172 Part Two Cognitive Processes of Organizational Behavior
For example, one study found a significant relationship between losing final-offer salary arbi-tration and postarbiarbi-tration performance decline. The ballplayers who were losers in arbitra-tion were also significantly more likely to change teams or leave major league baseball.46In another study of baseball and basketball players, it was found that the underrewarded players behaved less cooperatively.47This type of equity theory development and research goes beyond expectancy theory as a cognitive explanation of work motivation and serves as a point of departure for more specialized areas of current interest such as organizational justice.
The Relationship between Equity Theory and Organizational
Chapter 6 Motivational Needs, Processes, and Applications 173
effort-reward fairness perform better and are more satisfied than those who feel underre-warded and unfairly treated.54Another study used social exchange theory to differentiate interactional justice from procedural justice. Whereas procedural justice is the exchange between the employee and the employing organization, interactional justice is between individuals (e.g., the employee and the supervisor). The research supported the exchange theory predictions.55There is also some evidence that such interactional justice may not be as predictive as other justice perceptions. For example, a recent study found that manager trustworthiness was more predictive of organizational citizenship behaviors (covered in the last chapter) than was interactional justice.56Other recent studies focusing on procedural justice have found importance in being allowed the opportunity to voice an opinion on per-ceptions of fairness57and in the effects of group membership and status (i.e., one’s social standing) on perceptions of fairness.58In particular, it was found in this latter study that procedural injustice was not perceived by all who observed it (in this case judges and attor-neys did not perceive bias against female attorattor-neys). Finally, a recent study moved to the level of overall justice climate (procedural, informational, and interpersonal) and found it related to various work outcomes (commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behaviors).59 In total, with equity theory serving as the foundation, the various dimensions of organi-zational justice play an important role in many dynamics and outcomes of organiorgani-zational behavior. Organizational justice can help explain why employees retaliate against both inequitable outcomes and inappropriate processes. For example, retaliation in the form of theft, sabotage, forged time cards, and even violence toward the boss or owner can be explained using the principles of organizational justice.60On a positive note, besides all the findings summarized above, a recent study found that there is a trickle-down effect from organizational justice. Employees’ perceptions of fairness not only positively affect their attitudes and performance, but also influence their fair treatment behaviors toward cus-tomers, which in turn cause the customers to react positively to both the employee and the organization.61In other words, organizational justice pays off not only for employees, but also for customers and the bottom line.
Attribution Theory
Another contemporary theory of work motivation is attribution theory. Attribution refers simply to how people explain the cause of another’s or their own behavior. Like equity the-ory, it is the cognitive process by which people draw conclusions about the factors that influence, or make sense of, one another’s behavior.62There are two general types of attri-butions that people make: dispositional attriattri-butions, which ascribe a person’s behavior to internal factors such as personality traits, motivation, or ability, and situational attribu-tions, which attribute a person’s behavior to external factors such as equipment or social influence from others.63In recent years, attribution theories have been playing an increas-ingly important role in organizational behavior and human resource management.64An examination of the various theories, types, and errors of attribution can contribute to an understanding as work motivation and organizational behavior in general.
An Overview of the Theory
Attribution theory is concerned with the relationship between personal social perception (covered in the last chapter) and interpersonal behavior. There are a number of attribution theories, but they share the following assumptions:
1. We seek to make sense of our world.
2. We often attribute people’s actions either to internal or external causes.
3. We do so in fairly logical ways.65
174 Part Two Cognitive Processes of Organizational Behavior
Well-known social psychologist Harold Kelley stressed that attribution theory is con-cerned mainly with the cognitive processes by which an individual interprets behavior as being caused by (or attributed to) certain parts of the relevant environment. It is concerned with the “why” questions of work motivation and organizational behavior. Because most causes, attributes, and “whys” are not directly observable, the theory says that people must depend on cognitions, particularly perception. The attribution theorist assumes that humans are rational and are motivated to identify and understand the causal structure of their rele-vant environment. It is this search for attributes that characterizes attribution theory and helps explain work motivation.
