I once rejected a brilliant engineering candidate because their resume had a typo.
Not in their work history. Not in their technical skills. In the summary section: “atention to detail” instead of “attention to detail.”
My brain went: “Typo → careless → probably writes buggy code → not a good hire.”
I passed. Another company hired them. They became a principal engineer there and later gave a keynote at a major conference.
I’d let one negative detail contaminate my entire assessment of them. That’s the reverse halo effect (sometimes called the horn effect), and it cost me an exceptional hire.
The halo effect is even more common: one positive trait makes us see everything else positively. And it’s shaping who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets funding, and who gets opportunities in ways we rarely acknowledge.
What is the Halo Effect?
The halo effect is a cognitive bias where our overall impression of a person influences how we evaluate their specific traits.
If someone has one positive quality (attractive, well-spoken, went to Stanford), we unconsciously assume they have other positive qualities (intelligent, competent, trustworthy).
It’s like a “halo” of positivity that spreads from one trait to color our perception of everything about them.
The classic study:
Psychologist Edward Thorndike discovered this in 1920 while studying how military officers rated their soldiers.
He found that if an officer rated a soldier highly on one trait (say, physical appearance), they tended to rate them highly on completely unrelated traits (intelligence, leadership, loyalty).
The ratings weren’t independent. They were contaminated by an overall impression.
Since then, hundreds of studies have confirmed: we don’t evaluate traits independently. We let one trait bleed into everything else.
The Most Common Halo: Physical Attractiveness
Let’s just address the elephant in the room: attractive people have it easier.
This isn’t a moral judgment. It’s not fair. But it’s true, and the research is overwhelming:
In hiring:
- Attractive people are 36% more likely to be hired (study by Hamermesh and Biddle)
- They’re offered higher starting salaries
- They’re rated as “more competent” on identical resumes
In performance reviews:
- Attractive employees receive better evaluations
- Their mistakes are judged less harshly
- Their successes are attributed to skill (not luck)
In startups and funding:
- Attractive founders raise more money
- They’re rated as “more persuasive” with identical pitches
- Investors perceive them as more competent
In everyday interactions:
- Attractive people are perceived as smarter, kinder, and more trustworthy
- They’re given more help when they need it
- They’re forgiven more easily for mistakes
This is called the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype, and it’s depressingly consistent across cultures and contexts.
Why Does This Happen?
It’s not that people consciously think “this person is attractive, therefore they must be a good engineer.”
It’s that attractiveness creates a positive overall impression, which unconsciously influences every other judgment we make.
The chain reaction:
- You meet someone attractive
- You feel positive about them (unconscious)
- Everything they say sounds slightly more intelligent
- Everything they do seems slightly more competent
- You attribute their successes to skill and their failures to bad luck
- You give them more opportunities
- They succeed more (partly because of those opportunities)
- Your initial positive impression is “confirmed”
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, driven by a cognitive bias.
The Tech World’s Halos
Physical attractiveness isn’t the only halo. In tech, we have our own set:
The Prestige Halo
How it works: Went to Stanford/MIT/Harvard? You must be brilliant.
The reality: Smart people go to those schools. Smart people also don’t go to those schools. But we let the school brand create a halo.
Real example:
I worked with a founder who raised $5M with barely a prototype. How? Stanford CS degree, previously worked at Google.
Another founder with a working product, real users, and clear traction struggled to raise $500K. Their background? State school, worked at non-tech companies.
Same investors. Different halos.
The Company Halo
How it works: Worked at Google/Facebook/Netflix? You must be exceptional.
The reality: Those companies hire great people. They also hire average people. And great people work at companies you’ve never heard of.
But the resume line “Software Engineer at Google” creates a halo that makes every other line glow brighter.
Real example:
I’ve seen mediocre engineers from FAANG companies get hired immediately while brilliant engineers from small companies struggle to get interviews.
Same technical skills. Different company logos on the resume.
The Eloquence Halo
How it works: Speaks confidently and articulately? Must be smart and competent.
The reality: Some brilliant people are poor communicators. Some average people are excellent communicators.
But we conflate the two.
Real example:
I watched a startup pitch competition. One founder was charismatic, had great stage presence, told compelling stories. Their product was vaporware.
Another founder was awkward, stumbled over words, had a mediocre slide deck. Their product had 10,000 paying users.
Guess who won the pitch competition? (Spoiler: not the one with actual users.)
The eloquent founder had a halo. Everything about their business seemed more promising because they presented well.
The Open Source Halo
How it works: Contributes to popular open source? Must be a great engineer.
The reality: Open source contribution is one signal of skill. It’s not the only signal. Great engineers exist who don’t do open source.
But we let GitHub stars create a halo.
Real example:
Candidate A: 20,000 GitHub stars, created a popular library, active in open source.
