Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

http://jlo.sagepub.com/ Fuzzy Attribution Styles

Arthur D. Martinez, Mark J. Martinko and Gerald R. Ferris Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2012 19: 17 originally published online 18 November 2011 DOI: 10.1177/1548051811425677 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 19, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 18, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

Fuzzy Attribution Styles

Arthur D. Martinez1, Mark J. Martinko2, and Gerald R. Ferris2

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1) 1724 Baker College 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051811425677 http://jlos.sagepub.com

Abstract This study introduced, and provided the first evidence for, the notion that people possess more or less fuzzy attribution styles and that the degree of fuzziness affects important work variables (e.g., occupational self-efficacy and political skill). Field theory was used to explain how fuzzy attribution styles might arise. Contributions of this study, its practical implications, directions for future research, and strengths and limitations were discussed. Keywords attribution styles, attribution theory, career success and outcomes

According to fuzzy logic, an element can reside in more than one set to different degrees of similarity (Mendel, 1995, p. 349). For example, when making an attribution about an event, a persons attribution may belong to the set internal to some degree while, simultaneously, belonging to the set external to some degree. Fuzzy sets are characterized by membership functions that take on values within the interval [0, 1], whereas the more conventional crisp sets are characterized by membership functions that can only have values of 0 or 1 (Mendel, 1995). Thus, for the example given, crisp sets would necessitate a persons attribution to belong to either internal or not internal and to either external or not external. In this study, we argue that a persons attribution style can be more or less fuzzy, and this has important implications for work outcomes. For example, employees with more fuzzy attribution styles may have more difficulty handling feedback. To illustrate, an employee might be more uncertain if an unfavorable performance evaluation was because of personal shortcomings (i.e., internal attribution) or to rater biases (i.e., external attribution). If the employee was convinced that it was because of personal shortcomings, then the employee could concentrate on improving his or her own shortcomings, whereas if the employee was convinced that it was because of rater biases, then the employee could direct his or her own efforts to respond appropriately. However, because individuals with more fuzzy attribution styles would typically be less certain of a cause (or unwilling to commit to the most likely cause), their responses to these situations would likely be inept (e.g., simultaneously accusatory and apologetic).

In this study, we argue that employees who possess more cognitively unstructured psychological environments are more likely to possess fuzzy attribution styles. We suggest that fuzzy attribution styles will be negatively related to occupational self-efficacy, political skill, and career satisfaction. Furthermore, we propose that fuzzy attribution styles will be positively correlated with avoidant decision styles and job tension. Contributions of this study, its practical implications, directions for future research, and strengths and limitations were discussed.

Theory and Hypotheses Fuzzy Attribution Styles: A Field-Theoretic Explanation

The more a person lacks the capacity to behave appropriately in various social situations (i.e., according to his or her groups expectations), the more likely he or she is personally maladjusted (Lewin, 1999). For example, a personally maladjusted person might behave as though a formal business meeting was an informal gathering, or conversely, as though an informal gathering was a formal business meeting. Maladjusted people tend to create unfavorable settings for
1 2

Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Corresponding Author: Arthur D. Martinez, Department of Management and Quantitative Methods, College of Business, Illinois State University, 250 College of Business Building, Campus Box 5580, Normal, IL 61790-5580, USA Email: admartinez@illinoisstate.edu

