 10% of our productivity report, and Jill has been late three times this quarter. Clearly, they’re both performance risks.”
False Equivalence Bob’s low productivity score may be due to system inefficiencies, while Jill’s tardiness may not impact her work. The argument falsely equates different issues as equally indicative of poor performance.
“Your leadership effectiveness score was in the 60th percentile. You need to be more inspiring.”
Feedback Fallacy The score is treated as an objective truth about leadership capability without considering whether the survey itself is biased or if “inspiration” is measurable in that context.
“I don’t understand why the previous HR leader didn’t implement this policy. It’s obvious that it would have solved the turnover issue.”
Historian’s Fallacy The argument assumes the past decision-maker had access to all current insights and failed despite clear solutions, ignoring the context and constraints of their time.
“We had record-low turnover in 2019 because we introduced a new bonus system. Clearly, the bonuses were the reason employees stayed.”
Historical Fallacy Turnover might have been low due to broader economic conditions, management changes, or other factors unrelated to the bonus system.
“If we collect all employee feedback data and analyze trends, we will discover the absolute truth about what drives engagement.”
Baconian Fallacy No amount of data guarantees full insight—hidden variables, personal biases, and interpretation limits prevent a comprehensive “truth.”
“Our culture is successful because we have strong core values that drive behavior.”
Homunculus Fallacy This explanation assumes “core values” are an independent force shaping behavior but does not explain how they do so, essentially replacing one mystery with another.
“Experts disagree on whether annual performance reviews are effective. Since there’s no clear consensus, we should just stick with what we have.”
Inflation of Conflict Just because experts disagree on nuances doesn’t mean no reasonable conclusion can be reached. Avoiding decisions due to conflict is a fallacy.
“I fully support work-life balance when it means our employees are productive and engaged. However, if it means people are working less or missing deadlines, then I am against it.”
If-By-Whiskey The definition of “work-life balance” shifts between a positive and a negative frame, allowing the speaker to avoid committing to a clear stance.
“Our competitor reduced turnover by 20% after implementing mentorship programs. We should do the same.”
Incomplete Comparison The argument lacks information—was turnover declining for other reasons? What was different about their workforce? Without a full comparison, the claim is incomplete.
“This policy was clearly written with employee well-being in mind, so it can’t be bad for morale.”
Intentionality Fallacy The original intent does not guarantee the actual effect. Just because something was created with good intentions doesn’t mean it has a positive outcome.
“Our engagement survey is inaccurate because some employees don’t take it seriously. But also, we know morale is improving because our engagement scores are better than last year.”
Kettle Logic Two conflicting arguments—discrediting the survey and simultaneously using it as evidence—are used to defend the same position.
Based on statistical probability, an employee has a 95% chance of staying if they score highly on our engagement survey.”
Ludic Fallacy The argument assumes a controlled, game-like system where real-world unknowns (personal crises, job offers, market changes) don’t interfere.
“If we automate some processes, that means fewer jobs for employees.”
Lump of Labour Fallacy It assumes the number of available jobs is fixed, ignoring the possibility that automation can create new roles and efficiencies that expand employment.
“The data shows that employees with high performance ratings get promoted. Therefore, our promotion system is effective.”
McNamara Fallacy (Quantitative Fallacy) Relying solely on numerical ratings ignores qualitative factors like bias, informal mentorship, or opportunity inequality.
“Everyone knows our company culture is the best in the industry. It’s just obvious when you walk through the office.”
Mind Projection Fallacy The speaker assumes their subjective perception (culture “feeling” good) is an objective truth, ignoring how different employees might experience it.
“Fair pay is a moral imperative. Therefore, our current pay structure must already be fair.”
Moralistic Fallacy The argument assumes that because something should be true, it is true, without evidence.
Employee: “I’ve completed all the required leadership training.”
Manager: “Well, real leaders go above and beyond, so you need to do extra work before we consider you for promotion.”
Moving the Goalposts The criteria for leadership were changed once the original requirements were met, making success impossible.
“No hiring process is perfect, so why bother refining ours?”
Nirvana Fallacy Rejecting incremental improvement because perfection is unattainable prevents any meaningful progress.
“If you believe in performance-based pay, you must also support eliminating tenure-based salary increases.”
Package Deal Two separate concepts—performance pay and tenure-based increases—are bundled together as if they must be treated the same.
“Everyone in leadership agrees that engagement isn’t a problem, so it must not be a problem.”
Prevalent Proof Fallacy
“We have a great work culture. I’ve said it in every meeting. We all know it’s true.”
Proof by Assertion Simply repeating a claim doesn’t make it true—evidence and analysis are required.
“We need to improve productivity. Site A and Site B have the same number of employees, so if Site A can process 1,000 units per day, Site B should be able to as well.”
False Equivalence The argument assumes equivalence between the two sites without considering system variations—differences in equipment age, training levels, workflow complexity, or supplier reliability. In systems theory, performance emerges from the interaction of multiple subsystems, not just employee count.
“Our employee satisfaction survey shows an 80% approval of leadership. This proves that our leadership model is effective and should not change.”
Feedback Fallacy The feedback assumes a closed system where survey responses fully capture leadership effectiveness. However, systems theory suggests that many unseen forces—fear of retaliation, survey fatigue, or external economic pressures—can distort feedback loops.
“If only the previous HR team had created a structured career path, we wouldn’t be dealing with this retention crisis.”
Historian’s Fallacy The argument assumes past leaders had full visibility into system constraints, ignoring that retention is a dynamic, emergent outcome influenced by economic conditions, leadership styles, and market shifts that may not have been clear at the time.
“We saw record-low safety incidents in 2018 because we launched a new safety training. We should bring it back immediately.”
Historical Fallacy It assumes a direct causal relationship between training and safety incidents, ignoring systemic influences like improved equipment, staffing changes, or variations in production demands that could have contributed.
“If we collect enough process data, we will fully understand and predict our plant’s output variability.”
Baconian Fallacy Complex systems are influenced by emergent behaviors, non-linear interactions, and external unknowns. No dataset can fully capture or predict system dynamics.
“Our company culture is strong because we have a ‘culture team’ that keeps it alive.”
