Regression Fallacy

If you criticize people after an exceptionally bad performance, they tend to get better next time. If you praise people after an outstandingly good performance, they tend to get worse next time. Therefore criticism is more effective than praise as a way of improving performance.

WRONG

After an exceptional performance - either exceptionally good or exceptionally bad - the next performance is likely to be closer to the average. This is a well-known phenomenon in statistics known as regression toward the mean.

So the short-term effect of praise and criticism may be a lot less significant than it appears. And if we want to look at the longer-term effect of praise and criticism, we need to take a much longer view than the next performance. 

The purpose of a system is what it does. But which system, over which time horizon? If we are overly concerned with short-term results, we may easily come to believe that criticism is more effective (fit-for-purpose) than praise. The same may be true of all sorts of other meddlesome interventions. People learn to meddle and criticize because these actions appear to have short-term effects, and so these actions are reinforced. 

System thinking invites us to pay attention to the scoping and time horizon of the system in question. It may be difficult to look beyond the narrow short-term effects, but it may be important to try.

The Fallacy of Rotten Apples

The belief that if there is a large and diverse class of something, then it is to be expected (and perhaps even tolerated) that some of them may have a selected (bad) property. 

For example, the belief that if there are a few corrupt or racist individuals in a certain public organization, or a few greedy executives in the boardroom, or a few unprofessional individuals in a professional organization, or a few lazy and miserable employees, that doesn't imply that there is anything wrong with the organization or its culture. 

This belief is justified by the slogan: There's always one Rotten Apple in every Barrel. 

But this slogan is of course rubbish. One bad apple spoils the barrel. A corrupt or lazy individual (if unchecked) may infect his colleagues. Weak individuals are quickly corrupted, while some strong and morally upright ones may be forced out. 

That isn't to say that corruption is immediate and universal, or that such organizations are necessarily beyond repair and redemption. But the presence (and survival) of even one single corrupt individual within an organization must raise some concerns about the organization which cannot and should not be superficially dismissed. 

In a blame culture, the preferred solution is to discipline or expel a few individuals where the bad property is most evident, and to hope that the problem goes away. This only works on the assumption that those individuals who do not openly manifest the property do not currently have it, have not been infected by it, and will not develop it. It doesn't deal with the root cause. 

---

See also

Catarina Fake, And the Bushel Goes Bad (Bizwerk, 25 July 2004)

Lori Howard, One Bad Apple (StickyMinds, 31 December 2003)

Originally published on my Fallacy page
http://veryard.com/demcha/fallacy.htm

Referenced in the following posts: Notes on Failure and Blame (July 2004), KITA and Voter Apathy (November 2004), This Is Not Who We Are (September 2021)