Fallacy where an institution is discredited because of a discredited member?

Question

What I'm thinking of is a statement like this:

A member of x institution is bad, therefore x institution is bad.

OR

A member of x institution supports y, therefore x institution supports y.

This seems to be similar to 'tu quoque' fallacy, where an argument is discredited because the one arguing it does not follow the argument's conclusion them-self. However, I'm not sure whether it can be assumed that there is an argument being discredited, nor that the fact of the institution's existence implies an argument that the institution is good.

This also reminds me of the genetic fallacy, but it seems like it is the opposite. As far as I can tell, the genetic fallacy says "we can't trust Tim because he is from Venus," whereas this says "we can't trust Venusians because Tim is one and we can't trust him."

I'd like to be certain. Is this a fallacy? If so, which one?

Answer 1

Fallacy of composition :

when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

Answer 2

If you say:

A member of x institution is bad, therefore x institution is bad.

you are making the fallacy of composition, as Mauro points out.

However, if you say:

"we can't trust Venusians because Tim is one and we can't trust him."

it's the fallacy of hasty genearalization

Do you see the difference?