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

18 themselves, which heightens their emotional tensions, thereby making them less able to view things realistically (Lewin, 1941). Personal maladjustment is associated with outcomes such as emotional instability, decreased wellbeing, and unbalanced behavior (Lewin, 1941). There are many potential factors that promote personal maladjustment; as examples, racial minorities may become personally maladjusted if they possess unhealthy relations with their racial groups (Lewin, 1941), and adolescents who are transitioning from childhood to adulthood may experience degrees of personal maladjustment (Lewin, 1939). A key factor related to personal maladjustment is how opposing goals affect ones overall cognitive structure (Lewin, 1944). According to field theory (Lewin, 1939), a goal or force field has the conceptual dimension of a distribution of psychological forces in psychological space (Lewin, 1944, pp. 39-40). The overlapping of at least two force fields is viewed as a psychological conflict (Lewin, 1944, p. 40). The conceptual dimension cognitive structure refers to spatial relations of a multitude of psychological regions (Lewin, 1944, p. 39). Persistent psychological conflicts make it difficult to establish clear boundaries between psychological regions. Taking the previous example, the region informal gathering blurs with the region formal business meeting, thus leading to increased chances of inappropriate behavior in either setting. Humans need to understand their environments before they can control them, so they are driven to attribute causes to the events they perceive (Heider, 1958). Attributional dimensions are basically psychological regions within the cognitive structure. For example, internal and external are psychological regions that pertain to self versus nonself. People with more developed cognitive structures would possess clearer boundaries between what is considered self and what is considered non-self. It follows that people who are more personally adjusted will be more likely to commit to clearer attributions because they possess more clearly distinct psychological regions, whereas personally maladjusted people would be unlikely to make crisp attributions because their psychological regions are indistinct or separated by fuzzy boundaries.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1) for failures. As an example, the self-serving bias (see, e.g., Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004) is a widespread tendency to attribute internal causes for successes and external causes for failures. Attribution styles in this study were based on the internalexternal attribution dimension. Work capabilities. One reason humans make attributions is to use them to control their environments (Heider, 1958). In other words, attributions facilitate adaptive behavior. When causal attributions are clearer, one can take more decisive actions. For example, if one were convinced that a failure at work was because of an internal cause, then he or she would probably focus on self-improvement. On the other hand, if one were unsure whether a failure at work was because of an internal or external cause, then he or she would not be able to respond in a confident manner. In other words, having a clearer understanding about cause and effect in a work environment allows a person to develop a course of action that is likely to secure desired rewards, whereas failure to have a clear understanding of the causal mechanisms at work likely results in unclear goals and a lack of understanding of how to achieve desired rewards. In this study, we investigated the effects of fuzzy attribution styles on three important work capabilities: occupational self-efficacy, avoidant decision styles, and political skill. Rigotti, Schyns, and Mohr (2008) described occupational self-efficacy as an employees felt job competence. Employees with high occupational self-efficacy believe that they can successfully perform their job tasks. Felt job competence is a perception of personal control that likely derives from a sufficient understanding of the job, including what causes successful or unsuccessful job performance. In other words, we suggest that felt job competence is based on more definitive attributions for job successes and failures (i.e., more perceived certainty with regard to the causes of job successes and failures). Indeed, the literature suggests that those who tend to make more internal and stable attributions for successes also tend to possess more self-efficacy (for a review, see, e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007). Fuzzy attribution styles would likely inhibit the cultivation of felt competence as fuzzy attributions inhibit the perceived understanding of the job. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Fuzzy attribution styles are negatively related to occupational self-efficacy. Avoidant decision styles are characterized by persistent attempts to avoid decision making (Scott & Bruce, 1995). One reason people might avoid decision making is because of uncertain preferences. Fuzzy attribution styles bring about uncertain preferences because preferences are based on attributions of past successes and failures. In other words, things that caused past successes are typically preferable to things

Fuzzy Attribution Styles and Work Outcomes

Fuzzy attribution styles. A set of three distinct fuzzy attribution styles were investigated in this study: fuzzy attribution styles associated with successes, fuzzy attribution styles associated with failures, and composite fuzzy attribution styles (i.e., they included both successes and failures). Martinko (2002) made a persuasive case for the importance of the differences between attributions made for successes versus those

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

Martinez et al. that caused past failures. If attributions of past successes and failures are fuzzy, then chances that the person will form confident preferences diminish. Therefore, fuzzy attribution styles are likely positively related to avoidant decision styles. Hypothesis 2: Fuzzy attribution styles are positively related to avoidant decision styles. Ferris, Davidson, and Perrew (2005) defined political skill as the ability to understand others at work and to use that knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance ones personal or organizational objectives (p. 7). Ferris and colleagues reasoned that political skill is associated with four dimensions: social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity. The degree to which one represents causes, for their successes and failures, in sure and positive ways, undoubtedly affects how and whether they are successful in achieving social influence and, thus, obtaining organizational rewards (Martinko et al., 2007). Political skill relies strongly on perceptions of personal control in dealing with others; therefore, it also relies on unambiguous assessments of social successes and failures. Hypothesis 3: Fuzzy attribution styles are negatively related to political skill. Affect-related work outcomes.Fuzzy attribution styles reflect personal maladjustment, and personal maladjustment is associated with affect-related outcomes such as emotional instability and decreased well-being (Lewin, 1941). In this study, we investigate the impacts of fuzzy attribution styles on two important affect-related work outcomes: job tension and career satisfaction. If perceived job demands outweigh perceived control, then unresolved job strain will be high (Karasek, 1979). We contend that people who possess fuzzy attribution styles are generally more uncertain about their job environments, and more uncertain environments may be experienced as being more demanding as well as less controllable. Also, Perrew and Zellars (1999) argued that perceived job stressors are, to some extent, partly a function of individual attributions. We contend that fuzzy attributions are likely causes of perceived job stressors. For these reasons, we offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: Fuzzy attribution styles are positively related to job tension. Career satisfaction is a persons attitude about his or her career. Attitudes are psychological tendencies expressed by evaluating entities with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). We argue that attitudes are