Homunculus Fallacy This explanation replaces the original question (what drives culture?) with an intermediary concept (a team), without actually explaining how systemic forces like leadership behaviors, incentives, and workflows shape culture.
“Experts can’t agree on whether employee autonomy or structured workflows drive performance. Since there’s no consensus, we can’t make a decision.”
Systems theory suggests that multiple variables interact to create performance outcomes, meaning that uncertainty in one area doesn’t invalidate the entire field of study.
“I support a decentralized decision-making system when it fosters agility, but I also support centralized control when it ensures alignment.”
If-By-Whiskey The speaker avoids taking a real stance by shifting definitions of decentralization based on the argument’s context. Systems require clear trade-offs in decision structures, not vague endorsements.
“Our competitor reduced downtime by 20% using predictive maintenance. We should do the same.”
Incomplete Comparison The argument assumes comparability without considering systemic differences—variations in machinery age, workforce expertise, or data infrastructure—that could affect outcomes.
“Our performance rating system was designed to be objective, so it must be fair.”
Intentionality Fallacy Systems theory suggests that outcomes arise from interactions between process design, interpretation, and human behavior. Even if a system was intended to be fair, biases can still emerge from unintended systemic interactions.
“Turnover is increasing because employees don’t feel engaged. But also, we shouldn’t worry about it because high turnover means we’re refreshing our workforce with better talent.”
Kettle Logic Two contradictory explanations are used to defend the same system without resolving their conflict. Systems require coherent reasoning, not ad hoc justifications.
“We can predict supply chain disruptions using probability models.”
Real-world systems involve unknown variables—such as political events, climate shifts, or sudden supplier bankruptcies—that cannot be captured fully in probabilistic models.
“If automation improves efficiency, it will reduce the number of jobs available in the company.”
Lump of Labour Fallacy Systems adapt dynamically; efficiency gains may shift labor toward different tasks, create new roles, or increase company growth, rather than simply eliminating jobs.
“We measure leadership effectiveness by promotion rates and retention. Therefore, our leadership program is working well.”
McNamara Fallacy Quantitative measures ignore systemic effects like employee dissatisfaction, informal networks, or cultural misalignment that might be shaping promotions.
“Our onboarding process is seamless—I’ve seen it work well for new hires.”
Mind Projection Fallacy A system’s perceived effectiveness is assumed to be an objective fact, ignoring individual variations in experience and hidden inefficiencies.
“Diversity policies are good for society, so they must also be the most effective way to improve business performance.”
Moralistic Fallacy Systems theory requires empirical validation—just because something is morally desirable does not guarantee its systemic impact.
Employee: “We reduced injury rates after implementing new safety protocols.”
Manager: “Yes, but that doesn’t count because we still had minor incidents. Show me zero injuries before I believe it works.”
Moving the Goalposts The success criterion is arbitrarily changed to make improvement appear insufficient.
“Predictive analytics won’t completely eliminate downtime, so we shouldn’t invest in it.”
Nirvana Fallacy Rejecting a practical improvement because it isn’t perfect ignores incremental system benefits.
“If you support automation, you must also support downsizing the workforce.”
Package Deal Automation and workforce reductions are treated as inseparable when systems can evolve to integrate technology differently.
“Most companies in our industry use a ranking-based performance system, so it must be the best approach.”
Prevalent Proof Fallacy Systems adapt uniquely, and popular adoption does not equal effectiveness in a specific organizational context.
“The leadership team wants to roll out a standardized workflow across all plants, but employees want full autonomy in their processes. Let’s split the difference and allow half of the processes to be standardized and half to be left to individual discretion.”
Argument to Moderation In systems theory, some processes must be standardized for system stability, while others require flexibility to allow for emergent behaviors. A middle-ground solution assumes compromise is always best, even when it may weaken both standardization and autonomy.
“You say our supply chain is fragile, but when exactly does a supply chain become ‘fragile’? There’s no clear line, so we can’t say it’s a problem.”
Continuum Fallacy Systems degrade gradually, and lack of a precise tipping point does not mean a system isn’t vulnerable. The fallacy dismisses a real issue simply because the boundary is hard to define.
“Our engagement survey proves we have an engaged workforce. Anyone who isn’t engaged just isn’t a good fit, so they don’t count.”
Suppressed Correlative By redefining “engaged workforce” to exclude disengaged employees, the distinction between engagement and disengagement is erased, making poor engagement impossible by definition.
“Our department has a high engagement score, so everyone on our team must feel valued and motivated.”
Ecological Fallacy
System-wide statistics do not necessarily apply to individual members.
“The CEO said ‘employee engagement is critical to success’—so he’ll support increasing salaries for engagement purposes.”
Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context Selective quoting alters the meaning of the statement.
“A famous tech CEO recommends hiring only young, innovative employees. We should do the same.”
False Authority (Single Authority) A single, unrelated authority does not validate the claim within a different system.
“Either we enforce strict process controls, or we have complete chaos in production.”
False Dilemma (Black-or-White Fallacy) System solutions are rarely binary; mixed approaches exist between total control and complete autonomy.
“Only 0.1% of our employees falsify timesheets. Since the audit flagged only 5 people out of 5,000, it’s nearly certain that they’re all guilty.”
Prosecutor’s Fallacy A low rate of false positives doesn’t mean the flagged employees are actually guilty. If the audit process itself has flaws, even a tiny error rate could wrongly implicate innocent employees.
“If standardizing one process increases efficiency, then we should standardize every process in the company to maximize productivity.”
Proving Too Much The argument leads to an extreme conclusion—full standardization—which ignores how flexibility and adaptation are crucial in complex systems.
“Employees don’t seem upset about the new policy, so it must not be a big deal.”
Psychologist’s Fallacy Observing a lack of visible protest doesn’t mean employees approve. Systems theory accounts for hidden feedback loops and delayed reactions that the observer might miss.
“Our engagement survey measures ‘belongingness,’ so we have an actual, quantifiable metric of how connected employees feel.”
referential Fallacy Belongingness” is an abstract concept, not a directly measurable entity. Treating survey results as if they physically represent an employee’s inner state ignores systemic complexity.
“Our lean initiative succeeded, so clearly, implementing lean was always the right decision.”
