The Halo Effect

Rosenzweig argues that most business research and business writing is invalidated by the halo effect, in which people infer specific attributes from a known overall outcome. When a company performs well, observers describe its culture as strong, its leadership as visionary and its strategy as focused. When the same company performs poorly, the same attributes are described as complacent, arrogant and unfocused, frequently by the same observers about the same behaviour.

He demonstrates this with cases including Cisco, ABB, and Lego, showing press coverage and academic case studies reversing their descriptions after results changed without any new information about the underlying behaviour.

He then identifies eight further delusions, including the delusion of correlation and causality, the delusion of single explanations, the delusion of connecting the winning dots, meaning selecting successful companies and looking for what they share; the delusion of rigorous research, in which large data sets built from contaminated inputs produce confident but worthless findings; the delusion of lasting success; the delusion of absolute performance, which ignores that results depend on competitors' actions; the delusion of the wrong end of the stick; and the delusion of organisational physics.

He applies the analysis directly to In Search of Excellence, Built to Last, Good to Great and to much academic strategy research, arguing that each selects on outcomes and gathers data contaminated by knowledge of those outcomes. His positive advice is limited: recognise that performance is relative and probabilistic, that strategy involves risk, and that no formula produces reliable results. Readers wanting a method will be disappointed. It is the necessary corrective to most of the business bookshelf.