19 informed by past attributions of successes and failures. People who possess fuzzy attribution styles might view their careers as being less predictable and, hence, less favorable. Hypothesis 5: Fuzzy attribution styles are negatively related to career satisfaction.

Method Sample
The study sample consisted of working adults across the United States (N = 347). Responses were purchased from an online survey panel vendor. The vendor compensated all participants who completed the online survey. By design, the respondents were racially/ethnically diverse: 25% White, 25% Black, 25% Hispanic, 20% Asian, and 5% other. The mean age was approximately 40 years and ranged from 18 to 72 years. About 65% of the respondents were female. Approximately 30% were high school graduates (or less), 28% possessed only 2-year college degrees, 30% had only 4-year college degrees, 10% possessed only masters degrees, and 2% earned a doctoral degree. About 88% of the respondents were full-time employees. Roughly 45% worked for private employers, 45% for public employers, and 10% were self-employed. The average job tenure was about 4.3 years. The average company tenure was 6.2 years. Roughly 22% were members of a labor union. The average income was $50,000 per year and ranged from $16,000 to more than $100,000 per year.

Measures
Internalexternal attribution style measures. Items from the Organizational Attribution Style Questionnaire (Kent & Martinko, 1995) were used to measure internalexternal attribution styles for both successes and failures. The 7-point response format included anchors of Completely because of me at 1 and Completely because of other people or circumstances at 7. Hence, higher values corresponded with more external attribution styles. The three success items were as follows: You recently received an above average performance evaluation from your supervisor, You have a great deal of success getting along with your coworkers, and All of the feedback you have received lately from your boss concerning your performance has been positive. The three failure items were as follows: You recently received a below average performance evaluation from your supervisor, You have a great deal of difficulty getting along with your coworkers, and All of the feedback you have received lately from your boss concerning your performance has been negative. The instruction was as follows: To what extent would the major causes of the following hypothetical situations be

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

20 because of something about you or about other people or circumstances? The 3-item subscale for internalexternal attribution styles for successes had a Cronbachs alpha of .83. The 3-item subscale for internalexternal attribution styles for failures had a Cronbachs alpha of .84. The 6-item composite scale for both successes and failures had a Cronbachs alpha of .77. Fuzzy attribution style measures. The same Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire items were used with a recoded response scheme: Responses 1 through 4 remained the same, with the 7s were recoded to 1s, the 6s to 2s, and the 5s to 3s. The recoded responses produced a new scale that ranged from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the completely crisp case (i.e., completely certain) and 4 representing the completely fuzzy case (i.e., completely uncertain). The 3-item subscale for fuzzy attribution styles for successes had a Cronbachs alpha of .76. The 3-item subscale for fuzzy attribution styles for failures had a Cronbachs alpha of .80. The 6-item composite scale for both successes and failures had a Cronbachs alpha of .81. Occupational self-efficacy. The 6-item scale developed by Rigotti et al. (2008) was used to measure occupational selfefficacy. Representative items include I feel prepared for most of the demands of my job and When I am confronted with a problem in my job, I can usually find several solutions. A 5-point Likert-type response format was used with anchors not at all true to completely true. The Cronbach alpha was .90. Avoidant decision style.The 5-item avoidant decision style subscale from the General Decision Making Style scale was used (Scott & Bruce, 1995). Typical items include I postpone decision making whenever possible and I put off making many decisions because thinking about them makes me uneasy. A 5-point Likert-type response format was used with anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Cronbach alpha for this study sample was .92. Political skill. The 18-item political skill inventory developed by Ferris et al. (2005) was used. Representative items include I am able to make most people feel comfortable and at ease around me and I always seem to instinctively know the right things to say or do to influence others. A 7-point Likert-type response format was used with the anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Cronbach alpha was .93. Job tension. The 7-item scale developed by House and Rizzo (1972) was used to measure perceptions of job tension. Typical items are I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job and I work under a great deal of tension. A 5-point Likert-type response format with anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree was used. The Cronbach alpha was .90. Career satisfaction.The 5-item career satisfaction scale developed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990)

