Understanding Attribution Theory in Organizational Behavior

Attribution theory is a crucial tool for understanding and managing goal-oriented behaviors within organizations. It allows us to consider that people's actions are influenced by either internal or external situational factors. This essay examines the fundamental components of attribution theory and their interconnections, as well as its practical application in organizations where leaders utilize it effectively to attribute employees' behaviors and workplace results.

This essay examined well-known articles in attribution theory and psychology fields and summarized key points for discussion. The various types of attributional explanations, along with the dimensions underlying those attributions, influenced individuals’ emotions, expectations, and behaviors (Jianjun & Shenghua, 2009).

Both internal and external attribution are important in management as they help managers understand the reasons behind employee behaviors and aid employees in understanding their own behaviors. By understanding why individuals act a certain way, one gains insight into oneself, colleagues, and the organization as a whole.

Both managers and employees are influenced by their perception of the causes of behavior.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified writer

Proficient in: Behavior

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

This perception is categorized as internal or external attribution, representing whether the causes are recognized as coming from within or outside the individual. Kelly (1967) identified three pieces of information that can be used to make these attribution decisions: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency, which he called the covariation model. By examining the level of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus of behavior, it can be determined whether internal or external factors are responsible.

The text highlights the role of internal and external attributions and their relationship to employee performance. It mentions that internal attributions are characterized by low consensus, low distinctiveness, and high consistency, while external attributions involve high levels of all three factors.

The covariation model is presented as a tool that leaders can use to make attributions of employees' performances. However, the model is limited in its ability to distinguish between unintentional and intentional behavior. The text emphasizes the importance of recognizing people's inherent bias in making attributions, as it can impact managers' decision-making processes in organizations.

The fundamental bias, also known as the basic one, involves making internal attributions instead of external attributions. It is more focused on factors such as culture or social settings. According to Zuckerman (1979), there are two main biases when it comes to attributions: the self-serving bias and the blame-shifting bias.

The self-serving bias refers to individuals viewing their successes as a result of their own effort or ability while blaming external factors for any failures. For instance, managers might blame employees for failures, whereas employees may attribute failures to external factors.

The actor-observer bias is when observers attribute actors' behaviors and outcomes to internal factors, while actors attribute their outcomes to external factors. For instance, managers may blame employees for failures, whereas employees tend to blame external factors like supervisors.

After examining these two biases, it is clear that self-serving bias occurs when both actors and observers concentrate on the results, whereas the actor-observer bias stems from actors emphasizing external factors and observers attending to actors. In organizations, managers assess performances.

Both bias can have an impact on how managers and employees evaluate employee performance and the quality of their relationship (Mark, 2007). If leaders are unaware of their attribution bias, communication and teamwork can be affected in terms of leadership. Employees attribute causes to leaders' behaviors based on their perception. If employees perceive that their leader is not satisfied with their performance, they may experience a loss of self-esteem (Phil, Charlotte, Julie&James, 2009).

When reflecting on employee behaviors, it is possible that job satisfaction and turnover may decrease. As a result, motivating employees to increase productivity or improve their performance becomes more difficult for leaders. Another important factor to consider is attribution styles. Attribution styles refer to tendencies in making specific types of attributions consistently across different situations over time. Martinko (2002) identified sixteen potential intrapersonal styles.

There are two main attribution styles: optimistic and pessimistic. The optimistic style is aligned with self-serving bias to some extent, while the pessimistic style attributes success externally and as unstable, and failure internally and as stable (Martinko, Douglas & Borkowski, 2007). In organizations, optimistic leaders have confidence in employees' future performance, whereas pessimistic leaders hold contrary beliefs.

Optimistic employees and pessimistic employees have contrasting beliefs about their performance. These differences in attribution styles between leaders and employees can lead to clashes. Martinko, Douglas, and Borkowski's (2007) study demonstrated that optimistic leaders are less likely to attribute poor performance to their team members. Instead, they create opportunities for their members to succeed in the future. On the other hand, pessimistic leaders tend to have lower quality relationships with their employees.

The less harmonious a relationship becomes, the more inconsistent the goal-achievement thinking will be. A study conducted by Harvey, Harris, and Martinko (2008) revealed that attribution styles have a significant impact on turnover intentions. The study found a positive correlation between hostile attribution styles and turnover intentions (Harvey, Harris & Martinko, 2008).

To assist a person with a pessimistic attribution style and low self-efficacy, it is beneficial to assign tasks that enable them to achieve early success. By gradually advancing to more intricate tasks, their confidence can be built. For individuals with an optimistic attribution style, managers can aid them in determining their abilities for specific projects by allowing them to observe someone performing the job or connecting them with a mentor at a higher organizational level. Recognizing and managing someone with a hostile attribution style poses challenges as their behavior may appear similar to that of individuals with an optimistic style.

