Skip to content I play social tennis, mostly old-man doubles. It is friendly rather than fiercely competitive, though everyone still wants to win. As I’ve studied human factors, I’ve become more aware of psychological biases we all suffer on the tennis court, but also how they are the same human factors that we see in business. Yet we rarely acknowledge them.
Bias in line calls
A close ball almost always looks slightly more “in” to the player who hit it than to the receiver. This happens no matter how honest and fair-minded you believe yourself to be. Your subconscious desire for the ball to be in nudges it a centimetre closer to the line in your mind’s eye. The same thing happens when players are unsure of the score. More often than not, each side remembers it a little more favourably than the other.
This is not cheating, it’s just human nature. When we have even a small stake in the outcome, we find it difficult to be completely objective. Our brains subconsciously become advocates rather than judges. One study of nearly 280,000 physicians found that even a single sponsored meal worth less than $20 was associated with measurable changes in their prescribing behaviour.
Confirmation bias plays a part too. If you think, or even just want, the ball to be in, your mind is more likely to interpret what you saw as confirming that belief.
Blaming others
In doubles tennis, success depends heavily on your partner. Both players make mistakes, yet it is remarkable how often we notice our partner’s errors more readily than our own. Perhaps we hit a weak shot that allows the opposition to attack, leaving our partner scrambling. They fail to return the ball, and our immediate reaction is that they should have done better. You conveniently overlook the fact that it was your shot that created the problem.
It’s an easy trap to fall into. We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions. We forgive ourselves because we know what we were intending to do, but condemn others because of what we witness actually happened.
Key takeaways
These behaviours don’t make us bad people, just human. The challenge is recognising these tendencies in ourselves at the same time as we spot them in others.
Conflicts of interest
The tennis court provides a harmless illustration of a broader principle: whenever our interests are involved, our judgement can be affected. Conflicts of interest arise in many forms. Financial gain is the obvious example, but friendship, loyalty, gratitude or a sense of obligation can be just as influential. We genuinely believe we are being objective while unconsciously favouring a colleague, supplier or adviser.
Conflicts of interest are so dangerous for two reasons. Firstly, conflicted people are usually the least aware of that conflict. Secondly, a conflict can arise from even a very small favour or incentive.
Even a single point in a social tennis match can affect how we see reality. Imagine how much stronger the consequences can be when money, careers, reputations and friendships are involved.
The lesson is simple: avoid conflicts of interest wherever possible, however small. When they cannot be avoided, declare them openly and ensure others can provide independent judgement.
Scapegoating
Blame is another deeply human behaviour. We are quick to identify shortcomings in others and much slower to acknowledge our own contribution to a problem.
It is easy to give a colleague an almost impossible task, leave them under-resourced or place them under intense pressure, and then criticise them when things go wrong. When performance disappoints, the search for someone to blame can begin well before any honest examination of the underlying causes.
Before pointing the finger at others, we should first look in the mirror. We may find that we contributed more to the failure than we realised.
The tennis court reminds us that objectivity is harder than we think. We tend to see events through the lens of our own interests, and we tend to judge others more harshly than ourselves. In business, where the consequences are far greater than a disputed line call, recognising these human tendencies is an important first step towards better decision-making.
