Attribution Theory

Academy of Management Perspectives
ATTRIBUTION THEORY IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL

SCIENCES: THE ROAD TRAVELED AND THE PATH AHEAD
Journal: Academy of Management Perspectives
Manuscript ID: AMP-2012-0175-A.R3
Document Type: Article
Attribution < Managerial and Organizational Cognition < Topic Areas,

Keywords: Managerial and Organizational Cognition < Topic Areas, Meta-analysis <
Analysis < Research Methods
Page 1 of 48 Academy of Management Perspectives
1
1
2
3
ATTRIBUTION THEORY IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES:
4
5 THE ROAD TRAVELED AND THE PATH AHEAD
6
7 The Academy of Management Perspectives
8
9 Paul Harvey
10
11
Whittemore School of Business and Economics
12 University of New Hampshire
13 Durham, NH 03824
14 Email: Paul.Harvey@unh.edu
15 Phone: (603) 862-3301
16
17
18 Kristen Madison
19 College of Business Administration
20 University of Tennessee
21 Knoxville, TN 37996
22 Email: kmadison@utk.edu
23
24
Phone: (865) 851-5959
25
26 Mark Martinko
27 University of Queensland
28 Brisbane, Australia 4072
29
Email m.martinko@uq.edu.au
30
31 Phone: +617 33468079
32
33 T. Russell Crook*
34 College of Business Administration
36
38 Email: trc@utk.edu
39 Phone: (865) 974-8764
40
41 Tamara A. Crook
42
43
College of Business Administration
46 Email: tcrook1@utk.edu
47 Phone: (865) 974-1759
48
49
50
51 *Corresponding Author
52
53 Acknowledgements: We thank the entire editorial team for their help and guidance throughout
54 the process. We also thank the reviewers for the developmental nature of their reviews, and the
55
56
help they offered.
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Perspectives Page 2 of 48
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 ATTRIBUTION THEORY IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES:
8
9 THE ROAD TRAVELED AND THE PATH AHEAD
10
11
12
13
14
15 ABSTRACT
16
17 Individuals make attributions when they infer causes about particular outcomes. Several narrative
18
19
20
reviews of attributional research have concluded that attributions matter in the workplace, but note
21
22 that attribution theory has been underutilized in organizational research. To examine the predictive
23
24 power of attributions in organizational contexts, we present a meta-analysis of existing attribution
25
26
27 theory research. Our findings suggest that attributions have consistently demonstrated effect sizes
28
29 that are comparable to more commonly utilized predictor variables of workplace outcomes.
30
31 Expanding on these findings, we argue that attributions are an integral part of individuals cognitive
32
33
34 processes that are associated with critical organizational outcomes. We conclude with suggestions to
35
36 help expand and optimize the contribution of attributional research to understanding and managing
37
38
organizational outcomes.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Keywords: Attribution, Workplace Outcomes, Synthesis
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3
In his seminal work on attribution theory, Heider (1958) characterized people as nave
4
5
6 psychologists with an innate interest in understanding the causes of successes and failures.
7
8 Causal explanations, as Heider asserted, enable individuals to make sense of their world and
9
10
11
control their environments. Understanding how people think about causation is important in
12
13 discovering how and why people engage in both productive and counterproductive
14
15 organizational behaviors (Luthans & Church, 2002). Attributional processes can help us
16
17
18 understand what causes an employees aggression (e.g., Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Spector,
19
20 2011), an applicants interview success (e.g., Ashkanasy, 1989; Silvester, Anderson-Gough,
21
22 Anderson, & Mohamed, 2002), a leaders behavior (e.g., Campbell & Swift, 2006; Green &
23
24
25 Liden, 1980), and many other organizational phenomena (see Martinko, Douglas, & Harvey,
26
27 2006 for a review).
28
29
The topic of attributions emerged with Heiders (1958) work and evolved to become a
30
31
32 dominant theory in social psychology in subsequent decades, particularly after the works of
33
34 Kelley (1967, 1971, 1973) and Weiner (1985, 1986, 1995, 2004). The breadth of phenomena to
35
36
37 which attribution theory can be applied, including learned helplessness, depression,
38
39 reward/punishment decisions and motivation, has driven its widespread adoption by social
40
41 psychologists (Reisenzein & Rudolph, 2008). On the other hand, it has been asserted that
42
43
44 attribution theory has been underutilized and underappreciated in the organizational sciences
45
46 (Martinko, Harvey & Dasborough, 2011).
47
48 In support of this argument, Martinko et al. (2011) compared the two fields and found
49
50
51 nearly six times as many attributional articles published in psychology journals as were found in
52
53 management journals. Additionally, as of this writing, a search of Google Scholar shows over
54
55
56
7,000 citations of Kelleys and Weiners works, but only 9% of those are found in business-
57
58
59
60
4
1
2
3
related disciplines. Even accounting for the difference in the number of journals between the two
4
5
6 fields, the magnitude of this disconnect is surprising, especially considering the similarity in
7
8 interpersonal phenomena studied in both fields.
9
10
11
The recognition of a disconnect between the use of attribution theory in the
12
13 organizational sciences versus the social psychology literature is not new. As far back as 1995,
14
15 Martinko (p.11) commented that in an examination of organizational behavior texts that
16
17
18 attribution theory as a theoretical body of work was frequently ignored. Nevertheless, after
19
20 viewing the body of research that had been conducted in the organizational sciences, Weiner
21
22 (1995, p. 5) was optimistic with regard to the potential of attribution theory and commented that
23
24
25 putting attribution theory in the context of organizational behavior should be of great benefit.
26
27 To make the potential contributions of attribution theory to the organizational sciences
28
29
more salient, two comprehensive conceptual reviews were conducted. A review by Martinko et
30
31
32 al. (2006) provided an overview of research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. The review
33
34 concluded that the research unequivocally documents that attributions play a significant role in
35
36
37 behaviors associated with the topics that are central to [industrial/organizational psychology]
38
39 such as individual differences, counterproductive behavior, leader/member interactions,
40
41 impression management, conflict resolution, training, selection interviewing, and performance
42
43
44 appraisal (p. 174). A second review by Martinko, Harvey, and Douglas (2007) arrived at a
45
46 similar conclusion based on an examination of attributional studies in the realm of leadership
47
48 research. Given this conclusion, the authors noted that they were puzzled as to why attribution
49
50
51 theory had not emerged as a major theory of workplace outcomes.
52
53 Both reviews attributed this gap in theory at least in part to earlier criticisms of attribution
54
55
56
theory by Mitchell (1982) and Lord (1995). Mitchell argued that attributions accounted for only
57
58
59
60
5
1
2
3
a small proportion of the variance in causal explanations. In short, he asserted that attributions
4
5
6 might matter, but probably not very much. Lord (1995) asserted that the rational information-
7
8 processing model suggested by attribution theory was unrealistic and that people generally rely
9
10
11
on more efficient cognitive schema and implicit assumptions when forming causal perceptions.
12
13 Martinko et al. (2006) countered these criticisms, asserting that they had been overgeneralized
14
15 and misinterpreted by subsequent researchers. Indeed, it has long been recognized that routine or
16
17
18 unimportant outcomes are less likely to invoke detailed causal search processes than events that
19
20 are unexpected and personally relevant (e.g., Lord, 1995; Weiner, 1986). More recent process
21
22 models, such as that proposed by Douglas, Kiewitz, Martinko, Harvey, Kim, and Chun (2008),
23
24
25 suggest that the degree of cognitive elaboration devoted to attributional analyses of outcomes
26
27 varies depending on the nature of the trigger event as well as individual difference factors (e.g.,
28
29
need for cognition). Thus, empirical studies of attributions, including those analyzed here,
30
31
32 typically consider attributions in response to trigger events that are of sufficient personal
33
34 relevance to invoke attributional searches.
35
36
37 Although it is somewhat speculative to suggest that the underutilization of attribution
38
39 theory in the organizational sciences as compared to social psychology has been driven primarily
40
41 by these critiques and their subsequent interpretations by other scholars, it is notable that the use
42
43
44 of attributional perspectives in organizational research appeared to taper off after their
45
46 publication.
47
48 Given the debate about whether attributions matter, and whether attribution theory has
49
50
51 been underutilized in the organizational sciences, there are lingering questions about the efficacy
52
53 of attribution theory. Our objective in this study is to shed light on this debate by exploring
54
55
56
whether and to what extent attributions are related to important workplace outcomes through a
57
58
59
60
6
1
2
3
meta-analysis. As Hunter and Schmidt (2004) explained, meta-analyses aggregate findings about
4
5
6 relationships of interest and allow us to compare the sizes of these relationships with other
7
8 important relationships. Thus, a meta-analytic assessment of key attribution-workplace outcome
9
10
11
relationships appears to be an appropriate and timely way to inform the debate regarding the
12
13 utility and contribution of attribution theory to understanding the causes and consequences of
14
15 organizational behaviors. If we find that attribution processes do not matter, we can conclude
16
17
18 that researchers have rightly ignored the role of attributions in the workplace. However, if we
19
20 find that attributions do matter, and matter substantially (i.e., have strong effects), we can
21
22 describe new contexts and research areas such as macro-level inquiry that present new terrain
23
24
25 for the theory.
26
27 Attributional Dimensions and Workplace Outcomes
28
29
As Weiner (1986) explained, attributions generally vary along several underlying
30
31
32 dimensions. Although a number of dimensions have been identified, our search of the extant
33
34 literature suggested that within the organizational sciences the most commonly studied are the
35
36
37 locus of causality, stability, and controllability dimensions identified by Weiner (1985). We
38
39 therefore focus on studies of these dimensions in the present meta-analysis.