Retrospective Determinism The success may have depended on external or unpredictable factors (market conditions, leadership buy-in) rather than the initiative itself. Just because something worked doesn’t mean it was inevitable.
“If we allow employees to work remotely one day a week, soon they’ll demand full-time remote work, and then we’ll lose all oversight of performance.”
Slippery Slope One change does not necessarily lead to an extreme consequence; systems have feedback loops that regulate change rather than allowing it to spiral unchecked.
“We require employees to use data to justify decisions, but I just know in my gut that this is the right hiring choice.”
Special Pleading The speaker applies a rule (data-driven decision-making) but exempts themselves without justification.
“We measure leadership effectiveness by how respected leaders are. If employees respect them, that proves they’re effective.”
Begging the Question The argument assumes what it’s trying to prove—that respect equals effectiveness—without external validation.
“Only a lazy employee would complain about working extra hours for the team.”
Loaded Label The emotionally charged label “lazy” discourages critical examination of workload concerns.
“We use performance-based incentives because they improve productivity. And we know productivity improves because of performance-based incentives.”
Circular Reasoning The conclusion is used to support itself without independent evidence.
“Why do you think the new policy is failing?”
Fallacy of Many Questions (Loaded Question) The question assumes the policy is failing, forcing the respondent to accept a premise they may disagree with.
“I talked to three employees who disliked their manager. Clearly, we have a leadership crisis.”
Faulty Generalization A conclusion is drawn from an insufficient sample, ignoring broader system patterns.
“We promote based on merit. But Jane had a personal emergency, so we’ll make an exception for her promotion.”
Accident Ignoring exceptions to a rule (or selectively enforcing it) can distort system-wide outcomes.
“A truly engaged employee would never leave. If someone quits, they were never really engaged.”
No True Scotsman The definition of “engaged employee” is altered to exclude counterexamples, making the claim unfalsifiable.
“Our pilot program increased productivity by 10% in one department, so we should roll it out company-wide.”
Cherry Picking Ignoring data from departments where the program failed creates a misleading picture of overall system impact.
“One employee abused the flexible work policy, so we need to end remote work.”
Nut-Picking Using an extreme, unrepresentative case to justify a broad policy ignores overall trends.
“Our most successful leaders all started in frontline roles, so the best way to develop leaders is to promote from the floor.”
Survivorship Bias Ignoring those who started in frontline roles but didn’t succeed creates a distorted view of success.
“Our company should run like a machine—every employee is a cog, and if one fails, we replace it.”
False Analogy An organization is a complex adaptive system, not a machine—employees aren’t interchangeable parts.
“Two employees took advantage of unlimited PTO, so clearly, everyone will abuse it.
Hasty Generalization A conclusion is drawn from insufficient data, assuming a systemic pattern from isolated incidents.
“My friend at another company got promoted because of mentorship. That proves mentoring is the key to career growth.”
Argument from Anecdote A single experience does not establish a system-wide trend.
“Our engagement initiative worked well in one office, so it must work in every location.”
Inductive Fallacy Assuming a small sample applies universally ignores local system variations.
“Remember that one time we lost a major client due to a missed deadline? That’s why we need to micromanage every project.”
Misleading Vividness A dramatic, rare event is used to justify an extreme policy, ignoring overall system efficiency.
“We offer unlimited PTO, except during peak seasons, project deadlines, or when coverage is needed.”
Overwhelming Exception So many exceptions exist that the “unlimited PTO” policy is functionally meaningless.
“Employees seemed to love the leadership summit. The final keynote was inspiring, and the awards ceremony was a hit—so the whole event must have been a success!”
Peak–End Rule Memories are disproportionately influenced by the peak moment and ending, ignoring potentially negative aspects like dull sessions, logistical issues, or overall effectiveness.
“I can’t stop thinking about how our last big hiring initiative failed. Every time we discuss new recruitment strategies, I get worried we’ll repeat the same mistakes.”
Persistence A past failure dominates decision-making, even if conditions have changed or the failure was due to specific, non-repeating factors.
“The engagement presentation had strong visuals, so everyone must have retained the key takeaways.”
Picture Superiority Effect While pictures aid memory, they don’t ensure comprehension—key details may still be overlooked.
“I excel in strategic planning because I scored highly in last year’s strategy assessment, but I’m terrible at public speaking because I rated poorly in a single feedback session.”
Placement Bias People tend to overestimate abilities in areas where they scored above average and underestimate themselves where they scored below average, even if data is inconsistent.
“Looking back, our leadership development program was excellent. We had some struggles, but overall, it made a huge difference.”
Positivity Effect Older adults tend to recall positive aspects more than negative ones, potentially ignoring real past inefficiencies.
“I remember my first day at the company really well—the orientation session was fantastic! I assume the rest of my experience here will be just as great.”
Primacy Effect First impressions weigh heavily in memory, even though later experiences may contradict them.
“That complex HR compliance workshop really stuck with me. It must have been more important than the other training sessions.”
Processing Difficulty Effect More difficult information is remembered better, but not necessarily because it’s more valuable—just because it required greater cognitive effort.
“The last employee feedback meeting had a few strong complaints, so I think morale is declining.”
Recency Effect Recent events are weighted more heavily, even though broader long-term trends may contradict this perception.
“When I first started my career, our industry was more innovative than it is today. Everything was cutting-edge back then!”
Reminiscence Bump People recall early adulthood memories more vividly, which can distort historical comparisons.
I don’t remember seeing the same feedback comment appear twice in the employee survey results.”
Repetition Blindness Repeated items are often overlooked, making it easy to miss patterns in recurring feedback.
“Our old HR system was so much better than this new one. Back then, everything was simple and efficient!”
Rosy Retrospection People overemphasize past positives while minimizing past frustrations, distorting perceptions.
“I told my team the reorganization would be great for career growth, and now I actually believe it, even though I originally had doubts.”
Saying-Is-Believing Effect Expressing a belief alters one’s own perception, even if the initial stance was skeptical.
“I vividly remember the town hall meeting where they mentioned potential job cuts—it affected me directly.”
Self-Relevance Effect Information personally relevant to someone is better remembered, even if less personally relevant but more important details were also presented.