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1) was used. Typical items are I am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my career and I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals. A 5-point Likert-type response format with anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree was used. The Cronbach alpha was .93. Control variables.Age and gender were controlled as these factors are thought to influence attribution biases (see, e.g., Frieze, Francis, & Hanusa, 1983; Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002). Age was measured via 12 equally spaced categories (i.e., each category covered 4 years), with 1 being 18 to 21 years, 11 being 58 to 61 years, and 12 being 62 years or older. Gender was measured via one question (male = 1 and female = 2).

Data Analyses Techniques

First, routine correlation analyses were performed. Then, for each outcome variable, hierarchical regression analyses (e.g., see Schwab, 2005) were used to determine if the fuzzy attribution styles (e.g., fuzzy successes, fuzzy failures, and fuzzy composite) accounted for incremental variances after internalexternal attribution styles, age, and gender were considered.

Results Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities for the variables used in the study. Fuzzy attribution styles for successes (M = 2.35, SD = 0.90) tended to be less fuzzy (i.e., = 0.26, p < .01) than fuzzy attribution styles for failures (M = 2.61, SD = 0.92). Albeit, this difference corresponds to a Cohens d of about .29, which is considered a small effect size (Cohen, 1988).

Correlation Analyses
The correlations provided compelling preliminary support for all hypotheses as fuzzy attribution styles for successes correlated significantly with all five outcomes in the predicted directions: occupational self-efficacy (r = .27, p < .01), avoidant decision style (r = .15, p < .01), political skill (r = .25, p < .01), job tension (r = .12, p < .05), and career satisfaction (r = .11, p < .05). However, fuzzy attribution styles associated with failures only correlated significantly with two outcomes: occupational self-efficacy (r = .13, p < .05) and political skill (r = .13, p < .05). Also noteworthy, fuzzy attribution styles for successes appeared to be more strongly correlated with the outcomes than fuzzy attribution styles for failures. The composite fuzzy attribution style correlated significantly, and in expected directions, with all outcomes except career satisfaction: occupational self-efficacy (r = .23,

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

Martinez et al.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for the Fuzzy Attribution Style Study Variables
M 1. Age 2. Gender 3. Internalexternal (successes) 4. Internalexternal (failures) 5. Internalexternal (composite) 6. Fuzzy (successes) 7. Fuzzy (failures) 8. Fuzzy (composite) 9. Occupational self-efficacy 10. Avoidant decision style 11. Political skill 12. Job tension 13. Career satisfaction 6.35 1.65 2.78 3.77 3.28 2.35 2.61 2.48 3.77 2.49 5.32 2.73 3.19 SD 3.17 0.48 1.36 1.51 1.12 0.90 0.92 0.79 0.71 0.95 0.84 0.95 0.95 1 (na) .04 .09 .03 .08 .02 .02 .00 .12* .23** .09 .09 .02 2 (na) .04 .06 .02 .02 .01 .01 .00 .06 .07 .01 .06 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

21

13

(.83) .23** .76** .58** .28** .50** .15** .30** .14** .11* .01 (.84) .81** .03 .12* .08 .04 .15** .01 .06 .03 (.77) .37** .25** .36** .11* .28** .08 .11* .02 (.76) .49** (.80) .86** .87** .27** .13* .15** .10

(.92) .31** .40** .06 (.93) .04 .34** (.93)

(.81) .23** .14** .22** .11* .07

(.90) .36** .58** .26** .40**

.25** .13* .12* .07 .11* .01

(.90) .04

Note. N = 347. Cronbachs alphas bolded in parentheses on diagonal. *Correlation significant at .05 level. **Correlation significant at .01 level (2-tailed).