40
41 Locus of causality. The most commonly studied attributional dimension by far is locus
42
43
44 of causality, which refers to whether the perceived cause of an outcome is internal or external. In
45
46 the case of attributions made for ones own outcomes (i.e., self-attributions), an internal
47
48 attribution occurs when the cause is perceived to reflect some characteristic of the person such as
49
50
51 effort or ability. For example, an employee who misses a deadline and believes that this outcome
52
53 is due to his or her own lack of effort or ability is making an internal attribution. An external
54
55
56
attribution for the same outcome might take the form of blaming coworkers or a supervisor for
57
58
59
60
7
1
2
3
the missed deadline. Similarly, when observing others outcomes (i.e., social attributions),
4
5
6 internal attributions refer to dispositional or behavioral characteristics (e.g., effort or ability) of
7
8 the person being observed whereas external attributions refer to situational factors that are often
9
10
11
beyond the observed individuals control.
12
13 Weiner (1985) observed that the locus dimension was particularly relevant to the
14
15 emotional responses individuals form in response to trigger events. His widely cited achievement
16
17
18 motivation model (Weiner, 1985) suggests that individuals form attributions in response to
19
20 trigger events, which, as noted above, typically take the form of outcomes that are negative,
21
22 surprising, or unexpected (e.g., an unexpectedly poor evaluation). When personally relevant
23
24
25 negative outcomes are attributed to internal factors (e.g., insufficient effort), Weiners
26
27 framework indicates that self-focused emotions such as guilt and shame are likely. Conversely,
28
29
when these outcomes are attributed to external causes (e.g., a biased supervisor), emotions such
30
31
32 as anger and frustration typically follow. Weiners model also accommodates positive outcomes
33
34 and suggests that internal attributions for these events promote feelings of pride whereas external
35
36
37 attributions are associated with gratitude and other externally-focused positive emotions.
38
39 Understanding the relationship between attributions and emotions is important because it
40
41 is the affective response to attributions that is thought to shape behavioral reactions to trigger
42
43
44 events (Weiner, 1985). For example, research has shown that the locus of an attribution for
45
46 negative workplace outcomes can influence the choice between passive or aggressive behavioral
47
48 responses (e.g., Douglas & Martinko, 2001).
49
50
51 The locus dimension is also relevant to leader-member relationships and interactions.
52
53 Conceptual and empirical studies indicate that when supervisors and employees conflict in their
54
55
56
attributions for negative outcomes, interpersonal conflict and diminished evaluations of
57
58
59
60
8
1
2
3
relationship quality occur (e.g., Ashkanasy, 1989, 1995; Green & Mitchell, 1979; Martinko,
4
5
6 Moss, Douglas, & Borkowski, 2007). This effect is particularly likely when the attributional
7
8 conflict leads both parties to blame the other for negative outcomes or when each claim personal
9
10
11
credit for desirable outcomes.
12
13 The locus of an attribution can also influence reward and punishment decisions. As one
14
15 might expect, there is evidence that employees are more likely to be rewarded for high levels of
16
17
18 performance when the supervisor attributes the performance to internal characteristics, such as
19
20 the employees ability, than to external factors (Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002).
21
22 Similarly, punishments are more likely when undesirable outcomes are attributed to internal
23
24
25 employee characteristics or behaviors, such as insufficient effort (Wood & Mitchell, 1981).
26
27 Stability. The stability dimension of attributions refers to the perceived variability or
28
29
permanence of a causal factor. To illustrate, a persons intelligence is typically viewed as a
30
31
32 relatively stable factor whereas effort level is more variable (Weiner et al., 1971). Unlike locus
33
34 of causality, the stability dimension is rarely studied separately from other dimensions. More
35
36
37 commonly, researchers examine the locus and stability dimensions in tandem. This design is
38
39 logical in that the stability of a cause can attenuate or exacerbate the emotional and behavioral
40
41 responses driven by the locus of the attribution. More specifically, perceptions of causal stability
42
43
44 help shape a persons expectations for future outcomes and these expectations can soften or
45
46 amplify the emotional response to a trigger event (Weiner, 1985). For example, if an employee
47
48 attributes a poor evaluation to a lack of ability (an internal and relatively stable cause) the
49
50
51 individual is likely to experience shame, given that a lack of ability is likely to cause similar
52
53 problems in the future. This shame, in turn, can promote withdrawal behaviors (Hall, Hladkyi,
54
55
56
Perry, & Ruthig, 2004). If the evaluation is attributed to insufficient effort (an internal and
57
58
59
60
9
1
2
3
unstable cause), the employee is more likely to experience guilt and a motivation to exert more
4
5
6 effort in the future.
7
8 The perceived stability of a cause is also likely to help shape leader-member relationship
9
10
11
quality and reward/punishment decisions. As prefaced above, the negative impact of attributions
12
13 that target blame for undesirable outcomes on ones supervisor or subordinate is often weaker if
14
15 the attribution is unstable rather than stable in nature. This is because unstable attributions reduce
16
17
18 the expectation that similar outcomes will occur in the future. This attenuating effect has been
19
20 shown to reduce the frequency and severity of punishments for undesirable workplace outcomes
21
22 (Wood & Mitchell, 1981).
23
24
25 Controllability. Of the three attributional dimensions included in this analysis,
26
27 controllability has received the smallest amount of research attention. Controllability refers to the
28
29
extent to which an observer perceives the cause of an outcome to be under someones volition
30
31
32 (Weiner, 1985). Factors such as luck and task difficulty are generally perceived to be
33
34 uncontrollable whereas effort and, to a much lesser extent, ability, are viewed as controllable
35
36
37 factors.
38
39 As these examples suggest, there is some overlap between the controllability dimension
40
41 and the locus and stability dimensions. For instance, effort, which is usually viewed as internal
42
43
44 and unstable, is most often seen as controllable whereas task difficulty, which is seen as external
45
46 and stable, is most often viewed as uncontrollable. As such, controllability has been linked to a
47
48 number of the same affective and leadership outcomes that the other dimensions predict, albeit in
49
50
51 a smaller number of studies. This overlap might explain why controllability has received less
52
53 attention than the other two dimensions. Nonetheless, there was a sufficient amount of research
54
55
56
on controllability as a stand-alone dimension to warrant inclusion in our analysis.
57
58
59
60
10
1
2
3
A Meta-Analytic Review of Attributional Research in the Organizational Sciences
4
5
6 The reviews and observations discussed at the outset of this study argue that attribution
7
8 theory has been underutilized by scholars in the organizational sciences. Although conceptual
9
10
11
reviews and articles have attempted to address these issues, we believe that a meta-analytic
12
13 assessment summarizing the predictive power of attributions in organizational research is
14
15 beneficial in showcasing the utility of attribution theory. In particular, our assessment is intended
16
17
18 to help ease concerns stemming from various interpretations of Mitchells (1982)
19
20 aforementioned criticism regarding effect sizes that may have caused some scholars to ignore the
21
22 predictive potential of attribution theory. Additionally, a meta-analytic study allows us to present
23
24
25 an overview of the nomological network of attribution theory which can help scholars identify
26
27 gaps in the existing empirical literature.
28
29
To this end, we meta-analyze relationships between the attributional dimensions of locus,
30
31
32 stability, and controllability and four categories of workplace outcome variables. These include
33
34 affective outcomes (e.g., discrete emotions such as anger and sympathy, attitudes such as job
35
36
37 satisfaction, emotional evaluations such as self-esteem), performance outcomes (e.g., task
38
39 performance, effort levels), leader-member relationship quality outcomes (e.g., leader-member
40
41 exchange (LMX) ratings, perceived managerial trustworthiness, conflict between employees and
42
43
44 supervisors), and reward/punishment decisions (e.g., award allocation decisions, intent to punish
45
46 subordinates). As discussed in the previous section, attributions have been linked to each of these
47
48 outcomes in organizational research. Further, these categories allowed for a logical
49
50
51 categorization of the majority of studies identified for inclusion in the analysis. Within each of
52
53 these outcome categories we examine the predictive power of attributions. Although attributional
54
55
56
variables have also been conceptualized as outcome variables (e.g., attributions of responsibility;
57
58
59
60
11
1
2
3
Weiner, 1995) this body of research has not yet matured to the point where enough studies are
4
5
6 available for a meta-analytic assessment.
7
8 Meta-analysis allows researchers to estimate the size of relationships found in a body of
9
10
11
research (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). If relationships exist, meta-analysis furnishes an estimate of
12
13 the magnitudes (i.e., effect sizes) while ensuring that the estimates account for important study
14
15 artifacts such as sampling and measurement error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Several researchers
16
17
18 have used meta-analysis to shed light on important theoretical relationships. For example,
19
20 Combs, Liu, Hall, and Ketchen (2006) used meta-analysis to offer evidence that high
21
22 performance work practices (e.g., employee training) can enhance organizational performance
23
24
25 and Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, and Woehr (2007) used meta-analysis to demonstrate the
26
27 relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and task performance. Thus, a goal of
28
29
our meta-analytic assessment of key attributional relationships is to estimate not only whether
30
31
32 attributions matter, but also the extent to which they matter. Appendix A reports the papers
33
34 included in our analyses and Appendix B describes our methodological approach in more detail.
35
36
37 RESULTS
38
39 In this section we present our meta-analytic results organized by workplace outcomes
40
41 within each of the three described attributional dimensions. These results are summarized in
42
43
44 Table 1.
45
46 [ Insert Table 1 about here ]
47
48 Locus of Causality
49
50
51 Affect. Across our sample of studies, the locus of attributions significantly influenced
52
53 emotional reactions to undesirable ( rc = -.16) and desirable outcomes ( rc = .13). These
54
55
56 observations suggest that external attributions for personally relevant unfavorable outcomes
57
58
59
60
12
1
2
3
(e.g., attributing a missed deadline to a negligent coworker) were associated with less negative
4
5
6 emotional and attitudinal reactions than were internal attributions (e.g., attributing a missed
7
8 deadline to ones own lack of effort) for these outcomes. Similarly, internal attributions for
9
10
11
favorable outcomes (e.g., attributing a bonus to ones ability) were associated with stronger
12
13 positive affective reactions than external attributions (e.g., attributing a bonus to a supervisors
14
15 generosity). The findings concerning both negative and positive trigger events are consistent
16
17
18 with research on self-serving attributional biases, which suggests that people often feel better
19
20 when they attribute blame for problematic outcomes to external factors and take credit for
21
22 favorable outcomes (Huff & Schwenk, 1990; Zuckerman, 1979).