As shown earlier in Figure 6.2, attribution theory has its roots in all the pioneering cog-nitive theorists’ work (for example, that of Lewin and Festinger), in de Charmes’s ideas on cognitive evaluation, and in Bem’s notion of “self-perception,” the theory’s initiator is gen-erally recognized to be Fritz Heider. Heider believed that both internal forces (personal attributes such as ability, effort, and fatigue) and external forces (environmental attributes such as rules and the weather) combine additively to determine behavior. He stressed that it is the perceived, not the actual, determinants that are important to behavior (see the dis-cussion of perception in Chapter 5). People will behave differently if they perceive internal attributes than they will if they perceive external attributes. It is this concept of differential ascriptions that has very important implications for motivation and organizational behavior in general.
Locus of Control Attributions
Using locus of control, work behavior may be explained by whether employees perceive their outcomes as controlled internally or externally. Employees who perceive internal con-trol feel that they personally can influence their outcomes through their own ability, skills, or effort. Employees who perceive external control feel that their outcomes are beyond their own control; they feel that external forces such as luck or task difficulty control their outcomes. This perceived locus of control may have a differential impact on their motiva-tion to perform. For example, classic studies by well-known social psychologist Julian Rotter found that skill versus chance environments differentially affect behavior. In addi-tion, a number of studies have been conducted over the years to test the attribution theory-locus-of-control model in work settings. One study found that internally controlled employees are generally more satisfied with their jobs, are more likely to be in managerial positions, and are more satisfied with a participatory management style than employees who perceive external control.66Other studies have found that internally controlled man-agers are better performers,67 are more considerate of subordinates,68 tend not to burn out,69follow a more strategic style of executive action,70have improved attitudes over a long period of time following promotions,71and present the most positive impression in a recruiting interview.72In addition, the attribution process has been shown to play a role in coalition formation in the political process of organizations. In particular, coalition mem-bers made stronger internal attributions, such as ability and desire, and nonmemmem-bers made stronger external attributions, such as luck.73
The implication of these studies and many others is that internally controlled managers are somehow better than externally controlled managers. However, such generalizations are not yet warranted because there is some contradictory evidence. For example, one study concluded that the ideal manager may have an external orientation because the results indi-cated that externally controlled managers were perceived as initiating more structure and consideration than internally controlled managers.74 In addition to the implications for managerial behavior and performance, attribution theory has been shown to have relevance in explaining goal-setting behavior,75 group performance,76 leadership behavior,77 poor
Chapter 6 Motivational Needs, Processes, and Applications 175
employee performance,78 and employee interpretations of human resource practices that affect their satisfaction and commitment.79However, like other constructs in organizational behavior, attribution is now undergoing considerable refinement in the research literature.
For example, studies have found that (1) attributions about poor performance are mediated by how responsible the employee is judged to be and how much sympathy the evaluator feels,80and (2) leaders providing feedback to poor performers is significantly affected by the performance attributions that are made.81A review article concludes that locus of con-trol is related to the performance and satisfaction of organization members and may mod-erate the relationship between motivation and incentives.82
In addition, attributions are related to organizational symbolism, which in effect says that in order to understand organizations, one must recognize their symbolic nature.83 Much of organization is based on attributions rather than physical or observed realities under this view.84For example, research has found that symbols are a salient source of information used by people in forming their impressions of psychological climate.85 Other Attributions
Attribution theory obviously contributes a great deal to the better understanding of work motivation and organizational behavior. However, other dimensions besides the internal and external locus of control also need to be accounted for and studied. Bernard Weiner, for example, suggested that a stability (fixed or variable) dimension must also be recognized.86 Experienced employees will probably have a stable internal attribution about their abilities but an unstable internal attribution concerning effort. By the same token, these employees may have a stable external attribution about task difficulty but an unstable external attribu-tion about luck.