“I remember the first and last points in the employee training session, but the middle part is fuzzy.”
Serial Position Effect Information at the beginning and end of sequences is better recalled than middle items.
Employees who attended multiple small coaching sessions retained the material better than those who attended one long seminar.”
Spacing Effect Distributed learning is more effective, making short, repeated exposure superior to one-time events.
“Everyone must have noticed that I stumbled during my presentation!”
Spotlight Effect People overestimate how much others notice their mistakes, when in reality, most don’t remember or care.
I recall our female employees being less interested in leadership roles.”
Stereotype Bias Memory is biased by stereotypes, leading to distorted recollections.
“The final piece of feedback I gave must not have stuck because I added some closing remarks afterward.”
Suffix Effect Adding extra information at the end of a list weakens memory recall for what came immediately before it.
“The likelihood of supply chain disruptions, talent shortages, and regulatory issues all seem low. So overall business risk must be low.”
Subadditivity Effect People underestimate the total risk by failing to sum individual risks accurately.
“We’ve always done it this way, so why change?”
This phrase dismisses analysis of whether the existing design is still optimal.
“Since we implemented flexible work policies, productivity has increased, so remote work must be the reason.”
Questionable Cause The increase in productivity could be due to other system factors (such as new technology, economic shifts, or workforce changes) rather than remote work itself.
“Every time we restructure, morale drops. Clearly, reorganizing is what causes disengagement.”
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Correlation ≠ Causation) Restructuring may coincide with other stressors (e.g., economic downturns, leadership changes) that contribute to disengagement.
“After we introduced a new performance review system, voluntary turnover dropped. So, the new system must have improved retention.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After ≠ Because Of) The drop in turnover could be due to external job market trends, not necessarily the performance system.
“High-performing employees tend to work longer hours, so if we make everyone work longer hours, performance will improve.”
Wrong Direction (Reversing Cause & Effect) Working longer may be the result of high engagement and motivation, not the cause of high performance.
“Our manufacturing site has both high absenteeism and low engagement. Clearly, low engagement is causing absenteeism.”
Ignoring a Common Cause Both absenteeism and low engagement could stem from a common cause, such as poor leadership, job design flaws, or burnout.
“Our supply chain failures last quarter were due to poor planning.”
Fallacy of the Single Cause Systems theory emphasizes multi-causality—failures could be due to supplier instability, market disruptions, technology failures, or workforce issues.
“Our reorganization failed because upper management is incompetent.”
Furtive Fallacy Blaming decision-makers without considering systemic constraints (e.g., external pressures, labor market shifts) oversimplifies complex organizational outcomes.
“Every time we do a company-wide town hall, morale improves. So, town halls have a magical effect on engagement!”
Magical Thinking Improved morale could be coincidental or due to other factors (e.g., the company delivering positive news during town halls).
“Employees who use our mentorship program tend to get promoted more. That proves mentorship causes promotions.”
Observational Interpretation Fallacy Employees who choose mentorship may already be more proactive or talented, making promotion correlation misleading.
“Our company’s productivity dipped last quarter, so we launched a new incentive program. Now productivity is back up, proving the program worked.”
Regression Fallacy Performance naturally fluctuates, and the rebound may have happened regardless of intervention.
“The last three leadership promotions were bad decisions, so the next one is bound to be a good one.”
Gambler’s Fallacy Each promotion is independent, and past errors do not increase the likelihood of future success.
“This factory incident was so rare that it must mean we’ve had thousands of near-misses before.”
Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy A rare event doesn’t imply a history of repeated near-misses; it could simply be a one-time statistical outlier.
“We found that employees who receive more peer recognition score higher on engagement. So, we’ll invest in more recognition programs!”
p-Hacking Cherry-picking statistically significant but random correlations leads to false insights in organizational systems.
“Our leadership development program showed a significant impact on retention. That proves our model works!”(Ignores that many different metrics were tested, and retention happened to be significant by chance.)
Garden of Forking Paths Fallacy Failing to account for multiple possible analysis pathways inflates confidence in the results
“We’ve already spent $5 million on this software implementation. We can’t abandon it now!”
Sunk Cost Fallacy Past investments shouldn’t justify future costs if the system is failing. Systems thinking requires recognizing feedback loops and changing course when needed.
“Switching to self-managed teams is ridiculous. That idea doesn’t even deserve discussion.”
Appeal to the Stone (Argumentum ad Lapidem) Dismissing an idea without proving it wrong ignores the need for systemic evaluation.
“I don’t care how many studies you show me, remote work just doesn’t work in our industry.”
Invincible Ignorance (Argument by Pigheadedness) Refusing to accept new evidence prevents adaptive decision-making, a key tenet of systems theory.
“There’s no evidence that hybrid work leads to burnout, so it must be completely safe.”
Argument from Ignorance Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence—effects may not yet be fully studied.
“I just can’t believe that a company can function without middle managers, so flat hierarchies must not work.”
Argument from Incredulity Just because a concept is difficult to imagine doesn’t mean it’s untrue—many successful companies have flat structures.
“If we implement a new feedback system and it demotivates employees, that would be terrible. But if we don’t implement anything and employees stay disengaged, at least we didn’t actively cause harm.”
Omission Bias Inaction can be just as harmful as action in organizational behavior. Ignoring systemic issues (e.g., disengagement) may cause more damage than a well-intended intervention that needs adjustment.
“We don’t need a succession plan. Our top leaders are young, committed, and love working here. No way they’ll leave soon.”
Optimism Bias Overestimating favorable outcomes leads to ignoring real risks (e.g., external job offers, personal circumstances, burnout).
“We haven’t looked at turnover data in months. Let’s just focus on employee appreciation events—people seem happy enough!”
Ostrich Effect Avoiding negative information (e.g., turnover trends) doesn’t prevent problems; it delays necessary interventions.
“The last three times we rushed hiring, we got great candidates. Clearly, quick hiring decisions work best.”
Outcome Bias Judging past decisions based only on favorable outcomes ignores whether rushing actually increases risk.
“No matter what we do, employees will always resist change. Let’s not even try revamping performance management.”
Pessimism Bias Overestimating negative reactions can lead to missed opportunities for improvement.