23
24
25 Performance. The locus of attributions for unfavorable outcomes significantly impacted
26
27 performance ( rc = .11), as did the locus of attributions for favorable outcomes ( rc = .21). This
28
29
30 suggests that external attributions for personally relevant unfavorable events were associated
31
32 with increases in negative self- and leader-reported performance ratings, whereas internal
33
34
35
attributions for positive outcomes were positively related to performance ratings. The latter
36
37 finding is consistent with research indicating that internal attributions for desirable outcomes,
38
39 such as attributing a job offer to ones own abilities and experience, promote self-confidence and
40
41
42 efficacy (Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995) which, in turn, can lead to improved performance levels
43
44 (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Consistent with this perspective, the .21 corrected r also suggests
45
46 that external attributions for desirable outcomes, such as attributing a job offer to luck, were
47
48
49 detrimental (or, more accurately, less beneficial) to performance. More peculiar is the finding
50
51 that the apparent reciprocal of this tendency, externalizing rather than internalizing blame for
52
53
54
negative outcomes, was also detrimental to performance.
55
56
57
58
59
60
13
1
2
3
A possible reconciliation of these findings might be found in Harvey and Martinkos
4
5
6 (2009) argument that erroneously attributing undesirable outcomes to external factors could
7
8 prevent employees from accurately evaluating and remedying their performance weaknesses.
9
10
11
The observation that individuals tend to be more objective when forming attributions for positive
12
13 outcomes is also relevant (Huff & Schwenk, 1990). Thus, it may be that the internal attributions
14
15 for desirable outcomes are more accurate than the external attributions for undesirable events. In
16
17
18 this case we would expect the self-efficacy gains from internalizing positive events to provide a
19
20 legitimate source of confidence that can fuel performance increases whereas the self-efficacy
21
22 protection provided by external attributions for negative events might attenuate motivation for
23
24
25 performance improvements.
26
27 Leader-member relationship evaluations. External attributions for unfavorable events
28
29
(e.g., employees attributing a poor raise to a biased supervisor or to economic factors) were
30
31
32 associated with a significant improvement in leader-member relationship quality rating ( rc = -
33
34
35
.12, indicating a decrease in negative evaluations of relationship quality) across our sample of
36
37 studies. This is a somewhat surprising finding, given that the supervisor is often thought to be a
38
39 common target of employees external attributions (Harvey & Martinko, 2009). On the other
40
41
42 hand, if employees attribute negative outcomes to external factors other than their supervisors
43
44 (e.g., economic factors), the finding appears more intuitive. This relationship suggests that these
45
46 non-supervisor targeted external attributions by subjects may be more common than we had
47
48
49 expected.
50
51 Employees internal attributions for favorable events were more strongly associated with
52
53
54 improvements in leader-member relationship quality ( rc = .07) than were external attributions.
55
56 Although we might have expected external attributions for these outcomes to improve
57
58
59
60
14
1
2
3
relationship quality more strongly than internal attributions if the leader was the target of the
4
5
6 external attributions, the aforementioned findings concerning negative outcomes again suggest
7
8 that employees consider a number of other external factors when forming these attributions.
9
10
11
Reward/punishment decisions. Attributional studies on reward and punishment
12
13 decisions generally look at leaders attributions for subordinate performance. These attributions
14
15 differ from the self-focused attributions studied in the context of affective responses,
16
17
18 performance, and leader-member relationships in that they are social attributions that consider
19
20 observers (usually leaders) attributions for other peoples (usually subordinates) outcomes. In
21
22 these studies, internal attributions refer to causal factors that are internal to the employee being
23
24
25 observed (e.g., ability, effort) whereas external attributions refer to factors outside the
26
27 employees control (e.g., task difficulty, bad luck). Correlations from these studies were coded
28
29
such that higher scores denote external attributions. Predictably, results suggested that external
30
31
32 attributions for employees negative outcomes (generally operationalized as poor performance)
33
34 were associated with lower punishment intentions ( rc = -.15). A significant relationship between
35
36
37 locus attributions for favorable outcomes and reward decisions was not observed.
38
39 Stability
40
41
42 Affect. As noted above, the locus dimension, rather than the stability dimension, is
43
44 generally thought to impact affective outcomes. Not surprisingly then, the results did not indicate
45
46 that stable attributions for unfavorable events were significantly associated with increases or
47
48
49 decreases in affective outcomes. A significant relationship between stable attributions for
50
51 positive events and affective responses was observed, indicating that stable attributions were
52
53
54 associated with lower levels of unfavorable affective reactions than unstable attributions ( rc = -
55
56 .13).
57
58
59
60
15
1
2
3
Performance. Across the sample of studies, we observed a significant positive
4
5
6 association between stable attributions for favorable outcomes and performance ( rc = -.35, note
7
8
9
that the sign is negative because a high score indicates poor performance). Only one study in our
10
11 sample investigated the relationship between stable attributions for undesirable outcomes and
12
13 poor performance so this category was not included in the analysis.
14
15
16 Leader-member relationship evaluations. Our findings concerning leader-member
17
18 relationship outcomes and stability indicated that stable attributions for unfavorable events were
19
20
associated with an increase in reports of poor relationship quality ( rc = .10). This is logical
21
22
23 because if a cause is deemed to be stable, it follows that the employee views the leader as
24
25
incapable or unwilling to remedy the situation. The stability of attributions for favorable
26
27
28 outcomes was unrelated to leader-member relationship quality.
29
30 Reward/Punishment. An insufficient number of published studies on the relationship
31
32
33
between stability attributions and reward/punishment decisions were identified to perform a
34
35 meta-analysis on this relationship.
36
37 Controllability
38
39
40 Affect. The attribution of negative outcomes to personally controllable causes was
41
42 associated with reduced levels of negative emotions and attitudes ( rc = -.35). This is consistent
43
44
45 with the notion that controllable causes can frequently be avoided in the future and are therefore
46
47 less likely to provoke negative affective reactions (Aquino, Douglas & Martinko, 2004).
48
49
Although our sample of observations for this relationship was small, no significant association
50
51
52 between the controllability dimension and affective outcomes was observed in the context of
53
54 positive trigger events.
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
1
2
3
Performance. Very few studies have investigated the relationship between controllability
4
5
6 attributions and performance. Only two studies in our sample investigated this relationship, both
7
8 in the context of negative trigger events, and did not suggest any significant associations.
9
10
11
Leader-member relationship evaluations. Perceived controllability was associated with
12
13 a slight decrease in reports of unfavorable leader-member relationship quality ( rc = -.09). Not
14
15
16 surprisingly, this suggests that leader-member relationships did not suffer when employees
17
18 perceived that they personally controlled the causes of an undesirable outcome. Conversely, the
19
20 correlation suggests that a slight worsening of leader-member relationship quality occurred when
21
22
23 the cause was seen as beyond the employees control. Only one study examined this relationship
24
25 in the context of desirable outcomes so meta-analysis was not possible.
26
27
Reward/Punishment. An insufficient number of published studies on the relationship
28
29
30 between controllability attributions and reward/punishment decisions were identified to perform
31
32 a meta-analysis on this relationship.
33
34
35 DISCUSSION
36
37 The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide an empirical investigation into the
38
39 importance and impact of attributions on organizational outcomes. We begin this section with a
40
41
42 brief comparison of our findings against those of other predictor variables that are frequently
43
44 used in organizational research. We then discuss implications of our analysis for the future of
45
46 attributional research.
47
48
49 Locus of Causality
50
51 Across our sample of studies we found that the most commonly studied attributional
52
53
54
dimension, locus of causality, consistently showed a significant influence on each of the outcome
55
56 variables included in the analysis. The average magnitude of the effects was .14. Aguinis et al.,
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
3
(2011) asserted that perhaps the best way to interpret the magnitude of effect sizes is to put them
4
5
6 into the context of other relationships assessed via meta-analysis. Our review suggests that this
7
8 predictive power is on par with that shown by other predictors of similar outcome variables.
9
10
11 As an illustration, we use the job performance outcome studied here (locus rc = .16).
12
13 Cohen-Charesh and Spectors (2001) meta-analysis of justice perceptions indicated average
14
15
16 weighted correlation coefficients of .13, .45, and .16 between distributive, procedural, and
17
18 interactional justice perceptions, respectively, and work performance in field studies. In
19
20 laboratory studies, their analysis indicated a mean weighted correlation of .05 (non-significant)
21
22
23 between distributive justice perceptions and performance and .11 between procedural justice
24
25 perceptions and performance. Similarly, Barrick and Mount (1991) observed corrected
26
27
correlations of .10. -.04, -.05, .17, and .00 when examining the impact of Big Five personality
28
29
30 dimensions of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness
31
32 to experience, respectively, on performance measures. In their analysis of the impact of core self-
33
34
35
evaluation components on performance, Judge and Bono (2001) observed corrected correlations
36
37 of .26, .29, .22, and .19 for self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability,
38
39 respectively and performance. A meta-analysis by Gernster and Day (1997) showed a corrected
40
41
42 correlation coefficient of .11 between LMX and objective performance ratings.