Candidate B: No public GitHub, but built and scaled critical infrastructure at their company.
Who gets more interview requests? Candidate A. Even though Candidate B might be equally or more skilled—we just can’t see it.
The Confidence Halo
How it works: Speaks with certainty and confidence? Must know what they’re talking about.
The reality: Confidence and competence are not the same thing. (See: Dunning-Kruger Effect.)
But we’re drawn to confidence. It creates a halo that makes everything else seem more credible.
Real example:
In a technical architecture meeting, one engineer confidently declared: “We should use microservices. Monoliths don’t scale. This is the right choice.”
Another engineer cautiously suggested: “I think… maybe we should consider a monolith first? I mean, I could be wrong, but…”
Guess whose opinion carried more weight? The confident one. Even though the cautious engineer was right for that context.
Confidence created a halo of competence, even when the confident person was wrong.
The Reverse Halo Effect (Horn Effect)
The flip side: one negative trait can contaminate everything.
Examples:
The typo on the resume: One spelling error → “careless person” → “probably writes buggy code” → rejected.
The awkward interview: Nervous in the interview → “lacks confidence” → “won’t be able to handle pressure” → rejected.
The unusual background: Non-CS degree → “not a real engineer” → “probably not technical enough” → rejected.
The accent: Non-native English speaker → “communication issues” → “won’t fit the team” → rejected.
The appearance: Dresses casually → “unprofessional” → “doesn’t take this seriously” → rejected.
One negative detail creates a horn of negativity that darkens everything else.
My Resume Typo Story (Full Version)
Remember that candidate I rejected for a typo? Let me tell you what happened next.
After they were hired elsewhere and became successful, I looked back at their resume. Their actual qualifications:
- 6 years of experience in exactly the tech stack we needed
- Had built and scaled systems similar to ours
- Open source contributions to libraries we used
- Strong recommendations from mutual connections
But I never got to any of that. I saw the typo and formed an immediate negative impression. Everything else was viewed through that lens.
“6 years of experience? Probably just coasting.” “Open source contributions? Probably minor.” “Recommendations? People being nice.”
I’d decided they were careless based on one typo, and I rationalized everything else to fit that narrative.
That’s the horn effect in action. And it cost us a great hire.
How the Halo Effect Shapes Careers
Let’s trace how this plays out over a career:
Person A:
- Attractive, went to Stanford, worked at Google
- Gets interview at startup (halo from resume)
- Interviewed by founder who’s impressed by background (halo)
- Makes a good first impression in interview (halo from appearance)
- Gets hired despite mediocre technical performance
- Is given high-profile projects (halo from credentials)
- Succeeds on projects (because they got good projects)
- Gets promoted quickly
- Becomes a “senior engineer” with a great track record
- Next company sees “Stanford → Google → Senior Engineer” on resume
- Gets hired immediately, higher salary
- Rinse and repeat
Person B:
- Average appearance, went to state school, worked at unknown startup
- Resume gets filtered out by automated screening (no prestige signals)
- When they do get interviews, they’re nervous (horn effect)
- Gets judged more harshly for any mistakes
- When hired, gets less interesting projects
- Has to work twice as hard to prove themselves
- Promotions are slower
- Resume lacks prestigious companies
- Struggles to get interviews at top companies
Same technical skills. Different halos. Completely different career trajectories.
The halo effect doesn’t just shape individual decisions. It compounds over time, creating massive career divergence.
The Halo Effect in Product and Business
It’s not just about people. Products and companies have halos too:
The Apple Halo
Anything Apple makes is automatically perceived as better designed, more innovative, more premium.
They could release a brick and people would find reasons to praise it.
Why? Years of building a brand halo. Now, everything they touch benefits from that halo.
The “Stealth Startup” Halo
Startup founded by ex-Googlers? Raises $10M before building anything.
Why? Founder credentials create a halo around the startup itself.
The Polished Pitch Halo
Two startups with similar traction. One has a slick pitch deck, polished demo, well-rehearsed presentation. The other has a scrappy Google Slides deck and a live product demo that hits a bug.
Which one gets funded? Usually the polished one.
Why? The polish creates a halo: “They’re professional → They must be competent → Their business must be sound.”
Even though the scrappy one might have better fundamentals.
The Design Halo
A SaaS product with beautiful UI but mediocre functionality vs. a product with ugly UI but powerful functionality.
Which one gets more initial signups? The beautiful one.
Why? Beautiful design creates a halo: “Looks good → Must be good.”
Users often don’t discover the functionality gap until after they’ve signed up (and the company has counted it as a “conversion”).
How to Recognize the Halo Effect in Real-Time
Here are warning signs that you’re being influenced by a halo:
Warning Sign #1: One Trait Dominates Your Impression
You meet a candidate. They mention they worked at Google. Suddenly, everything else they say seems smarter.
That’s the halo.