“Let’s focus on an immediate employee appreciation bonus rather than long-term leadership training. People will notice the bonus more.”
Present Bias Preferring short-term rewards can undermine strategic investments that drive sustainable engagement.
“Employee well-being initiatives should focus on technology and collaboration spaces—plants and greenery are just decorative.”
Plant Blindness Ignoring natural elements overlooks their positive effects on cognitive function, stress reduction, and job satisfaction.
“If we just get our hiring process right, we won’t have to worry about performance management later.”
Prevention Bias Organizations must balance prevention and response—hiring well doesn’t eliminate the need for performance coaching.
“Since 60% of our best candidates come from referrals, we should spend 60% of our recruiting budget there.”
Probability Matching Probability-matching allocates resources based on historical frequency, ignoring where the next best hires are most likely to come from.
“AI-driven performance reviews will solve all our engagement issues. Let’s roll it out across the company immediately!”
Pro-Innovation Bias Assuming new technology and innovations will always improve performance ignores potential risks like bias, resistance, and poor adoption.
“I love working from home, so I’m sure most employees will want full-time remote work too.”
Projection Bias Assuming one’s own preferences reflect others’ preferences can lead to poor policy design.
“We lost a key client last quarter. That must be because of the recent changes in our leadership team.”
Proportionality Bias Big outcomes don’t always have equally big causes—client loss could be due to external factors like pricing or market trends.
“I keep hearing about burnout lately. It must be a brand-new issue in the workplace.”
Recency Illusion The problem may have existed for decades, but attention to it has increased due to cultural shifts and research.
“Turnover was low last year, so I expect it to stay low this year.”
Systematic Bias Ignoring regression effects—external conditions (e.g., economic downturns) may temporarily suppress turnover, but they won’t last forever.
Risk Compensation (Peltzman Effect)
“Now that we have a robust safety policy, employees don’t need as much training—they’ll naturally be safer.” People tend to take more risks when they feel protected, meaning safety training remains essential even with strong policies.
“Engagement scores are up, so employees must feel more connected to our mission.”
Surrogation A metric (survey scores) is replacing the concept it measures (actual engagement), potentially distorting reality.
“The recent wave of resignations must be happening for a reason—maybe it’s a sign we need to overhaul our leadership approach.”
Teleological Bias Assuming events have inherent meaning or purpose ignores the role of randomness, economic cycles, and personal decisions.
“Employee satisfaction has been rising every year, so we don’t need to worry about engagement declining anytime soon.”
Turkey Illusion Continuous trends can change suddenly, especially in volatile environments (e.g., leadership changes, economic downturns).
“I don’t think I have any biases in hiring. I just happen to feel that candidates from certain schools seem like a better fit.”
Unconscious Bias (Implicit Bias) Implicit biases operate unconsciously, shaping decisions without the person realizing it.
“Each training session should be exactly one hour because that’s the standard length—even if some topics need less time and others need more.”
Unit Bias Decisions based on default units (e.g., time, budget, staffing) rather than actual needs lead to suboptimal outcomes.
“Our engagement scores last year were 75%. That means we should use that as the benchmark going forward.”
Value Selection Bias Using existing data without assessing whether it applies to the current context can lead to flawed conclusions.
“A 2% raise doesn’t feel significant, but it makes a big difference for lower-paid employees.”
Weber–Fechner Law People struggle to perceive small changes in large numbers, meaning compensation changes affect employees differently.
“I trust female managers more because they’re naturally better at emotional intelligence and people skills.”
Women Are Wonderful Effect While well-intentioned, this reinforces stereotypes and can lead to gendered expectations in leadership roles.
“The union is demanding that we eliminate all mandatory overtime, but that would cripple our ability to meet production targets. We need flexibility to require extra hours when necessary.”
Straw Man The union’s proposal actually states that overtime should be voluntary unless critical business needs arise, with a defined approval process. However, the argument distorts the proposal into an extreme demand (“eliminate all mandatory overtime”), making it easier to reject.
“Employees pushing back on at-will employment want guaranteed lifetime jobs. That’s just unrealistic in today’s economy.”
Straw Man Employees aren’t demanding lifetime job security; they are advocating for clearer termination policies and procedural fairness to ensure that firings aren’t arbitrary or retaliatory. By exaggerating their stance, the company dismisses legitimate concerns.
“If we agree to the union’s just cause provision, we’ll never be able to fire anyone, no matter how badly they perform.”
Straw Man A just cause provision doesn’t eliminate terminations—it simply requires a valid reason and due process. The argument falsely frames basic procedural fairness as an unworkable restriction on management.
“The new labor regulations on wage transparency will force us to pay every employee exactly the same, regardless of performance.”
Straw Man The law actually mandates pay equity for comparable work and transparency in pay ranges, not uniform pay across all roles and experience levels. The straw man makes it seem like performance-based pay would be eliminated, which isn’t true.
Person A: “I think we should analyze workplace performance issues using a systematic approach before deciding if training is the right solution.”
Person B: “So you’re saying training is completely useless and that employees should just figure things out on their own? That’s not realistic!
Straw Man
“Management doesn’t care about worker safety. They’re rejecting our proposal to slow down production speeds, which means they’re prioritizing profits over our well-being.”
Straw Man The company may have rejected the specific proposal but still supports alternative safety measures such as better PPE, training, or ergonomic improvements. The union misrepresents the company’s position as outright disregard for safety, rather than a disagreement on the best approach.
“The company wants to fire people for the smallest mistakes. If we don’t fight back, employees will be terminated just for being a few minutes late!”
Straw Man The employer isn’t advocating for indiscriminate firings but is likely proposing more structured disciplinary actions, such as progressive discipline for repeat violations. The straw man exaggerates the employer’s stance to rally opposition.
“If we agree to any increase in employee healthcare contributions, the company will just keep raising costs until workers are paying for everything out of pocket.”
Straw Man The employer may be proposing a small cost increase due to rising healthcare expenses, not a plan to completely eliminate employer contributions. The straw man makes any compromise seem like an inevitable path to total cost-shifting.
“Management thinks we don’t deserve a raise at all! They’re refusing to meet our demand for a 10% increase.”