43
44 Based on this comparison, the effect sizes of the locus of causality dimension fall within
45
46 what appears to be a range that is acceptable to most scholars, as evidenced by the frequency
47
48
49 with which justice perceptions, core self-evaluation, the Big Five personality traits and LMX are
50
51 studied as predictor variables in the organizational sciences. A comparison against predictors of
52
53
54
the other outcome variables studied here indicated a similar pattern: some predictors show larger
55
56 effects and some show smaller effects, but in most cases attributional predictors demonstrated
57
58
59
60
18
1
2
3
effect sizes comparable to those of variables that are utilized far more frequently than
4
5
6 attributional variables by organizational researchers.
7
8 Stability
9
10
11
Although the number and scope of studies examining the impact of the stability
12
13 dimension were limited as compared to the locus of causality studies, we observed significant
14
15 associations between this dimension and affect, performance and leader-member relationship
16
17
18 evaluations. The average corrected correlation coefficient of these relationships was .18. Using
19
20 the comparisons reported in the previous section, this effect size again appears to compare
21
22 favorably with more frequently studied predictor variables. It is also worth reiterating that the
23
24
25 locus and stability dimensions are often studied together, a combination that could explain still
26
27 more variance than the two dimensions explain individually.
28
29
30
Controllability
31
32 The relatively small number of studies using the controllability dimension limited the
33
34 scope of our analysis but indicated that it was a relevant predictor of affective outcomes and
35
36
37 leader-member evaluations. Again, the magnitude of the observed effects ( rc = -.35 and = -.07,
38
39 respectively) appears comparable to other predictors that are far more commonly used by
40
41
42 organizational scholars.
43
44 THE PATH AHEAD
45
46 The underlying theme of our findings, consistent with the conclusions of earlier
47
48
49 conceptual reviews, is that attribution theory has significant predictive power that is similar or
50
51 equal to other theories that attempt to predict and explain workplace phenomena. Thus
52
53
54
attribution theory adds an important piece of predictive power to the arsenal of frameworks and
55
56 constructs available to organizational researchers. Nevertheless it appears that attribution theory
57
58
59
60
19
1
2
3
has been underutilized compared to other theories, suggesting that there is ample opportunity for
4
5
6 scholars to add to our understanding of workplace behavior by using an attributional perspective.
7
8 The four categories of outcome variables included in our analysis have been reasonably
9
10
11
well examined through an attributional lens but there are numerous other avenues for new
12
13 outcomes to be explored. In fact, as social psychologists have observed, causal perceptions
14
15 arguably influence almost every aspect of a persons behavior. Thus, there are probably very few
16
17
18 workplace behaviors and outcomes that cannot be investigated from an attributional perspective.
19
20 Although space considerations limit our ability to discuss all of the potential areas where
21
22 attribution theory can be extended, we will highlight those that appear particularly promising.
23
24
25 These potential areas include examining additional attributional dimensions, expanding
26
27 attribution theory across new topical areas, investigating temporal effects, and introducing
28
29
attribution theory in the macro domain.
30
31
32 Additional Attributional Dimensions
33
34 In the areas of organizational science where attribution theory has been utilized, we
35
36
37 observed a narrow focus on the locus of causality and, to a lesser extent, the stability and
38
39 controllability dimensions. While our analysis suggests that this focus is not unwarranted, we
40
41 also note that there are other dimensions such as intentionality and globality that likely have
42
43
44 additional explanatory power. While these dimensions have received some empirical attention,
45
46 the number of studies was too small to include in our analysis.
47
48 Intentionality. In an attributional context, intent describes the extent to which an
49
50
51 outcome is attributed to a deliberate as opposed to unintentional action. As the name suggests,
52
53 attributions of intentionality occur when a perceiver believes that an outcome was caused by the
54
55
56
deliberate and informed actions of another. While behaviors that are internal and controllable are
57
58
59
60
20
1
2
3
often assumed to be intentional, studies that make this assumption overlook causes such as
4
5
6 misinformed decisions that are well-intentioned but have unanticipated consequences.
7
8 Betancourt and Blair (1992) noted that this distinction is particularly important in studies of
9
10
11
violence and aggression but our analysis found that most studies on these subjects relied only on
12
13 the locus of causality, stability and controllability factors.
14
15 Globality. The perceived globality of a cause (i.e., the extent to which a causal factor is
16
17
18 something that can impact outcomes across situations such as personality versus something
19
20 specific such as task-specific ability) can also have important emotional and behavioral
21
22 implications beyond its closest corollary, the stability dimension. In an attributional sense, many
23
24
25 stable causes, such as intelligence level, are also relatively global in that they can impact
26
27 outcomes across a wide range of situations (e.g., grades in school, performance at work, success
28
29
in business transactions). However, intelligence can also be perceived as stable and specific, as
30
31
32 in the case of a lack of ability with regard to a specific task such as a computer application. On
33
34 the other hand, unstable factors, such as temporary illness or injury, can also have a global causal
35
36
37 affect during a finite span of time. We therefore suggest that globality attributions be assessed in
38
39 addition to stability attributions in studies of cross-situational outcomes, such as work-family
40
41 conflict and self-esteem (e.g., Seligman, 1998).
42
43
44 Consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness. Kelleys (1967) attributional dimensions
45
46 of consistency, consensus and distinctiveness might also warrant more attention in organizational
47
48 research. Commonly used in the psychology literature, these dimensions describe how
49
50
51 observations help shape attributions. The consensus dimension of causal information measures
52
53 the extent to which an observed behavior is common among multiple individuals in a given
54
55
56
situation. High consensus behaviors (e.g., every employee arriving late to work on a given day)
57
58
59
60
21
1
2
3
suggest external/situational casual factors (e.g., a traffic delay) whereas low consensus behaviors
4
5
6 promote the formation of internal/dispositional attributions (Martinko & Thomson, 1998). The
7
8 consistency dimension looks at variations in within-person behaviors in the context of a single
9
10
11
situation (e.g., work). High consistency behaviors are those that an observed individual engages
12
13 in frequently (e.g., always arriving to work late) whereas low consistency behaviors occur
14
15 infrequently (e.g., only rarely arriving to work late). The former suggest stable causes for the
16
17
18 behavior whereas the latter suggest unstable causes. Kelleys (1967) distinctiveness dimension is
19
20 also based on within-person behaviors but concerns variations between situations. Highly distinct
21
22 behaviors are those that an individual exhibits only in a particular situation (e.g., late for work
23
24
25 but punctual for most other events) whereas non-distinct behaviors are those which are observed
26
27 to be common for an individual across situations (e.g., late for most engagements). Thomson and
28
29
Martinko (1998) explained that observers typically attribute non-distinct behaviors to global
30
31
32 causes and distinct behaviors to specific causes. Thus, Kelleys dimensions address the issue of
33
34 how people turn observed variations in behaviors into attributions while Weiners dimensions
35
36
37 focus on the affective and behavioral outcomes of those attributions.
38
39 Kelleys (1967) perspective on the interpretation of causal information is particularly
40
41 relevant to the development of attributions in the workplace given the role that observation of
42
43
44 others behaviors plays in performance evaluations and other management activities. While
45
46 organizational research has focused on understanding the consequences of workplace
47
48 attributions, the process by which individuals form these attributions has received much less
49
50
51 attention. Although the role of consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness observations in the
52
53 development of attributions may seem fairly clear in theory, in practice the interpretation of
54
55
56
causal information is subject to the same biases and distortions that affect all perceptions.
57
58
59
60
22
1
2
3
Managers often have limited capacity to observe employees (e.g., Zalesny & Graen, 1987), for
4
5
6 example. They may, therefore, have incomplete information about employees behaviors relative
7
8 to their peers (consensus information), over time (consistency information) and in different
9
10
11
contexts (distinctiveness information). This incomplete information can, in turn, promote
12
13 inaccurate attributions and counterproductive behaviors toward employees. For example, a
14
15 manager with many subordinates might observe a single instance of employee lateness and
16
17
18 erroneously assume it is a common occurrence. The manager might then inaccurately attribute
19
20 the lateness to internal, stable, and global factors (e.g., this employee is an irresponsible person),
21
22 form a negative emotional reaction and punish the employee accordingly. Research on factors
23
24
25 and tactics that can improve accuracy in the observational phase of attribution development
26
27 might therefore be instrumental in helping managers avoid counterproductive decisions and
28
29
behaviors regarding their employees.
30
31
32 The area of abusive supervision in particular might benefit from a consideration of the
33
34 types of information subordinates use to form perceptions (i.e., attributions) of abuse. Currently
35
36
37 the majority of the research on abusive supervision examines the consequences of perceptions of
38
39 abuse and supervisory characteristics that are associated with subordinates perceptions of abuse,
40
41 while generally ignoring how and why subordinates form these impressions (Martinko, Harvey,
42
43
44 Brees, & Mackey, 2013). We expect that consensus information that compares a particular
45
46 supervisors behavior with that of other supervisors, consistency information that determines if a
47
48 behavior is displayed consistently or sporadically, and distinctiveness information that takes into
49
50
51 consideration both typical and unusual circumstances, might all play a role in determining
52
53 whether or not subordinates see a particular supervisors behavior as abusive.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23
1
2
3
Reconsidering controllability. While we see value in devoting more attention to the
4
5
6 aforementioned dimensions, our analysis and review also call into question the use of the
7
8 controllability dimension. There is a fair amount of overlap between this dimension and the locus
9
10
11
of causality dimension, which may help explain the similarity in outcomes linked to both types
12
13 of attributions (e.g., the affective and leadership outcomes discussed above). It also suggests that
14
15 much of the variance explained by controllability can be captured by measures of locus of
16
17
18 causality. More specifically, external causal factors are generally beyond a persons control
19
20 whereas internal causes are often controllable. The latter is not always true, however, in that
21
22 some causal factors are internal but relatively uncontrollable, such as illness or general
23
24
25 intelligence level. We therefore suggest that scholars consider the controllability dimension when
26
27 designing studies where such factors are relevant. In studies of performance levels, for example,
28
29
internal and uncontrollable factors such as innate intelligence and internally controllable factors
30
31
32 such as effort are likely to be relevant. In these cases assessing both locus of causality and
33
34 controllability would be necessary to optimize prediction.