Or: They have an accent you find hard to understand. Suddenly, everything they say seems less impressive.
That’s the horn effect.
The check: Are you evaluating traits independently, or is everything colored by one salient feature?
Warning Sign #2: You’re Rationalizing to Fit Your Impression
You’ve decided someone is competent (halo). They make a mistake. You think: “Everyone makes mistakes. No big deal.”
You’ve decided someone is incompetent (horn). They make a mistake. You think: “See? I knew it. They’re careless.”
Same mistake. Different interpretations based on your pre-existing impression.
Warning Sign #3: You Can’t Articulate Why You Like Them
Someone asks: “Why should we hire this candidate?”
You say: “I don’t know, they just seem really strong.”
That vague positive feeling might be a halo rather than objective assessment.
The check: Can you list specific, concrete reasons? Or is it just a feeling?
Warning Sign #4: The First Impression Hasn’t Changed
You formed an impression in the first 30 seconds of meeting someone. It’s been an hour. Your impression hasn’t updated at all.
Why? The initial halo (or horn) is so strong that you’re interpreting all new information to fit it.
Warning Sign #5: You’re Comparing to Irrelevant Standards
“This candidate went to MIT, so they’re probably smarter than our current team.”
Wait—does going to MIT actually predict job performance for your specific role? Or is that a halo?
How to Combat the Halo Effect
You can’t eliminate it (it’s deeply wired into human cognition), but you can mitigate it:
Strategy 1: Structured Evaluation
Instead of: “What’s your overall impression of the candidate?”
Do this: Evaluate each criterion independently:
- Technical skills (1-5): ?
- Communication (1-5): ?
- Problem-solving (1-5): ?
- Culture fit (1-5): ?
Force yourself to rate each dimension separately before forming an overall impression.
Why it works: Reduces contamination from one trait to another.
Real example:
We changed our interview process to require independent ratings on six dimensions before interviewers could discuss the candidate.
Result: Our ratings became less correlated. We stopped giving “all 5s” or “all 2s” and started seeing real nuance.
Strategy 2: Blind Review (When Possible)
Remove information that shouldn’t matter but creates halos:
In hiring:
- Blind resume review (remove names, schools, photos)
- Standardized coding challenges (reviewed without knowing who submitted)
In code review:
- Review the code before seeing who wrote it
In performance reviews:
- Review work outputs before considering tenure, likability, or credentials
Why it works: You can’t be influenced by halos you don’t know exist.
Strategy 3: Devil’s Advocate Your Impression
You have a positive impression of someone. Force yourself to ask:
- “What evidence contradicts this impression?”
- “What am I not seeing because of the halo?”
- “If they didn’t have [impressive credential], would I still think this?”
You have a negative impression. Ask:
- “What evidence suggests they’re actually competent?”
- “Am I being influenced by something irrelevant?”
- “If they had a Stanford degree, would I judge this differently?”
Example:
Impressive candidate from Google. Before you recommend hiring, ask: “If this exact same interview performance came from someone who worked at an unknown startup, would I still be this enthusiastic?”
If the answer is no, you’re being influenced by the halo.
Strategy 4: Slow Down First Impressions
The halo effect is strongest in quick judgments. Fight it by slowing down.
Instead of: Deciding in the first 2 minutes of an interview
Do this: Explicitly reserve judgment for the first 15 minutes. Gather information without evaluating it.
Why it works: Gives you time to collect diverse evidence before the halo sets in.
Strategy 5: Track Your Predictions
Similar to combating Dunning-Kruger: track your assessments and compare to reality.
After hiring someone: Write down what you expected based on your interview impression.
Six months later: How accurate were you?
Over time, patterns emerge:
- “I consistently overrate candidates from prestigious schools.”
- “I consistently underrate candidates who are nervous in interviews.”
- “I consistently overrate confident speakers regardless of actual competence.”
This is calibration through data.
Strategy 6: Diverse Evaluation Panels
Different people have different halos. A diverse panel averages out individual biases.
Example:
Interviewer A might have a halo for Stanford grads. Interviewer B might have a halo for open source contributors. Interviewer C might have a halo for confident speakers.
When they compare notes, the halos are more likely to be surfaced and challenged.
Important: This only works if there’s psychological safety to disagree. Otherwise, you just get groupthink.
Strategy 7: Focus on Work Samples
Instead of: Evaluating credentials, impressions, and how someone presents
Do this: Evaluate actual work product
- Coding challenge (for engineers)
- Writing sample (for writers)
- Design exercise (for designers)
- Case study (for analysts)
Why it works: Work samples are harder to fake and less susceptible to halos.
Example:
We hired a developer who had an awkward interview (horn effect), no prestigious credentials, and poor English (another potential horn).
But their coding challenge was exceptional. We hired based on the work sample, not the impression.
They became one of our strongest engineers.
