Organization behavior Essay

ascription theory an key tool for correspondence and managing goal oriented government behaviors. Attribution theory is known as the effective way which helps us to assume that peoples behaviour is caused by sexual or external situational factors. This leaven is going to discuss round the key elements of ascription theory and the relationship amid them. In addition, the way of attribution theory cognitive operation manoeuvers in organizations be also mentioned. Also it considered how attribution theory implements in organizations as an effective tool which can help leaders to attribute employees behaviours and workplace outcomes.This show reviewed some famous articles in attribution theory and psychology fields and abstracted relative points to discuss. Types of attributional explanations and the underlying dimensions of those attributions affected individuals emotions, expectations and behaviours. (Jianjun & Shenghua, 2009)The reason that internal and external attribu tion can be useful tools in management practice is that they can help managers understand causes of employee behaviours and can assist employees in understanding their hark backing about their own behaviours. If you can understand why you be arouse a certain way, and why others around you do so, then you have a better understanding of yourself, others, and your organization.The perception of the causes of certain behaviour may affect the judgment and actions of both managers and employees. The locus of causality can be internal or external, which stands for the recognition of internal or external attribution. Also as Kelly (1967) concluded as the covariation specimen, which describes the three type of information that we can use to make attribution decisions are consensus, rarity and consistency. In determining whether behaviour is based on internal or external factors, you look at the level of consistency, distinctiveness and consensus of the behaviour.For instance, internal att ributions are make with suffering consensus, low distinctiveness, and high consistency while external factors when all three are high. Leaders can use covariation model to make attributions of employees performances. However, this model also has one important limitation, which is that it cannot to distinguish unintentional and intentional behaviour. (Ben, Olufemi, Olukunle &Patrick, 2012) As attribution theory is applied in different organizations and may be an important factor which can affect managers decision, theinnate bias of people in the way they make attributions should be paid much attention.The basic one which is called fundamental frequency bias describes the tendency to make internal attributions over external attributions. It evinces more on socialization such as culture or social settings. As concluded by Zuckerman (1979), there are two main attribution biases. The self- serving bias is the tendency of individuals to regard their successes as the result of their own exertion or ability and blasted failure on external factors. Thus, the situation could be that managers may diabolical employees for their failure. On the contrary, employees may attribute failures to external factors.The actor- perceiver bias stands for the tendency of observers to attribute the behaviours and outcomes of actors to their internal factors while actors attribute their outcomes to the external environment. For instance, managers may blame the failure on employees whereas employees are biased toward attributing their failures to external factors including their supervisors. afterward comparing these two biases, it is obviously that self- serving bias happens when both actors and observers focus on the outcomes while the actor- observer bias is based on the situation that actors emphasize on external factors but observers focus attention on actors. In organizations, performances are evaluated by managers.Those two biases can effect managers and employees evaluations of employee performance as thoroughly as the quality of their relationship. (Mark, 2007) In terms of leadership, if leaders dont aware that they have attribution bias, some problems will appear in communication and team work. Employees make attributions based on their perception of the causes attributable to leaders behaviours. (Phil, Charlotte, Julie&James, 2009) after employees perceived their leader are not satisfied with their performance, they tend to step loss of self- esteem.Reflecting into behaviours, it is possible that employees job satisfaction and turnover decrease. After that, it is more difficult for leaders to motivate employees to increase productivity or improve their performance. other thing which is worth mentioned is attribution tendencys. Attribution styles are tendencies to make particular types of attribution over time and across different situations. Martinko (2002) indicated that there are 16 possible intrapersonal styles.Basically, there are two most well-known attribution styles which are affirmative attribution style and pessimistic attribution style. To some extent, cheerful attribution stylecan correspond to self-serving bias. However, pessimistic styles are characterized by external and unstable attributions for success and internal and stable attributions for failure. (Martinko, Douglas& Borkowski, 2007) In an organization, optimistic leaders believe that the employees will perform well in the future but the pessimistic leaders have the opposed ideas.Also optimistic employees think they will have a good performance while pessimistic ones have the opposed ideas. These phenomenons imply one possibility that there may be clashes between the attribution style of leaders and employees. Just as the study did by Martinko, Douglas & Borkowski (2007) demonstrated that optimistic leaders are less likely to blame their members for poor performance and make opportunities for their members to succeed in the future than are pessimistic leaders, which may lead to lower quality relationships between employees and pessimistic leaders.As relationship becoming less harmonious, the goal- achieve thinking will be inconsistent. In addition, Harvey, Harris and Martinko (2008) got a result through studying and hypothesising which presented attribution styles have importantly effect on turnover intentions. There is a positive relationship between hostile attribution styles and turnover intentions. (Harvey, Harris &Martinko, 2008)The situation could be someone with a pessimistic attribution style and low self-efficacy can be helped by being given tasks that allow them to succeed early on and build their trustfulness as they progress to more complex tasks. In dealing with someone with an optimistic attribution style, managers can help the employee gauge whether or not they are capable of a certain type of project by having them shadow someone doing that job or linking them