35
36
37 Perceptions of Justice and Mistreatment
38
39 Because attributions are perceptual constructs, they are relevant to the formation of other
40
41 perceptions such as justice. More specifically, Martinko et al. (2003) argued that the attributions
42
43
44 employees make about the distribution of workplace rewards such as promotions shape
45
46 employees perceptions of justice and their beliefs as to whether or not people who have been
47
48 promoted have paid their dues. Although their article explicitly links specific attributions to
49
50
51 three different forms of justice, we are not aware of any empirical test of the model they
52
53 presented. Thus the link between attributions and perceptions of justice is likely to be a fruitful
54
55
56
avenue for exploring how justice perceptions are formed and the development of interventions
57
58
59
60
24
1
2
3
designed to encourage justice perceptions.
4
5
6 We also suggest that attributional studies could also provide insight into an employees
7
8 decision to engage in behaviors that others might deem unjust or unethical. Several studies have
9
10
11
shown that employees willingness to engage in deviant workplace behaviors increases when the
12
13 behavior can be justified as a response to perceived mistreatment (Greenberg, 1990; Mars, 1973,
14
15 1974). For example, Greenberg (1990) found that employees admitted to higher theft levels
16
17
18 during a period when their pay rate was cut by 15%, presumably to adjust their compensation in
19
20 response to the pay cut. Weiner (1995) noted that perceptions of responsibility for this type of
21
22 undesirable outcome are associated with external and controllable attributions. Putting these
23
24
25 pieces of information together, we suggest that factors impacting attributions for negative
26
27 workplace outcomes can also impact the likelihood of a deviant response. While this line of
28
29
reasoning might be difficult to test in a field setting, controlled laboratory experiments in which
30
31
32 deviant behaviors can be discretely monitored (see Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, &
33
34 Bushman, 2004 (Study 5) for an example) could provide an alternative means for examining the
35
36
37 link between attributions and deviant or unethical behavior.
38
39 Related research has suggested that perceptions of abusive supervision and entitlement
40
41 are also influenced by attributional biases. Martinko, Harvey, Sikora and Douglas (2011) found
42
43
44 that employees biased toward external and stable attributions for negative outcomes rated their
45
46 supervisors as more abusive than other employees. More broadly, Harvey and Martinko (2009)
47
48 observed that self-serving attributional biases were associated with psychological entitlement, a
49
50
51 construct that involves inflated self-perceptions and unfulfilled reward expectations that can
52
53 promote perceptions of unjust treatment. Taken together, this research suggests that a number of
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
25
1
2
3
workplace perceptions can be more fully understood by considering them through an
4
5
6 attributional lens.
7
8 Ethics
9
10
11
The relative lack of attributional research concerning unethical behavior is surprising.
12
13 The study of ethics has long recognized the subjective nature of ethical perceptions (e.g., Barnett
14
15 & Karson, 1987), suggesting that a persons belief regarding the cause of an undesirable outcome
16
17
18 is a key factor in shaping ethical judgments. Although ethics researchers recognize that cognitive
19
20 processes are related to ethical judgments (e.g., Bommer, 1997; Trevino & Youngblood, 1990)
21
22 there is almost no research on the role of attributions in the formation of ethicality perceptions.
23
24
25 Thus it appears that scholars studying workplace ethics could benefit by incorporating
26
27 attributional processes into their decision models.
28
29
30
Group and Relational Attributions
31
32 While there has been some research in the area of collective attributions - the
33
34 phenomenon in which members of groups form similar or identical attributions regarding
35
36
37 outcomes that are relevant to the group (e.g., Islam & Hewstone, 1993) - the great majority of
38
39 studies we identified examined attributions at the individual or dyadic levels of analysis. Given
40
41 the consistency with which attributions appear to impact outcome variables at these levels of
42
43
44 analysis, it seems worthwhile to explore the impact of group attributions on group-level
45
46 outcomes such as performance and cohesion.
47
48 This approach seems particularly relevant for organizations that employ group- and team-
49
50
51 based structures in which collective attributions may occur frequently. Research by Islam and
52
53 Hewstone (1993) showed that group members often exhibit self-serving attributional biases that
54
55
56
favor the ethnic groups to which they belong. It seems logical that similar tendencies might bias
57
58
59
60
26
1
2
3
the attributions of employees who identify strongly with their department or other sub-groups,
4
5
6 potentially creating inter-group conflict within organizations. More ominously, it also suggests
7
8 that hiring decisions may be unfairly, if unknowingly, shaped by biased out-group attributions
9
10
11
formed when evaluating candidates (e.g., individuals currently employed at rival companies,
12
13 graduated from rival schools). To our knowledge, this is a facet of group/team research that has
14
15 not been investigated.
16
17
18 Similarly, it is possible that attributional disagreements could arise within groups.
19
20 Although scholars have investigated attributional conflict at the individual level (e.g., Baron,
21
22 1985), it could be informative to investigate group dynamics that can promote or impede intra-
23
24
25 group attributional conflict and the extent to which such conflict is desirable (e.g., in the
26
27 avoidance of group-think).
28
29
Identifying and learning how to manage group-level attributional tendencies could
30
31
32 therefore have significant value for practitioners as well as scholars but research in this area has
33
34 failed to gain traction. We suspect this is due, in part, to the logistical difficulty of measuring and
35
36
37 aggregating the attributions of large numbers of people in response to a specific outcome, as was
38
39 done in Islam and Hewstones (1993) study. We are sympathetic to this concern, but argue that
40
41 valuable knowledge could also be gleaned by studying smaller groups, such as the workplace
42
43
44 teams and departments mentioned above. We also argue that attribution theory, in its present
45
46 state, is well-suited to the study of group attributions. Our meta-analysis has shown consistent
47
48 effects involving the locus of causality and stability dimensions on individual-level outcomes
49
50
51 that either aggregate or are strongly related to group-level outcomes (e.g., individual LMX and
52
53 group-level LMX, individual performance and group performance). Much of the conceptual
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
27
1
2
3
logic and empirical measures used to study these relationships could likely be applied to the
4
5
6 study of social attributions.
7
8 Recent research on relational attributions also suggests that there may be new ways to
9
10
11
conceptualize well-established attributional dimensions in interpersonal contexts. Eberly, Holley,
12
13 Johnson, and Mitchell (2011) suggested that in organizational contexts the locus of causality
14
15 dimension should be thought of in terms of relational attributions as well as internal and external
16
17
18 attributions. As the name implies, relational attributions cite the nature of the relationship
19
20 between two or more people as the cause of an outcome. As an example, Eberly et al. noted that
21
22 employees might attribute negative workplace outcomes to the fact that they do not communicate
23
24
25 well with their supervisors. Such an attribution focuses on the interpersonal dynamic between
26
27 individuals and may provide a more realistic perspective than assuming employees will attribute
28
29
outcomes primarily to themselves (internal) or others (external). This perspective could be
30
31
32 particularly useful in examining the group and team dynamics common in workplace settings.
33
34 Interactive Effects of Leader-Member Attribution Styles
35
36
37 Another area that warrants attention is the interaction of leaders and members
38
39 attribution styles. Attribution styles are stable tendencies to form attributions that reflect specific
40
41 combinations of the attributional dimensions included in this meta-analysis. For example, a
42
43
44 pessimistic attribution style denotes a tendency to form internal and stable attributions for
45
46 negative outcomes whereas a hostile attribution style favors external, stable and controllable
47
48 attributions for such outcomes. Because these are consistent perceptual patterns they can impact
49
50
51 a persons attributions across a range of outcomes and situations (e.g., over time, at multiple
52
53 places of employment).
54
55
56
Building on the seminal article by Green and Mitchell (1979), a later article by Martinko
57
58
59
60
28
1
2
3
and Gardner (1986) proposed that the interactions between leaders and members attribution
4
5
6 styles could predispose them to conflict in their attributions for failure, potentially compromising
7
8 their relationship quality. As far as we know only one study (Martinko et al., 2007) has explored
9
10
11
that proposition and found that the worst leader-member relations existed in conditions where
12
13 leaders had pessimistic styles and subordinates had optimistic styles.
14
15 Conceptually, however, Martinko (2002) noted that 16 different combinations of social
16
17
18 attribution styles involving the locus and stability dimensions could exist between a manager and
19
20 a subordinate. A number of these combinations could potentially promote attributional conflict
21
22 between the two parties. For example, a manager who is biased towards attributing subordinate
23
24
25 success and failure to internal and stable causes (e.g., low employee ability) is likely to conflict
26
27 with subordinates who have external attribution styles and tend to attribute both success and
28
29
failures to environmental causes. Leaders with this type of style may be more likely to fire
30
31
32 poorly performing subordinates as opposed to offering training and development and are likely
33
34 to blame subordinates for problems that are beyond their control.
35
36
37 Kelleys (1967) aforementioned dimensions also appear to be particularly relevant in this
38
39 regard. As discussed, these dimensions are germane to workplace settings that require managers
40
41 to observe the consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness of employees behaviors relative to
42
43
44 other employees. These observations help shape the locus, stability, and controllability of
45
46 attributions (Martinko & Thomson, 1998), and it seems logical that individuals might show
47
48 stable tendencies and biases in forming these attributional observations that influence their
49
50
51 responses to employee behaviors and outcomes. Thus, a manager might demonstrate a tendency
52
53 to assume that undesirable employee behaviors are high in consistency and low in consensus and
54
55
56
distinctiveness. At the individual level, this could take the form of observing one instance of
57
58
59
60
29
1
2
3
employee tardiness and assuming the behavior is typical of this one employee. At the group
4
5
6 level, a manager might observe similar behavior in one member of another department and
7
8 assume it is the norm in that department. Such a tendency could contribute to the well-
9
10
11
documented actor-observer bias (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) that causes observers (e.g., managers) to
12
13 discount situational causes when forming attributions for the performance of others (e.g.,
14
15 employees) at both levels of analysis.