However, this specific style will benefit from open communication that ensures correct attributions for outcomes. Managers do not want to leave this type of employee guessing about negative outcomes such as a poor performance appraisal, demotion, layoff, or others. Additionally, in terms of job satisfaction, it has been found that there is a negative relationship between a hostile attribution style and job satisfaction. However, it has been suggested that satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between attribution style and intent to turnover. (Harvey, Harries & Martinko, 2009)

Leaders believe that the way they attribute successes and failures is a likely indication of their expectations for employee performance. This affects how they interact with and appraise their employees. Attribution theory is implemented in various fields.

Attribution theory is a significant tool in the field of leadership as it helps leaders attribute employees' performance. The theory is particularly useful in different situations, such as when leaders face negative outcomes. In such cases, leaders are more likely to have internal attributions for the negative outcome. The behavior of leaders can be attributed internally by the employees, leading them to doubt the leader's ability.

It is possible for conflicts to arise between leaders and employees. Leaders can improve their understanding of their employees' perspective by performing the same tasks and experiencing similar feelings, which can help foster psychological closeness. Clearly assigning tasks and responsibilities can also help prevent unnecessary errors in the workplace. Motivation:

According to Harvey and Martinko (2009), there are five ways to promote and maintain employees' motivation, including screening resilience, immunization, and multiple raters for performance. However, in most situations, the most common and effective methods are attributional training and increasing psychological closeness. Attributional training helps employees improve their attribution style and correct any biases they may have, while also fostering a better understanding of internal and external factors.

In summary, attributional training can help employees develop a thorough understanding of workplace outcomes through effective communication between managers and employees. To enhance psychological closeness, it is advisable to assign experienced managers who can provide comprehensive feedback to employees regarding positive or negative outcomes. Performance reviews and group work are also significant in this regard.

Kelley's (1973) covariation model, which includes consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness, can be utilized by managers for performance evaluation and employee review purposes. Consistency is suggested to influence the perception of outcome stability. For instance, if a task is failed by an employee and the manager perceives low consensus, they may mistakenly attribute the failure solely to that employee, hindering an accurate evaluation. Moreover, when managers are faced with the task of assigning work within a group, considering the locus of covariation becomes crucial for attributing and estimating various behavioral traits of the employees.

Recruitment and selection involve managers ensuring that they have the appropriate attribution style and attempt to minimize the attribution bias. For instance, interviewers may perceive candidates who display signs of anxiety during the interview as lacking anti-pressure ability rather than being in a stressful environment. This attribution bias can lead to incorrect decision-making and selection.

Overall, the attribution theory process is linked to both internal and external factors, as discussed in relation to key components. It is important to recognize the influence of attribution bias and styles on organizational behavior, which greatly affect aspects like leader-member relationships and employee motivation. To improve employee management and overall organizational performance, it is advised that organizations make use of this theory.

Reference list:

Akpoyomare Oghojafor, B. E., Olayemi, O. O., Oluwatula, O. O., & Okonji, P. S. (2012). Attribution theory and strategic decisions on organizational success factors. Journal of management and strategy, 3: 32-39.

Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Gardner, W. (2006). Promoting authenticity in organizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12: 1-11.

Harvey, P., Harris, K.J., & Martinko, M.J. (2008).

The articles "The mediated influence of hostile attributional style on turnover intentions" and "An Empirical Examination of the Role of Attributions in Psychological Entitlement and its Outcomes" both examine attributions' role in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. The article "Attribution theory and motivation" further investigates the relationship between attribution theory and motivation.

Source: Kelley, Harold H., (1967).

Attribution Theory in Social Psychology, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 39: 242-277

Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: the role of managerial trust-worthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 312–31.

Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S.C. (2007). The role, function, and contributions of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 561-585.

Martinko,M.J., Moss,S.E., and Douglas,S.C., & Borkowski,N.(2007). Anticipating the Inevitable: When Leader and Member Attribution Styles Clash.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes104(2):158-174.

The text includes references to three different articles. One is titled "A synthesis of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models" and is authored by Martinko, Mark J. and Thompson, Neal. It was published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology in 1998, and it is found in volume 20, issue 4, spanning pages 271-284. Another article is titled "When Rule Makers Become Rule Breakers: Employee Level Outcomes of Managerial Pro-Social Rule Breaking" and is authored by Phil C. Bryant, Charlotte A. Davis, Julie I. Hancock, and James M. Vardaman. It was published in the Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal in 2010, with no specific volume or issue mentioned. However, it spans pages 101-112. The third article is titled "Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F. M., Anderson, N. R. & Mohamed, A. R." and does not include any additional information.

The text discusses the topics of locus of control, attributions, and impression management in the selection interview. It references two articles: "Locus of control, attributions and impression management in the selection interview" published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (75: 59 - 76), and "Attribution of success and failure revisited, or the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory" published in the Journal of Personality (47: 245-287) by Zuckerman (1979).