Straw Man The company may have countered with a lower percentage increase, but the union presents this as complete opposition to wage increases, making the company’s actual position sound more extreme.
“The company is rejecting our request for a new break schedule because they don’t care if workers are exhausted.”
Straw Man The employer may recognize the need for rest but disagrees on how to structure break times due to operational needs. The straw man fallacy frames the discussion as neglect of worker well-being rather than a logistical disagreement.
“The union claims that the recent termination was unfair, but of course, they’re just trying to protect a bad employee. That’s their job.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem Rather than addressing the fairness of the termination, the response dismisses the grievance by attacking the union’s role in advocating for employees, ignoring the possibility that the termination may actually violate the contract.
The union’s grievance about wage disparities is just an excuse to pressure us before contract negotiations. They don’t really care about fairness.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The fact that the union may also use the issue for leverage doesn’t mean the grievance itself is invalid. Wage disparities may still exist and need to be addressed, regardless of union strategy.
“The union is only filing this grievance about unsafe equipment because the worker involved is a known complainer. If it were a real issue, other employees would have said something.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The credibility of the grievance should be assessed on the safety conditions, not on the employee’s personal reputation. Even frequent complainers can raise legitimate concerns.
“The union rep pushing this grievance about schedule changes is just bitter because we didn’t promote him last year.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The grievance should be evaluated based on its impact on employees and contract compliance, not the personal motives of the person advocating for it.
“The union is fighting the new overtime policy because they want to justify collecting more dues, not because they actually care about workers.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The financial interests of the union leadership do not inherently invalidate the grievance. If employees are being forced into unfair overtime schedules, the claim should be evaluated independently of the union’s potential benefits.
“HR is just backing the company as usual. Of course, they’re saying the termination was justified—they always protect management.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The HR department’s role in enforcing policies doesn’t mean the termination isn’t justified. The grievance should focus on whether contractual disciplinary procedures were followed, not on HR’s general alignment with management.
This pay structure proposal comes from a consultant who used to work for anti-union companies. Clearly, it can’t be fair.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The consultant’s background doesn’t automatically make the pay structure unfair. The union should evaluate the proposal based on how it impacts employees, not on the consultant’s previous affiliations.
“The company claims these shift changes are necessary for efficiency, but the manager suggesting them just wants to make life harder for union members.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem The manager’s personal feelings about the union are irrelevant to whether the schedule changes are operationally justified or contractually compliant. The grievance should focus on whether the changes violate labor agreements, not on speculation about the manager’s motives.
“Management only wants to introduce this new safety policy because it saves them money. They don’t really care about keeping workers safe.”
Circumstantial Ad Hominem Even if cost savings are a factor, that doesn’t mean the policy itself is ineffective or unsafe. The union should assess whether the policy genuinely improves or diminishes safety, not assume bad intent.
“We’ve always been a fair employer. Our policies are fair. We treat employees fairly. Since no one is arguing back, I assume we all agree that our policies are fair.”
Argument from Repetition Repeating “our policies are fair” doesn’t prove fairness. Employees or union reps may stop arguing due to exhaustion, not agreement. A lack of immediate response does not validate the claim.
“This policy is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable that management is doing this. We can’t accept it. This is unacceptable.”
Argument from Repetition Repeating a claim doesn’t strengthen its validity. The grievance should explain why the policy is unfair, rather than relying on repetition to force acceptance.
“We haven’t received any formal grievances about the new attendance policy, so that means employees are fine with it.”
Argument from Silence A lack of formal complaints doesn’t mean approval—employees might be afraid of retaliation, unaware of the change, or assuming the union will act later.
“Management hasn’t provided evidence that the new scheduling system is better, so it must not be.”
Argument from Silence The absence of provided evidence doesn’t automatically mean the system is ineffective. The burden of proof works both ways—the union should demonstrate flaws rather than assume inefficacy.
We can’t raise wages because we’ve been recognized as a great workplace by industry standards.”
Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion) Being recognized as a good workplace doesn’t address whether current wages are fair. The argument may be valid but is irrelevant to the grievance.
“We oppose the new performance review system because the company made record profits last year.”
Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion) The company’s profits are separate from the mechanics of the performance system. If the union objects to the system, they should argue against its fairness, not the company’s financial success.
“Employees are complaining about the shift changes, but let’s talk about how much we’ve invested in new breakroom upgrades.”
Red Herring The breakroom improvements don’t address the shift change issue. Bringing them up distracts from the actual grievance rather than engaging with it.
Management wants to adjust health benefits, but let’s not forget how they mishandled last year’s holiday bonuses.”
Red Herring The previous bonus issue is separate from the current discussion on benefits. The grievance should focus on the specific policy at hand rather than redirecting attention elsewhere.
“The union leader arguing for higher wages doesn’t even understand finance. How can we take their argument seriously?”
Ad Hominem The leader’s expertise in finance isn’t relevant if the union’s wage argument is based on factual data. Dismissing the person rather than the argument is a classic ad hominem.
“Of course the HR director is against our grievance—she’s just a corporate mouthpiece who always sides with management.”
Ad Hominem Dismissing HR’s stance based on their role rather than engaging with their reasoning prevents a fair evaluation of whether the company’s argument holds merit.
Before we hear from Blake, just remember that he was deeply involved in the old structure, so of course he’ll resist major changes.”
Poisoning the Well This preemptively undermines your credibility before you even speak, suggesting that your argument is biased due to past involvement, rather than engaging with the substance of what you might say.
“The operations team is only pushing for this realignment because it makes their department look good on paper.”
Appeal to Motive Even if operations benefits from the realignment, that doesn’t mean their proposal is invalid. The argument should be assessed on its merits, not based on assumed self-interest.
“I get that you’re frustrated, but the way you’re expressing your concerns about the new structure isn’t constructive.”
Tone Policing Rather than addressing the concerns being raised, this shifts focus to the emotional delivery, subtly dismissing the argument without engaging with it.
If you think this new structure is so flawed, why are you even working in HR? Maybe you should be in a different industry.”
Traitorous Critic Fallacy (Ergo Decedo) rather than engaging with the concerns, this suggests that dissent is disloyalty—forcing people into a false choice between agreeing or leaving rather than allowing space for constructive critique.