16
17
18 Many other forms of interpersonal attribution style conflict and bias might exist but up to
19
20 this point there has been only limited empirical investigation of how differences in leaders' and
21
22 subordinates' attribution styles interact and affect leader-member relations and subordinate
23
24
25 productivity. This is an area that is ripe for investigation.
26
27 Temporal Effects
28
29
The vast majority of the studies in our sample examined attributions at a single point in
30
31
32 time. Given that the impact of attributions on emotional and behavioral reactions to trigger
33
34 events is generally thought to occur quickly, if not instantaneously (Douglas et al., 2008), these
35
36
37 cross-sectional studies undoubtedly provide useful information. Nevertheless we must also
38
39 recognize that attributions are frequently the result of multiple interactions and observations over
40
41 time. For example, if a supervisor attributes an employees poor performance on a task to lack of
42
43
44 ability but later learns that the employee had been dealing with emotional issues at the time, the
45
46 attribution might change. Conversely, the initial attribution might solidify over time if the
47
48 supervisor selectively ignores information that contradicts the initial conclusion.
49
50
51 To our knowledge there has been little recognition of this reality with the exception of
52
53 Douglas et al.s (2008) description of cognitive knots, which are iterative self-reinforcing
54
55
56
perceptual cycles that are the result of repeated interactions over time. This notion suggests that,
57
58
59
60
30
1
2
3
as a consequence of repeated interactions, attributions become more solidified, affect becomes
4
5
6 more intense, and attitudes become more pronounced over time. Importantly, these cycles begin
7
8 with pre-existing attitudes, which can be either negative or positive, and the study of how these
9
10
11
processes begin, interact, and evolve over time may help explain incidents of organizational
12
13 aggression, attitude formation, and emotional responses. It may also help explain how and why
14
15 polarizing figures such as Steve Jobs (Isaacson, 2011) and Lyndon Johnson (Caro, 1981) have
16
17
18 generated both unwavering loyalty as well as perceptions of abuse among their subordinates.
19
20 Thus, just as a special issue of Academy of Management Review (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence,
21
22 & Tushman, 2001) advocated for temporal research in the organizational sciences, we suggest
23
24
25 that a consideration of the factors that influence attributions over time could provide new insight
26
27 into how workplace relationships and behaviors evolve.
28
29
30
Potential Links to Macro-Level Inquiry
31
32 A recent special issue of Academy of Management Perspectives (Devinney, 2013)
33
34 suggested that researchers might benefit from considering micro-level foundations of macro-
35
36
37 level theories and phenomena. Given that the micro-level construct of attributions influences an
38
39 array of important outcomes, we believe there is potential to leverage insights from attribution
40
41 theory to topics in macro-level sub-fields of management. In particular, we see a need for
42
43
44 attribution theory to be incorporated into research on human capital, strategic human resources,
45
46 top management teams, entrepreneurship, and family business, just to name a few.
47
48 Researchers interested in strategic human resource management (SHRM) study how high
49
50
51 performance work practices (e.g., the use of incentive compensation) and systems (e.g.,
52
53 coordinated sets of practices) shape performance (Combs et al., 2006). Recent research suggests
54
55
56
that practices and systems shape performance through their effects on human capital and
57
58
59
60
31
1
2
3
employee motivation (Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). We expect that the skills people acquire
4
5
6 are related to the attributions they make. For example, employees who make internal and stable
7
8 attributions for failures during training can develop learned helplessness, which reduces their
9
10
11
effort in learning the new skill (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). In addition, employee
12
13 motivation is, in part, determined by the attributions made about superiors and organizational
14
15 intentions (e.g., Campbell & Martinko, 1998). To the extent that this is true, a key implication for
16
17
18 future SHRM research is that attribution theory should be leveraged to shed additional light into
19
20 human capital, motivation, and how positive and/or negative attributions shape performance.
21
22 In addition, organizations have long been viewed as a reflection of their top management
23
24
25 teams (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). The vast majority of attribution theory research that we
26
27 included in our meta-analysis has involved middle level managers, supervisors, and/or front line
28
29
employees (see Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006; Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987;
30
31
32 Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004; and Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001, for
33
34 notable exceptions). However, it seems likely that employees at these levels might make
35
36
37 different attributions than top managers and might make different attributions based upon where
38
39 others reside in an organization. For example, feeling that something is within ones control or
40
41 internally versus externally determined could largely be a function of ones position and level
42
43
44 within an organization. Meindl and Ehrlich (1987) provided evidence that attributions are shaped
45
46 by the level at which the attributions are being ascribed to, such that leaders appear to have
47
48 stronger halo effects when compared to peers. Thus, we see strong potential to leverage
49
50
51 insights from attribution theory across numerous levels of organizations. Although this might be
52
53 a daunting challenge, we suspect that multilevel research would help shed additional light on
54
55
56
either the explanatory power or boundary conditions of attribution theory.
57
58
59
60
32
1
2
3
Relatedly, there have been a few studies relating top management team attributions for
4
5
6 organizational performance, albeit not enough to include in our meta-analysis. Bowman (1976,
7
8 1978, 1984), Salancik and Meindl (1984), and Bettman and Weitz (1983) all analyzed the
9
10
11
attributions CEOs made in corporate annual reports. However, a review of these studies
12
13 indicates that, for the most part, they primarily consider the locus of causality, stability and
14
15 controllability dimensions. As a group they do not cite or consider Kelleys dimensions of
16
17
18 information and make only cursory references to the implications of attributions which Weiner
19
20 (1986) articulated. More fully integrating the major theoretical dimensions and dynamics of
21
22 attribution theory from the Kelley and Weiner perspectives has the potential to considerably
23
24
25 expand both the utility and predictive capacities of research on top management team attribution
26
27 processes.
28
29
Attribution theory also has seemingly important theoretical implications for the field of
30
31
32 entrepreneurship. A dominant theme of entrepreneurship research is determining predictors of
33
34 new venture success. Much of this literature focuses on the role of cognition (Baron, 1998;
35
36
37 Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000) but attribution theory has been relatively neglected in this line
38
39 of research. The entrepreneurial research that does consider attribution theory suggests that
40
41 entrepreneurs are more susceptible to self-serving biases than non-entrepreneurs (Baron, 1998;
42
43
44 Gartner, Shaver, & Liao, 2008). This suggests that entrepreneurs have a greater tendency to
45
46 display attribution styles that attribute successful ventures to their own abilities and efforts and
47
48 failed ventures to external sources. Understanding these attributions can empower entrepreneurs
49
50
51 (Rogoff, Lee, & Suh, 2004). For instance, if entrepreneurs can move away from their tendency to
52
53 externalize failure, they may be able to learn from that experience and change their behavior in
54
55
56
future ventures.
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
3
Attribution theory also may show promise in the context of family firms. In the US alone,
4
5
6 there are 5.5 million family firms, accounting for 63% of employment, 57% of the GDP, and
7
8 75% of new job creation (Kinkade, 2011). Attribution theory has been suggested as a relevant
9
10
11
theoretical lens to investigate succession planning processes and incumbent readiness
12
13 perceptions in family firms (e.g., Sharma, Chua, & Chrisman, 2000; Sharma & Rao, 2000). The
14
15 theory also appears useful as a vehicle for explaining individual behavior within family
16
17
18 businesses. Family firm research often neglects to consider nonfamily employees of the family
19
20 business or to investigate the differences between family and nonfamily employees (Madison &
21
22 Kellermanns, 2013). It may be that these employee types make different attributions regarding
23
24
25 workplace outcomes, thus resulting in different behavioral outcomes. Accordingly, we encourage
26
27 research that considers the role of attribution theory within the realm of family business.
28
29
30
Concluding Thoughts
31
32 This meta-analysis reinforces existing arguments for the use of attribution theory in
33
34 organizational research and hopefully addresses the concerns of those who have been skeptical.
35
36
37 The social psychology literature has shown that the explanatory potential of attributions applies
38
39 to almost every domain of human behavior and it appears that workplace behavior is no
40
41 exception to this conclusion (Weiner, 2004). The theorys underutilization in organizational
42
43
44 research presents scholars with numerous avenues for productive research as we catch up with
45
46 our colleagues in the field of psychology. We hope that organizational scholars will benefit from
47
48 the perspective we offer, and, in the future, include attributional processes in their studies so that
49
50
51 we can arrive at more complete understandings of the dynamics of organizational behavior.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
34
1
2
3
REFERENCES
4
5
6 Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
7
8 Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
9
10
11
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Wright, T. A. (2011). Best-practice recommendations for
12
13 estimating interaction effects using meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
14
15 1033-1043.
16
17
18 Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research
19
20 lens. Academy of Management Review, 26, 645-663.
21
22 Aquino, K., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt expressions of anger in response to
23
24
25 perceived victimization: The moderating effects of attributional style, hierarchical status, and
26
27 organizational norms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 152-164.
28
29
Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2001). Conducting meta-analysis using SAS.
30
31
32 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33
34 Ashkanasy, N. M. (1989). Causal attributions and supervisors' response to subordinate performance:
35
36
37 The Green and Mitchell model revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 309-
38
39 330.
40
41 Ashkanasy, N. M. (1995). Supervisory attributions and evaluative judgments of subordinate
42
43
44 performance: A further test of the Green and Mitchell model. In M.J. Martinko (Ed.),
45
46 Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective, (pp. 211-228). Delray Beach, FL:
47
48 St. Lucie Press.
49
50
51 Barnett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1987). Personal values and business decisions: An exploratory
52
53 investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 371-382.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
35
1
2
3
Baron, R.A. (1985). Reducing organizational conflict: The role of attributions. Journal of Applied
4
5
6 Psychology, 70, 434-441.
7
8 Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs
9
10
11
think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 275-294.
