To Build Trust on Teams, You Must Overcome “The Fundamental Attribution Error”

The following is adapted from All Rise.

Building trust on your team is the foundation for creating more collaboration, better performance, and greater success. But sometimes, creating that trust is easier said than done.

Take one of the biggest barriers to trust, for example: a type of cognitive bias known as the fundamental attribution error. This bias causes us to jump to judgment rather than inquire into circumstances. It’s precisely the kind of error we make about colleagues all the time—and it has a profoundly negative impact on a team’s trust and psychological safety.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that it is possible to overcome this bias. Let’s unpack how.

Defining the Error

The fundamental attribution error refers to our tendency to believe that other people’s actions are explained by their character (or competence or other personality traits), but we explain our own actions by pointing to the circumstances. For example, imagine you are driving home one afternoon when all of a sudden, the driver in front of you runs a red light. 

Your immediate response might be: What a jerk! But, minutes later, when you run a red light, you justify it. I was running late. It had just turned yellow. At least I looked both ways!

This bias in how we explain others’ behavior is why this is called the fundamental attribution error: when others make mistakes, we attribute those mistakes to their having poor character—they are thoughtless, they are lazy, they are reckless—and their mistakes or shortcomings are reflections of who they are as people. But by contrast, when we make a mistake, we explain and excuse our actions as a function of extenuating circumstances.

This is one of the many cognitive shortcuts our brains employ every single day. When faced with a stressor, a challenge, or virtually any situation where judgment is required, our brains rarely consider all possible information—at least not at first. Instead, our brains try to apply mental shortcuts wherever possible, even if it leads to incorrect judgments.

Avoid Creating a Dog-Eat-Dog World

Now that we’re clear on what the fundamental attribution error is, let’s consider how it can affect legal teams. First, consider that trust requires psychological safety: the freedom to take risks and admit mistakes without fear of reprisal. 

The erroneous instinct to blame “the person” rather than inquire into “the circumstances” acts like a wedge between team members—and annihilates trust. If your team members judge your every misstep as a sign of your lack of competence, character, or commitment, then psychological safety cannot exist. 

That is not a team ready to have your back and support your growth. And without that safety and support, you are less likely to go out of your way to help them as well. It’s a dog-eat-dog world.

This may sound dramatic, but it is a common pattern in mismanaged teams. When team members’ slipups immediately result in judgment rather than support, trust spirals. As a result, they become laser-focused on self-preservation instead of thinking about the good of the team, the case, or the client.

Rewiring the Brain

The erroneous impulse to judge another’s character before considering the circumstances may be hard-wired into our brains, but that doesn’t mean we need brain surgery to fix it. We simply need to be more aware of this impulse and learn not to rely on it so heavily. 

It turns out that if people are educated about the fundamental attribution error and coached to recognize it, they learn to reduce its impact on their thinking. This is an essential part of self-awareness, but this learning doesn’t just “happen” naturally.

It all starts with an assumption of good intentions. If we assume others have good intentions, accusations of bad behavior are replaced by genuine curiosity. “Why did he do that?” shifts from being an angry, rhetorical accusation into a genuine question.

This is an action that costs you very little: a few seconds to reflect on your instinctual response—e.g., frustration, anger, character assumptions—and a few seconds to consider other plausible options for the person’s behavior. This reframing becomes more natural with practice, particularly as the negative emotions that surround the fundamental attribution error dissipate and trust becomes more apparent.

From Diatribe to Dialogue

Assuming positive intent of team members is the first step in overcoming the fundamental attribution error. By assuming your team members are smart, capable people, you no longer act on the temptation to lecture them or leap to negative judgments. Instead, you are ready to engage in something more constructive: genuine dialogue. The tone of such a conversation will be far more supportive and lend itself to a culture of trust.

For example, with micromanagers, you might acknowledge their earnest desire for quality work. You might then ask them—really ask them—what they were trying to accomplish when they engaged in certain behaviors. For example: “I noticed you dictated precise language for the client email, as opposed to asking for ideas. Were you doing that for efficiency? Were you worried about particular language?” 

Then you can have a meaningful conversation about the pros and cons of those tactics like two colleagues trying to figure out this “management thing” together, rather than talking “at” the person like you are scolding a child.

Intentionally Demonstrate Trust

Once you correct for the fundamental attribution error, you do not necessarily have to follow a script of asking, “Why did you do that?” After all, asking it that way may still come off accusatory. Remember, the goal is to shift your mindset to one where you (a) assume positive intent, and (b) demonstrate genuine curiosity about those intentions and the person’s process. Only then can you ensure that the conversation demonstrates trust.

Ultimately, if you want conversations with your team members to be constructive, you must overcome the fundamental attribution error and assume positive intent. After all, judgments about others make us feel superior, which can be emotionally satisfying in the moment, but they also lead to a “me versus them” mentality that prevents genuine collaboration and destroys trust.

For more advice on how to build trust on legal teams, you can find All Rise on Amazon.

Ben Sachs is an expert in management, strategy, and negotiation. He teaches at the University of Virginia School of Law and provides consulting and training services to a wide range of government and private sector organizations around the world, including thousands of attorneys and other professionals through CLEs, seminars, and workshops.

Sachs’s professional career spans law and business. He first served as a litigator at Sidley Austin LLP and then as a strategic management consultant at the Boston Consulting Group before moving to Storyblocks, a technology and media company, where Ben served as general counsel and chief operating officer. After helping secure the company’s private-equity acquisition in 2020, he now focuses exclusively on teaching and consulting. He lives outside Washington, DC.