“Blake is arguing against this new model because change makes him uncomfortable.”
Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) Rather than addressing the validity of the concerns, this assumes psychological resistance to change is the reason for disagreement, making rational objections seem irrational.
“This realignment model was developed by top-tier consultants, so we should trust their expertise.”
Appeal to Authority Expert opinions are valuable but not infallible. The proposal should stand on its own merits, rather than relying solely on the credentials of those who created it.
“I led two successful reorganizations at other companies, so trust me when I say this model will work here.”
Appeal to Accomplishment Past success doesn’t guarantee success in a new context—each organizational system has unique dynamics that must be analyzed independently.
“Unless you’ve read the full 500-page consultant report on this realignment, you’re not in a position to criticize it.”
Courtier’s Reply Someone doesn’t need to read every technical detail to raise valid concerns—this tactic shuts down debate by gatekeeping expertise.
“If we admit the new structure has flaws, it will undermine confidence in leadership—so we should move forward without raising concerns.”
Appeal to Consequences A decision’s impact on leadership credibility doesn’t determine whether it’s correct—realignment must be evaluated objectively.
“We’ve worked so hard to build this new structure—changing course now would be a slap in the face to everyone’s effort.”
Appeal to Emotion Effort doesn’t justify a flawed system—decisions should be based on effectiveness, not emotional attachment.
“If we don’t implement this realignment exactly as proposed, we’ll fall behind competitors and lose market position.”
Appeal to Fear While competitive concerns matter, using fear of failure as a justification without evaluating alternative structures prevents a rational discussion.
“Blake, as one of the smartest strategic thinkers in this organization, I’m sure you see why this realignment is the best move.”
Appeal to Flattery Flattery can make people more agreeable, but doesn’t strengthen an argument—a good structure should stand on data, not compliments.
“Think of how hard leadership has worked to put this plan together. It wouldn’t be fair to dismiss it now.”
Appeal to Pity Sympathy for those who worked on a project doesn’t determine its effectiveness—structural changes must be evaluated on merit.
“Oh, sure, let’s just let every department decide its own structure. That’ll work great—total chaos!”
Appeal to Ridicule Rather than engaging with decentralization as a legitimate strategy, this uses sarcasm to dismiss it without debate.
“Remember how leadership ignored our concerns last year? That’s why we should reject their new realignment plan now.”
Appeal to Spite Past mistreatment doesn’t determine whether a plan is good or bad—each proposal should be evaluated separately.
“This old structure is completely outdated and dysfunctional—we have to move forward.”
Judgmental Language Calling the existing system “dysfunctional” frames the argument negatively without proving it’s ineffective.
This whole debate about the structure is unnecessary. Let’s not waste time on it.”
Pooh-Pooh Dismissing concerns without addressing them prevents a valid critique of the system.
“This is not just a realignment—it’s a transformational journey toward operational excellence.”
Style Over Substance Fancy language doesn’t explain how the realignment actually improves efficiency, making it style without substance.
“If we move to a decentralized structure, teams will naturally become more collaborative because people work best when they have autonomy.”
Wishful Thinking Autonomy can foster collaboration, but it doesn’t guarantee it.
Systems adapt based on interdependencies—decentralization might actually create silos rather than collaboration.
“We should embrace organic team structures because hierarchy is unnatural—people naturally organize themselves without rigid authority.”
Appeal to Nature Just because something is “natural” doesn’t mean it’s effective.
Hierarchical and decentralized models emerge based on system demands, not what feels more “natural.”
“This AI-driven workforce management system is the newest in the industry, so it must be the best choice for our realignment.”
Appeal to Novelty A new system doesn’t automatically integrate well into an existing structure.
Systems require adaptation periods—introducing technology without accounting for cultural readiness can disrupt workflow.
“Frontline employees are the ones most affected by this realignment, so their preferred structure must be the best.”
Appeal to Poverty While workers’ perspectives are crucial, effective system design must also consider operational efficiency, stakeholder needs, and long-term adaptability.
“We’ve always structured the company this way, and it’s worked, so why change it?”
Appeal to Tradition What worked in one era may not work under new conditions.
Systems evolve, and past success doesn’t guarantee future adaptability.
“This restructuring plan was developed by a high-profile consultancy firm, so it must be the right approach.”
Appeal to Wealth Expensive consulting doesn’t guarantee alignment with internal system dynamics.
An effective realignment must be built on systemic analysis, not price tags.
“Most of our competitors are shifting to matrix structures, so we should too.”
Argumentum ad Populum Organizational effectiveness depends on internal systems, not industry trends.
A matrix structure might not be optimal for a specific workforce, supply chain, or leadership style.
“Tech companies use agile structures, and they are highly innovative. If we adopt an agile structure, we will also become more innovative.”
Association Fallacy Innovation isn’t just about structure—it’s about culture, leadership, and systemic reinforcements.
An agile framework alone doesn’t guarantee innovation.
“We can’t approve the realignment plan because there’s a typo in the proposal document.”
Logic Chopping Fallacy Fixating on minor flaws ignores systemic impact.
A system’s viability isn’t determined by cosmetic imperfections.
“Trust me, I’ve done this before. This new model will definitely work.”
Ipse Dixit (Bare Assertion Fallacy) Systems require proof of concept, not just confidence.
Past success in one environment doesn’t guarantee success in another.
“Hierarchies are outdated. No modern organization should use them.”
Chronological Snobbery Some hierarchies create stability, reducing complexity.
Systems theory suggests structure should be based on function, not trends.
“Why are we discussing employee engagement during this realignment when we have bigger revenue concerns?”
Fallacy of Relative Privation Engagement directly impacts performance and revenue.
Systems are interconnected—ignoring one part can destabilize others.
“This restructuring idea came from a junior employee, so we shouldn’t take it seriously.”
Genetic Fallacy Good ideas can emerge from any level of a system.
The origin of an idea doesn’t determine its validity.
“I think centralized control works best, and that’s just my opinion, so let’s move on.”
I’m Entitled to My Opinion System effectiveness isn’t about personal preference—it requires analysis.
Decisions should be based on organizational dynamics, not individual opinion.