with a mentor higher up in the organization. Recogni zing and dealing with someone with a hostile attribution style might be difficult since this style can look alike to the optimistic style.However, this style in particular, will benefit from open communication that leads to correct attributions for outcomes. This is one type of employee that managers do not want to leave guessing about a poor performance appraisal, demotion, layoff, or other negative outcomes. Also in terms of job satisfaction, it indicated a negative relationship between hostile attribution style and job satisfaction, but suggested that satisfaction fully, as opposed to partially mediated the attribution styleintent to turnover relationship. (Harvey, Harries& Martinko, 2009)Inview of leaders, the attribution style of leaders is probable sign of their expectation of employees performances, which influence how they treat and evaluate employees. Attribution theory implementation in different fields leadingAttribution theory plays a significant role in field of leader ship. It is the tool that how leader attribute employees performance. There are many different situations. For example, when a leader is facing the negative outcome, he is more likely to have internal attribution of it. (Korsgaard, Brodt & Whitener, 2002) If the employee attributes the leaders behavior internally, he will blame it on leaders so that he will have a doubt with leaders ability.Also it is possible to appear conflict between leaders and employees. In order to improve the accuracy of leaders attribution, leaders can try to do the work that employees do and may have the similar feeling with them, which is a way to gain psychological closeness. And it is better to assign tasks and duty clearly to avoid unnecessary error in working. Motivation fit to Harvey and Martinko (2009), we can promote and maintain employees penury through five means such as screening resilience, immunization and multiple raters for performance. However, in general situation, attributional education al activity and increasing psychological closeness are most common and effective way. Attributional training helps employees accurate their attribution style and may correct their attribution biases as well as having a better understanding with internal and external factors.In other word, attributional training is a good way to make employees have a full scale recognition of workplace outcomes through effective communication between managers and employees. In term s of increasing psychological closeness, the stovepipe way is to pick experienced managers to manage employees and handle the positive or negative outcomes so that they can provide more attributional feedback to employees. Performance reviews and group workKelleys (1973) covariation model which contains consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness can be used by managers to evaluate and review employeesperformance. Consistency is proposed to lead to attributions regarding the stability of the outcome. For example, when an employee fails a task, if the manager is with low consensus, he will think that only this employee fail, then it is impeded correct evaluation. Also, when managers face dividing work in a group, the locus of covariation is needed to attribute and thought the different characteristic of employees behaviors.Recruitment and selectionWhen managers start recruitment and selection, they have to ensure that they have appropriate attribution style and try to minimize the attribution bias. For example, the interviewers will tend to believe that candidates who appear anxious in the interview are actually behaving anxious because they are lack of anti-pressure ability, rather than because they are in a stressful environment. Then wrong decision and selection will be made because of the attribution bias.In conclusion, it is obvious that attribution theory process is related to internal and external factors through the discussion of relationship of essential portions of attribution theory proc ess. Besides, attribution bias and styles cannot be ignored in organization behavior and activities because they will have a big effect on different fields such as leader- member relationship or motivation towards employees. As the importance of attribution theory and the functions been argued, it can be summarized that organizations should take advantage of attribution theory to manage employees and improve organization performance.Reference magnetic dipBen E. Akpoyomare Oghojafor, Olufemi Olabode Olayemi, Olukunle O. Oluwatula, Patrick Sunday Okonji. (2012). Attribution theory and strategic decisions on organizational success factors. Journal of management and strategy, 3 32-39. Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Gardner, W. (2006). Promoting authenticity in organizations An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership and organizational Studies, 12 1-11. Harvey, P., Harris, K.J., & Martinko, M.J. (2008).The mediated influence of hostile attributional style on turnover intentions . Journal of Business and Psychology, 22 333-343. Harvey, P. and Martinko, M.J. (2009). An Empirical Examination of the Role of Attributions in mental Entitlement and its Outcomes. Journal ofOrganizational Behaviour, 30 459-476. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M.J. (2009). Attribution theory and motivation. Organizational Behavior, Theory and Design in Health Care, 27143-158. Kelley, Harold H., (1967).Attribution Theory in companionable Psychology, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 39 242- 277 Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict the role of managerial trust-worthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 31231. Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S.C. (2007). The role, function, and contributions of attribution theory to leadership A review. Leadership Quarterly, 18 561-585. Martinko, M. J., Moss, S. E., and Douglas, S. C., & Borkowski, N. (2007). Anticipating the Inevitable When Leader and Member Attribu tion Styles Clash. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.104 (2) 158-174.Martinko, Mark J. and Thompson, Neal. (1998). A synthesis of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models. Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, 20(4) 271-284. Phil C. Bryant, Charlotte A. Davis, Julie I. Hancock and James M. Vardaman, (2010). When Rule Makers Become Rule Breakers Employee Level Outcomes of Managerial Pro-Social Rule Breaking, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22 101-112. Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F. M., Anderson, N. R. & Mohamed, A. R. (2002).Locus of control, attributions and impression management in the selection interview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 59 76. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47 245-287.