The Personal Branding Dilemma
Here’s where it gets ethically murky:
If the halo effect is real and powerful, should you deliberately cultivate halos?
The pragmatic argument:
- Get a degree from a prestigious school (if you can)
- Work at a FAANG company (if you can)
- Build a strong LinkedIn presence
- Practice public speaking
- Cultivate your appearance
- Build open source projects with lots of stars
These things create halos. Those halos open doors. Is it wrong to optimize for them?
My take:
There’s a difference between:
Reasonable personal branding: Communicating your genuine skills and accomplishments effectively.
Halo exploitation: Deliberately creating false impressions to gain unfair advantages.
Examples:
Reasonable: Listing “Software Engineer at Google” on your resume (if you worked there)
Exploitative: Listing “Software Engineer at Google” in a way that implies you worked on core search when you actually did unrelated work
Reasonable: Practicing public speaking to communicate your ideas clearly
Exploitative: Using confident rhetoric to cover up lack of substance
Reasonable: Creating a professional appearance
Exploitative: Using appearance to distract from lack of competence
The line isn’t always clear. But there’s a difference between optimizing for how you’re perceived vs. deceiving people about who you actually are.
What If You Don’t Have the “Right” Halos?
If you’re not attractive, didn’t go to a prestigious school, don’t work at a famous company, and aren’t a confident speaker, are you doomed?
No. But you will have to work harder to get the same opportunities. That’s not fair, but it’s reality.
Strategies:
1. Build Evidence That’s Harder to Dismiss
- Real results (revenue, users, impact)
- Public work (open source, writing, speaking)
- Skills demonstrations (portfolio, code samples, case studies)
- Recommendations from people with halos
2. Find Environments That Value Substance Over Signals
Not all companies and people are equally susceptible to halos.
Some interviewers are rigorous and structured. Some companies do blind resume reviews. Some investors care more about traction than pedigree.
Find them.
3. Build Your Own Halos (Authentically)
You might not have the Stanford halo, but you can build others:
- Domain expertise halo (become the expert in a specific niche)
- Results halo (track record of shipping and succeeding)
- Reputation halo (become known in a community)
These take time, but they’re achievable.
4. Use Warm Introductions
Cold applications suffer most from lack of halos. Warm introductions bypass the initial filter.
If someone you trust recommends you, you inherit some of their halo.
5. Over-Communicate Your Accomplishments
People without natural halos need to be more explicit about their achievements.
If you’re from Google, people assume you’re competent. If you’re not, you need to show them.
This feels uncomfortable. It feels like bragging. But it’s necessary.
You’re not being arrogant. You’re counteracting the absence of a halo.
If You Have Halos: Your Responsibility
If you’re someone who benefits from halos (attractive, prestigious school, famous company, etc.), you have a responsibility:
1. Be Aware of Your Advantage
You’re not smarter because you went to Stanford. You’re not more competent because you’re good-looking. You’ve been given opportunities partly because of halos, not purely because of merit.
2. Don’t Mistake Halos for Competence
Just because people defer to you doesn’t mean you’re always right.
Just because you get opportunities doesn’t mean you’ve earned them more than others.
Stay humble. Question whether your success is skill or halo.
3. Help Others Without Halos
Use your privilege to create opportunities for people who don’t have the same advantages.
- Recommend people based on work quality, not credentials
- Give chances to people from non-traditional backgrounds
- Be a vocal advocate for people who are underestimated
4. Build Robust Evaluation Systems
If you’re in a position to hire, evaluate, or fund others, implement systems that reduce halo effects:
- Structured interviews
- Blind reviews
- Work sample tests
- Diverse panels
Don’t perpetuate the biases you’ve benefited from.
Final Thoughts: See People Clearly
The halo effect is a bug in human cognition. We don’t evaluate people objectively. We let one trait color everything else.
This creates a world where:
- Attractive people are overrated
- People from prestigious schools get more opportunities
- Confident speakers are assumed to be more competent
- First impressions stick way longer than they should
Is this fair? No.
Is this reality? Yes.
Can we do better? Also yes.
We can’t eliminate the halo effect from our brains. But we can build systems and practices that counteract it.
As an evaluator: Be aware of your biases. Use structured methods. Slow down judgments. Focus on work samples.
As someone being evaluated: Understand that halos matter. Build them authentically. But don’t rely on them alone—build substance.
As a leader: Create environments where people are evaluated on merit, not on how they look, where they went to school, or how confidently they speak.
The next time you meet someone and immediately feel impressed (or unimpressed), pause.
Ask yourself: “Am I evaluating them accurately, or am I being influenced by a halo?”
The answer might change who you hire, who you listen to, and whose potential you recognize.
And that matters more than we usually admit.
Have you noticed the halo effect in your work? How do you combat it? I’d love to hear your thoughts.