12
13 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions: A meta-analysis.
14
15 Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
16
17
18 Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (attribution)-emotion model of violence in
19
20 conflict situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 343-350.
21
22 Bettman, J., & Weitz, B. (1983). Attributions in the boardroom: Causal reasoning in
23
24
25 corporate annual reports. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 165-183.
26
27 Bowman, E. (1976). Strategy and the weather. Sloan Management Review, 15, 35-50.
28
29
Bowman, E. (1978). Strategy, annual reports, and alchemy. California Management Review, 20, 64-
30
31
32 71.
33
34 Bowman, E. (1984). Content analysis of annual reports for corporate strategy and risk. Interfaces,
35
36
37 14, 61-71.
38
39 Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A behavioral model of ethical
40
41 and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 265-280.
42
43
44 Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
45
46 Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report
47
48 measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29-45.
49
50
51 Campbell, C. R., & Swift, C. O. (2006). Attributional comparisons across biases and leader
52
53 member exchange status. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 393-408.
54
55
56
Campbell, C. R. & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An integrative attributional perspective of
57
58
59
60
36
1
2
3
empowerment and learned helplessness: A multi-method field study. Journal of
4
5
6 Management, 24, 173-200.
7
8 Caro, R. A. (1981). The Path to Power (The years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 1). New York:
9
10
11
Vintage Books.
12
13 Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
14
15 analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
16
17
18 Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. J. (2006). How much do high-performance work
19
20 practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance.
21
22 Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528.
23
24
25 Crook, T. R., Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr., D. J., & Aguinis, H. (2013). Organizing around
26
27 transaction costs: What have we learned and where do we go from here? Academy of
28
29
Management Perspectives, 27, 63-79.
30
31
32 Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J. (2011). Does human
33
34 capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm
35
36
37 performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 443-456.
38
39 Devinney, T. M. (2013). Is microfoundational thinking critical to management thought and
40
41 practice? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 81-84.
42
43
44 Douglas, S. C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Kim. Y., & Chun, J. (2008).
45
46 Cognitions, emotions and evaluations: An elaboration likelihood model for workplace
47
48 aggression. Academy of Management Review, 33, 425-451.
49
50
51 Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the
52
53 prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 547-559.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
37
1
2
3
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and
4
5
6 organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379-1391.
7
8 Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Liao, J. J. (2008). Opportunities as attributions: Categorizing
9
10
11
strategic issues from an attributional perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2,
12
13 301-315.
14
15 Gernster, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member-exchange theory:
16
17
18 Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 824-844.
19
20 Green, S. G. & Liden, R. C. (1980). Contextual and attributional influences on control decisions.
21
22 Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 453-458.
23
24
25 Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member
26
27 interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.
28
29
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequality: The hidden
30
31
32 cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
33
34 Hall, N. C., Hladkyi, S., Perry, R. P., & Ruthig, J. C. (2004). The role of attributional retraining and
35
36
37 elaborative learning in college students academic development. Journal of Social
38
39 Psychology, 114, 591-612.
40
41 Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
42
43
44 managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.
45
46 Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in
47
48 psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
49
50
51 459-476.
52
53 Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
38
1
2
3
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain?
4
5
6 A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555-566.
7
8 Huff, A. & Schwenk, C. (1990). Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad. In A.S. Huff (Ed.),
9
10
11
Mapping Strategic Thought (pp. 85 - 108). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
12
13 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
14
15 Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
16
17
18 Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster, New York.
19
20 Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective consequences in
21
22 majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 936-950.
23
24
25 Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management
26
27 influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating
28
29
mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1264-1294.
30
31
32 Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of motives
33
34 as mediators of the relationships between individuals reputations, helpful behaviors, and
35
36
37 raters reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 808-815.
38
39 Jones, E. E. & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the
40
41 causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins,
42
43
44 & B. Weiner. (Eds.). Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, 79-94.
45
46 Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits self-esteem,
47
48 generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability with job satisfaction and
49
50
51 job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.
52
53 Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska
54
55
56
Symposium on Motivation, (Vol. 15). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
57
58
59
60
39
1
2
3
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attributions in Social Interaction. New York: General Learning Press.
4
5
6 Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
7
8 Kinkade, A. (2011). How Mom and Pop can save the economy, The Hill. Retrieved from
9
10
11
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/166277-how-mom-and-pop-
12
13 can-save-the-economy
14
15 Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
16
17
18 intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.
19
20 Lord, R.G. (1995). An alternative perspective on attributional processes. In M. Martinko (Ed.)
21
22 Attribution theory: An Organizational Perspective, pp. 333-350. Delray Beach, FL.: St.
23
24
25 Lucie Press.
26
27 Madison, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2013). Is the spiritual bond bound by blood? An
28
29
exploratory study of spiritual leadership in family firms. Journal of Management,
30
31
32 Spirituality & Religion, 1-24.
33
34 Mars, G. (1973). Chance, punters, and the fiddle: Institutionalized pilferage in a hotel
35
36
37 dining room. In M. Warner (Ed.), The Sociology of the Workplace (pp. 200-210).
38
39 New York: Halsted Press.
40
41 Mars, G. (1974). Dock pilferage: A case study in occupational theft. In P. Rock & M.
42
43
44 McIntosh (Eds.), Deviance and Social Control (pp. 209-228). London: Tavistock
45
46 Institute.
47
48 Martinko, M. J. (Ed.) (1995). Attribution theory: An Organizational Perspective. Delray Beach, FL:
49
50
51 St. Lucie Press.
52
53 Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., Ford, R., & Gundlach, M. J. (2004). Dues paying: A theoretical
54
55
56
explication and conceptual model. Journal of Management, 30, 49-69.
57
58
59
60
40
1
2
3
Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Harvey, P. (2006). Attribution theory in industrial and
4
5
6 organizational psychology: A review. In G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford (Eds.),
7
8 International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21. (pp. 127-
9
10
11
187). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
12
13 Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader-member attribution process. Academy of
14
15 Management Review, 12, 235-249.
16
17
18 Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J., & Mackey, J. (2013). Abusive supervision: A review and
19
20 alternative perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120-S137.
21
22 Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive
23
24
25 supervision: The role of attribution style. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561-585.
26
27 Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the organizational
28
29
sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 144-149.
30
31
32 Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contributions of
33
34 attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561-585.
35
36
37 Martinko, M., Moss, S., Douglas, S., & Borkowski, N. (2007). Anticipating the inevitable: When
38
39 leader and member attribution styles clash. Organizational Behavior and Human
40
41 Decision Processes,104, 158-174.
42
43
44 Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelley
45
46 attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 271-284.
47
48 Mitchell, T. (1982). Attributions and Actions: A note of caution. Journal of Management, 8, 65-74.
49
50
51 Reisenzein, R., & Rudolph, U. (2008). The discovery of common-sense psychology. Social
52
53 Psychology, 39, 125-133.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
41
1
2
3
Rogoff, E. G., Lee, M. S., & Suh, D. C. (2004). Who done it? Attributions by entrepreneurs
4
5
6 and experts of the factors that cause and impede small business success. Journal of
7
8 Small Business Management, 42, 364-376.
9
10
11
Salancik, G., & Meindl, J. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of management
12
13 control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 238-254.
14
15 Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned Optimism. New York: Pocket Books.
16
17
18 Sharma, P., & Rao, A. S. (2000). Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family firms: A
19
20 comparative study. Family Business Review, 13, 313-330.
21
22 Sharma, P., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2000). Perceptions about the extent of succession
23
24
25 planning in Canadian family firms. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17,
26
27 233-244.
28
29
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and unsuccessful
30
31
32 performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between performance
33
34 and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 286-299.
35
36
37 Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F. M., Anderson, N. R., & Mohamed, A. R. (2002). Locus of control,
38
39 attributions and impression management in the selection interview. Journal of Occupational
40
41 and Organizational Psychology, 75, 59-76.
42
43
44 Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB):
45
46 An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342-352.
47
48 Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
49
50
51 analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
52
53 Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of
54
55
56
ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378-385.
57
58
59
60
42
1
2
3
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the
4
5
6 Causes of Success and Failure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
7
8 Staw, Barry M. (1975). Attribution of the 'cause' of performance - a general alternative interpretation
9
10
11
of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
12
13 Performance, 13, 414-432.
14
15 Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
16
17
18 Review, 92, 548-573.
19
20 Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-
21
22 Verlag.
23
24
25 Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct.
26
27 New York: Guilford Press.
28
29
Weiner, B. (2004). Social motivation and moral emotions: An attributional perspective. In M. J.
30
31
32 Martinko (Ed.) Attribution Theory in the Organizational Sciences: Theoretical and
33
34 Empirical Contributions, 5-24. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
35
36
37 Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of
38
39 Impression management on attributions and disciplinary action. Organizational Behavior
40
41 and Human Performance, 28, 356-378.
42
43
44 Xenikou, A. (2005). The interactive effect of positive and negative occupational attributional styles
45
46 on job motivation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 43-58.