Besides the stability dimension, Kelley suggests that dimensions such as consensus (do others act this way in this situation?), consistency (does this person act this way in this sit-uation at other times?), and distinctiveness (does this person act differently in other situa-tions?) will affect the type of attributions that are made.87Figure 6.6 shows how this type of information affects the attributes that are made in evaluating employee behavior. To keep these dimensions straight, it can be remembered that consensus relates to other people, dis-tinctiveness relates to other tasks, and consistency relates to time.88As shown in Figure 6.6, if there is high consensus, low consistency, and high distinctiveness, then attribution to external or situational/environmental causes will probably be made. The external attribu-tion may be that the task is too difficult or that outside pressures from home or coworkers are hindering performance. However, if there is low consensus, high consistency, and low distinctiveness, then attributions to internal or personal causes for the behavior will proba-bly be made. The supervisor making an internal attribution may conclude that the associate just doesn’t have the ability, or is not giving the necessary effort, or does not have the moti-vation to perform well. There is some research evidence from field settings to directly sup-port predictions from the Kelley model.89
In addition to Kelley, other well-known theorists, such as Weiner, use attribution theory to help explain achievement motivation and to predict subsequent changes in performance and how people feel about themselves.90 Some research findings from Weiner’s work include the following:
1. Bad-luck attributions (external) take the sting out of a negative outcome, but good-luck attributions (external) reduce the joy associated with success.
2. When individuals attribute their success to internal rather than external factors, they have higher expectations for future success, report a greater desire for achievement, and set higher performance goals.91
176 Part Two Cognitive Processes of Organizational Behavior
Attribution Errors
Social psychologists recognize two potent biases when people make attributions. The first is called the fundamental attribution error. Research has found that people tend to ignore powerful situational forces when explaining others’ behavior.92 People tend to attribute others’ behavior to personal factors (for example, intelligence, ability, motivation, atti-tudes, or personality), even when it is very clear that the situation or circumstances caused the person to behave the way he or she did.
Another attribution bias that has emerged from the research is that people tend to pre-sent themselves favorably. This self-serving bias has been found in study after study; people readily accept credit when told they have succeeded (attributing the success to their ability and effort), yet often attribute failure to such external, situational factors as bad luck or the problem’s inherent “impossibility.93 For example, in explaining their victories, athletes commonly credit themselves, but they are more likely to attribute losses to something else—bad breaks, poor officiating, or the other team’s superior effort.94
Internal (personal
factors) Coworkers are also performing
poorly on this task.
The associate does not do well on this task during only
one time period.
Coworkers are performing very well on this task.
The associate does not do well on this task at any time.
The associate does poorly on other tasks as
well as this one.
The associate does well on other tasks, but not this one.
High consensus
Low consistency
High distinctiveness
Low consensus
High consistency
Low distinctiveness
External (situational or environmental
factors) Attribution
Made Type of Information/
Observation Example of Organizational
Behavior (poor performance of an associate)
FIGURE 6.6 Kelley’s Model of Attribution
Chapter 6 Motivational Needs, Processes, and Applications 177
When something goes wrong in the workplace, there is a tendency for the manager to blame the problem on the inability or poor attitude of associates, but the situation is blamed as far as he or she personally is concerned. The reverse is true of associates. They blame the situation for their difficulties but make a personal attribution in terms of their manager. By the same token, if something goes well, the manager makes personal attributions for him- or herself and situational attributions for associates, and the associates make personal attribu-tions for themselves but situational attribuattribu-tions for the manager. In other words, it is typical to have conflicting attributional biases among managers and associates in organizations.95 As a way of creating more productive relationships, theorists and researchers suggest that efforts must be made to reduce divergent perceptions and perspectives among the parties through increased interpersonal interaction, open communication channels and workshops, and team-building sessions devoted to reducing attributional errors.96Although Martinko, in his book on Attribution Theory, demonstrates the validity and potential of attributional perspectives within an organizational context, theoretical, information processing, and situ-ational factors all affect the attribution models of organizsitu-ational behavior.97 Despite this complexity, attribution theory does seem to have considerable potential for application and relevance, instead of being a purely academic exercise in theory building.