“People should be treated equally, so pay transparency will automatically improve fairness.”
Moralistic Fallacy While fairness is a good goal, transparency without structural safeguards can lead to unintended consequences.
Moral ideals don’t always translate into effective systemic changes.
“We’ve always had a top-down management structure, so that’s clearly the best way to run things.”
Is-Ought Fallacy Current structures persist due to inertia, not always efficiency.
Systems must evolve based on changing demands.
“You’re saying we need to flatten the hierarchy, but leadership still makes all the big decisions. Until they change, we don’t have to either.”
Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy) An argument’s validity doesn’t depend on who presents it—hierarchical decisions may still be necessary in a transition phase.
Organizational design evolves in stages, and not every function changes at the same time.
“Yes, our restructuring plan is disruptive, but the last redesign was just as chaotic, so we’ll push through anyway.”
Two Wrongs Make a Right Past failures don’t justify repeating bad design practices.
Systems should learn from previous redesign flaws, not normalize poor implementation.
“No employees have officially complained about the new structure, so it must be working.”
Vacuous Truth The claim is technically true but irrelevant—employees might not complain due to fear of retaliation or lack of communication channels.
A system’s success isn’t measured by the absence of complaints but by key performance metrics.
“Three studies show that a hybrid model improves productivity, so we should adopt it.”
Common Source Bias If all three studies are based on the same dataset, their findings aren’t truly independent.
Systems should be evaluated using diverse data sources, not just repeated methodologies.
“We’ve always structured teams by department, and it’s worked fine. There’s no need to change.”
Conservatism Bias Sticking to old models without re-evaluating their effectiveness prevents systems from adapting to new challenges.
Organizations must evolve based on emerging trends, not legacy assumptions.
“HR’s role is to handle compliance and payroll—why would we lead a change management initiative?”
Functional Fixedness HR functions aren’t rigid—they can expand to include culture, leadership development, and organizational design.
Systems require adaptability rather than strict role definitions.
“Every successful realignment I’ve done used a matrix structure, so that’s the best approach for your company.”
Law of the Instrument A tool that worked before may not fit a different system—context matters.
Effective design requires selecting structures based on system needs, not familiarity.
“We had a surge in productivity after our reorganization, proving the new structure is effective.”
Apophenia The increase could be due to unrelated factors (e.g., seasonal demand, temporary enthusiasm).
True systems improvement requires long-term trend analysis.
“Four out of five of our highest-performing teams use the agile model. Agile must be the best structure for all teams.”
Clustering Illusion A small sample doesn’t represent the whole system.
Large-scale patterns should be validated across diverse cases.
“Every time we implement a new structure, our turnover rate spikes. That means restructuring causes people to leave.”
Illusory Correlation The turnover could be due to external market conditions rather than the restructuring itself.
Correlations must be tested for causality before making structural decisions.
“The way employees informally group together proves that our company naturally gravitates toward a hierarchical structure.”
Pareidolia Informal groups don’t necessarily indicate a natural preference for hierarchy—they might be shaped by cultural norms, not organizational necessity.
Effective systems are based on function, not interpretations of random behavior.
“The last time we introduced self-managed teams, it failed. So self-managed teams will never work here.”
Availability Heuristic A single failure doesn’t mean a model is universally ineffective.
Systems should be redesigned based on long-term trends, not isolated past events.
“Our organization should function like a well-oiled machine—each part must perform its role flawlessly for the whole system to work.”
Anthropocentric Thinking Organizations aren’t mechanical systems; they are complex, adaptive social systems influenced by emergent behaviors, feedback loops, and individual agency.
Rigid machine metaphors ignore how adaptive systems work through interaction and self-organization.
“Our company culture naturally wants to evolve toward a more decentralized structure.”
Anthropomorphism Organizations don’t “want” anything—they respond to internal and external pressures through systemic interactions.
Decentralization occurs when system conditions allow for autonomy, not because the “culture” is making a choice.
“I keep hearing complaints about our restructuring, so the new model must be failing.”
Attentional Bias Negative feedback tends to be more vocal than positive feedback.
A systems-based assessment should look at broad patterns, not just the most visible concerns.
“Ever since we introduced hybrid work, I’ve noticed more discussions about burnout—so remote work must be causing it.”
Frequency Illusion (Baader–Meinhof Phenomenon) Burnout may have always been an issue, but increased discussion makes it seem more common.
Systems analysis requires objective trend data, not just perceived frequency.
“That one restructuring failure at our other plant proves that realignment is too risky.”
Salience Bias One highly visible failure doesn’t mean all redesigns fail.
Evaluating multiple cases prevents overemphasis on emotionally charged examples.
“Our survey shows that 80% of employees support the new structure, so it must be working.”
Selection Bias if only engaged employees responded, the survey isn’t representative of disengaged employees.
A systems approach accounts for silent stakeholders who aren’t captured in the data.
“Companies that adopted this structure have thrived, so we should do the same.”
Failed companies aren’t always studied, making successful examples seem more representative than they really are.
Survivor-based analysis skews decision-making by ignoring what didn’t work.
“Employee satisfaction scores are stable, so morale isn’t an issue.”
Quantification Bias Qualitative data (e.g., open-ended feedback, leadership trust) often reveals deeper insights.
Systems thinking requires looking at both measurable and non-measurable factors.
“The old workflow was always fast and efficient—this new system feels slower.”
Well-Traveled Road Effect Familiarity can make inefficiencies feel less noticeable.
New systems require adjustment periods, and perception of inefficiency doesn’t mean it’s actually worse.
I advocated for this restructuring, so I refuse to believe the early signs of failure.”
Cognitive Dissonance Systems must adapt—clinging to an initiative to reduce personal discomfort prevents objective adjustments.
Acknowledging flaws leads to system learning and iteration.
“We’ve never had a major talent shortage before, so there’s no need to change our hiring model.”
Normalcy Bias Historical stability doesn’t predict future stability.
Systems theory warns against assuming past patterns will persist in dynamic environments.
Essentialism Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that a person’s character, abilities, or beliefs are unchangeable over time, ignoring personal growth, experiences, or external influences that may have shaped them
John was irresponsible in college, so he must still be irresponsible now, even though it’s been 15 years.”