47
48 Zalensy, M. D., & Graen, G. B. (1987). Exchange theory in leadership research. In A. Kieser, G.
49
50
51 Reber, & R. Wanderer (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership (pp. 714-727). Stuttgart, Germany:
52
53 C.E., Paeschel, Verlag.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
43
1
2
3
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or The motivational bias is alive
4
5
6 and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
44
1
2
3
Table 1: Attribution and Workplace Outcome Results
4
5
6 Attributional Relationship N K Corrected Effect ( rc )
7
8
9 Locus of Causality-Undesirable Affect 1672 13 -.16
10 Locus of Causality-Desirable Affect 2077 13 .13
11 Locus of Causality-Unfavorable Performance 2800 14 .10
12 Locus of Causality-Favorable Performance 2042 14 .21
13
14
Locus of Causality-Unfavorable LMX 1385 5 -.12
15 Locus of Causality-Favorable LMX 923 7 .07 (ns)
16 Locus of Causality-Punishment Intentions 1413 5 -.15
17 Locus of Causality-Reward Intentions 1342 7 -.01 (ns)
18
19
Stability-Undesirable Affect 192 4 .13 (ns)
20
21 Stability-Desirable Affect 776 7 -.13
22 Stability-Favorable Performance 276 4 -.35
23 Stability-Unfavorable LMX 2090 7 .10
24 Stability-Favorable LMX 267 4 -.17 (ns)
25
26
27
Controllability-Undesirable Affect 1569 5 -.35
28 Controllability-Desirable Affect 98 2 .16 (ns)
29 Controllability-Unfavorable Performance 406 2 .03 (ns)
30 Controllability-Unfavorable LMX 1143 4 -.09
31
32
33
34
35 Table Notes: We ran a meta-analysis for each attributional relationship. High scores for locus of
36 causality and for controllability suggest more external and less controllable. High scores for
37 stability suggest more stability (and thus, less ability to change situation). N depicts aggregate
38
39
number of primary study observations while K is the number of primary studies that effects were
40 drawn from. The Corrected Effects ( rc ) were computed by taking the sample-size weighted
41 effects across the primary studies and then correcting those effects for measurement error.
42 Significance tests take into account N, K, and variance (Arthur, Bennett, & Huffcutt, 2001).
43
44 When the confidence interval does not contain a zero, there is evidence suggesting a significant
45 positive or negative relationship (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). All relationships are significant at p
46 < .05 unless noted (ns).
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Appendix A - List of Primary Studies 45

1
2
3
Author(s), Year Source Author(s), Year Source
4
5
6 Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001 JAP Lee & Tiedens, 2001 OBHDP
7 Arnold, 1985 AMJ Leslie, Manchester, Partk, & Mehng, 2012 AMJ
8 Barker & Patterson, 1996 GOM Levy, Cawly, & Foti, 1998 JBP
9 Barker & Barr, 2002 JBR Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, 2011 LQ
10 Campbell & Martinko, 1998 JOM
11 Michalisin, Karau, & Tangpong, 2004 JBR
12 Chao, Cheung, & Wu, 2011 IJHRM Mitchell & Kalb, 1981 JAP
13 Curren, Folkes, & Steckel, 1992 JOMK Norris & Niebuhr, 1984 AMJ
14 De Faria & Yoder, 1997 JASP Parsons & Herold, 1985 JAP
15 Dixon, Spiro, & Jamil, 2001 JOMK Ployhart & Ryan, 1997 OBHDP
16
Dobbins & Russell, 1986 JOM Poposki, 2011 GOM
17
18 Dorfman & Stephan, 1984 JOM Porac, Ferris, & Fedor, 1983 AMJ
19 Ellis, Ilgen, & Hollenbeck, 2006 SGR Porac, Nottenburg, & Eggert, 1981 JAP
20 Ferris, Yates, Gilmore, & Rowland, 1985 PP Prussia, Kinicki, & Bracker, 1993 JAP
21 Fragale, Rosen, Xu, & Merideth, 2009 OBHDP Quinones, 1995 JAP
22
Friedman, Liu, Chen, & Chi, 2007 JAP Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995 OBHDP
23
24 Garland & Price, 1977 JAP Stevens & DeNisi, 1980 AMJ
25 Goncalves, Da Silva, Lima, & Melia, 2008 SS Sue-Chan, Chen, & Lam, 2011 GOM
26 Green & Liden, 1980 JAP Tagger & Neubert, 2004 PP
27 Groth, Goldman, Gilliland, & Bies, 2002 JAP Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006 JAP
28 Hess, Ganesan, & Klein, 2007 JOR
29 Thomas & Ravlin, 1995 JAP
30 Hogan, 1987 AMJ Thomas & Mathieu, 1994 JAP
31 Homsma et al., 2007 JBP Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2009 JPART
32 Huning & Thomson, 2011 JOCCC
33 Jackson & LePine, 2003 JAP
34
Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002 JAP
35
36 a
Sources are abbreviated as follows: (AMJ) Academy of Management Journal; (GOM) Group & Organization Management;
37
(IJHRM) International Journal of Human Resource Management; (JAP) Journal of Applied Psychology; (JASP) Journal of
38 Applied Social Psychology; (JBP) Journal of Business and Psychology; (JBR) Journal of Business Research; (JOCCC) Journal of
39 Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict; (JOM) Journal of Management; (JOMK) Journal of Marketing; (JOR)
40 Journal of Retailing; (JPART) Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory; (LQ) Leadership Quarterly; (OBHDP)
41 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes; (PP) Personnel Psychology; (SGR) Small Group Research; (SS) Safety
42 Science.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
46
1
2
3
Appendix B Description of Studies and Method
4
5
6
7
8 To identify attributional studies published in journals in the organizational sciences, we
9
10 used the technique described by Martinko et al. (2011), which involved a keyword search of the
11
12
ScienceDirect database with search results limited to the Business, management, and
13
14
15 accounting category of the database.
16
17 The studies were classified first by the antecedents described earlier (i.e., dimensions of
18
19
20
locus, stability, or controllability) and then by outcome variable. Within each attributional
21
22 dimension category, outcome variables were placed into one of four groups. The first, labeled
23
24 Affect, consisted of outcomes related to emotional or attitudinal outcomes (e.g., discrete
25
26
27 emotions, satisfaction). The second category, Performance, consists of studies that investigated
28
29 performance outcomes of attributions. The third category, Leader-Member Evaluations, includes
30
31 measure of subordinates perceptions of their relationship with a supervisor (e.g., LMX,
32
33
34 conflict). The final category was labeled Reward/Punishment Decisions, and includes studies
35
36 that measured supervisors decisions or intentions to reward or punish subordinates.
37
38
The studies were also separated into two broad groups depending on the positive or
39
40
41 negative nature of the attributional trigger event. As Martinko and Gardner (1987) noted,
42
43 individuals typically form more frequent and more detailed attributions in response to negative
44
45
46 triggers. For this reason we examined the effects of both types of trigger events separately. This
47
48 was also done for practical reasons, given that the causal relationships between attributions and
49
50 outcomes often run in opposing directions depending on whether the attribution is in response to
51
52
53 a positive or negative trigger. Separating the two types of studies therefore prevents opposing
54
55 effects from cancelling each other out in the analysis.
56
57 Meta-analysis was then used to aggregate the evidence. This technique synthesizes the
58
59
60
47
1
2
3
available evidence to obtain the best possible estimate of the direction and strength of
4
5
6 relationships (Crook et al., 2013). We followed the analytical procedures of the Hunter and
7
8 Schmidt (2004). For the first step in our approach, we obtained effects and sample sizes from
9
10
11
each primary study outlined in Appendix A. Effects included bivariate correlations between the
12
13 constructs of interest, such as attributions (e.g., locus of causality) and outcomes (e.g.,
14
15 performance), and the sample sizes included the number of individuals included in each primary
16
17
18 study. Second, we computed the mean sample size weighted correlation (i.e., r ), and then we
19
20 corrected for measurement error (i.e., unreliability) using a correction factor of .80 to obtain rc ;
21
22
23 this correction is recommended for meta-analyses that rely on primary studies that do not report
24
25 all reliability coefficients (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Wright, 2011).
26
27
All studies were coded such that a high attributional score indicated external (as opposed
28
29
30 to internal), stable (as opposed to unstable), and controllable (as opposed to uncontrollable)
31
32 attributions. For the outcome categories, each study was coded such that a high score denoted a
33
34
35
negative or undesirable level of the variable (e.g., high aggression). This coding scheme was
36
37 used as it was consistent with the pre-existing schemes used in the majority of the studies.
38
39 An exception to this coding scheme was applied to the locus dimension for studies in the
40
41
42 reward/punishment category that generally investigate social attributions as opposed to self-
43
44 attributions. To investigate reward and punishment decisions, these studies typically assess
45
46 supervisors attributions for the performance of another person (i.e., the subordinate) as opposed
47
48
49 to attributions for ones own performance. For these studies, correlations were coded so that
50
51 lower scores still denote internal attributions but in these cases they are internal to the employee,
52
53
54
not to the observer.
55
56
57
58
59
60
48
1
2
3
Author Biographies
4
5
6 Paul Harvey has a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Florida State University and is an
7 associate professor of management at the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul college of
8 Business and Economics.
9
10
11
Kristen Kincy Madison is completing her Ph.D. in Organizations and Strategy at The
12 University of Tennessee, Knoxville and has accepted a position as an Assistant Professor of
13 Management at Mississippi State University.
14
15 Mark J. Martinko earned his Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska. He is a Professor of
16
Management at the UQ Business School, University of Queensland and a Professor Emeritus at
17
18 Florida State University. His work focuses on the development and application of attribution
19 theory in the organizational sciences.
20
21 T. Russell Crook earned his Ph.D. at Florida State University. He is an Associate Professor of
22 Management at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His work focuses on evidence-based
23
24
management, non-market strategy, and strategic supply chain management.
25
26 Tamara A. Crook holds a PhD in accounting from Florida State University. She is a Lecturer of
27 Accounting at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is also the grand niece of Harold
28 Kelly, one of the pioneers in Attribution Theory.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Attribution Theory

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Attribution Theory

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Academy of Management Perspectives

ATTRIBUTION THEORY IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL

Journal: Academy of Management Perspectives

Manuscript ID: AMP-2012-0175-A.R3

Document Type: Article

Attribution < Managerial and Organizational Cognition < Topic Areas,

Appendix A - List of Primary Studies 45

Potrebbero piacerti anche