p < .01), avoidant decision style (r = .14, p < .01), political skill (r = .22, p < .01), and job tension (r = .11, p < .05). In sum, the correlation analyses provided at least partial support for all hypotheses. The hypotheses concerning occupational self-efficacy and political skill received full support. The hypotheses concerning avoidant decision style, job tension, and career satisfaction received partial support. Specifically, these three variables only correlated with fuzzy attribution styles for successes. All outcome variables, except career satisfaction, had significant correlations with the composite fuzzy attribution style.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Table 2 summarizes the results of the hierarchical regression analyses. Occupational self-efficacy and political skill appeared to be the most affected by fuzzy attribution styles. For example, composite fuzzy attribution styles predicted incremental variances (R2 = .04, p < .01) for both occupational self-efficacy and political skill. Incidentally, these two outcome variables were highly correlated (r = .58, p < .01), which might explain why they possessed similar results with regard to their relations with fuzzy attribution styles. As external attribution styles for successes increased, both occupational self-efficacy and political skill, respectively, decreased( = .14, p < .01) and ( = .13, p < .01). Occupational self-efficacy and political skill were both influenced by fuzzy attribution styles for successes and failures, and in the expected directions. Interestingly,

the magnitude of the incremental variance explained for successes was twice that for failures. Avoidant decision styles were only associated with fuzzy attribution styles for failures, albeit, minimally ( = .09, p < .10). Both age and external attribution styles were significantly related to avoidant decision styles. As age increased, avoidant decision style decreased ( = .22, p < .01). Also, as external attribution styles increased, avoidant style increased (e.g., for composite: = .27, p < .01). Job tension was essentially unrelated to fuzzy attribution styles. External attribution styles had a small effect on job tension (e.g., for composite: = .10, p < .05). Career satisfaction was only affected by fuzzy attribution styles for successes ( = .16, p < .05). In sum, hierarchical regression analyses provided full support for the hypotheses pertaining to occupational selfefficacy and political skill. The hypotheses regarding avoidant decision style and career satisfaction received partial support. Specifically, avoidant decision style was only related to fuzzy attribution styles for failures, and career satisfaction was only related to fuzzy attribution styles for successes. The job tension hypothesis was unsupported in this set of analyses.

Discussion
Overall, all hypotheses received at least partial support in this study. Hence, this study provided initial evidence for our thesis that fuzzy attribution styles are valid cognitive phenomena associated with meaningful consequences.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

22
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Fuzzy Attribution Style Study

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)

Dependent Variables Successes Step 1 Age Gender Internalexternal R2 Step 2 Fuzzy R2 Failures Step 1 Age Gender Internalexternal R2 Step 2 Fuzzy R2 Composite Step 1 Age Gender Internalexternal R2 Step 2 Fuzzy R2 Occupational Self-Efficacy, Avoidant Decision Style, Political Skill, Job Tension, Career Satisfaction,

.10* .01 .14*** .03*** .28*** .05***

.21*** .05 .28*** .14*** .02 .00

.09 .07 .13** .03** .26*** .04***

.08 .01 .10* .02* .09 .01

.02 .06 .01 .00 .16** .02**

.12* .00 .03 .01 .13** .02**

.23*** .07 .15*** .08*** .09* .01*

.10* .08 .01 .01 .14*** .02***

.09* .00 .06 .01 .06 .00

.02 .06 .02 .01 .01 .00

.11* .00 .11** .02** .22*** .04***

.22*** .07 .27*** .13*** .06 .00

.09* .08 .07 .02* .22*** .04***

.08 .00 .10* .02* .08 .01

.02 .06 .02 .01 .07 .00

*p < .01. **p < .05. ***p < .10 (two-tailed).

The primary contribution of this research was the introduction of an influential attribution style: the fuzzy attribution style. Field theory was used to explain how some might develop fuzzy attribution styles. We also showed that fuzzy attribution styles were related to important work variables. Despite a thorough search of the extant literature and research, prior conceptualizations of attribution theory did not appear to address or discuss the notion of attributional fuzziness; therefore, our extension of attribution theory into the domain of certainty/fuzziness is a unique and potentially important theoretical and practical contribution. This research also contributed to other topic areas in the organizational sciences. For example, we found that occupational self-efficacy and political skill were strongly correlated to each other and were also significantly affected by fuzzy attribution styles. As another example, we found that internalexternal attribution styles were significantly related to occupational self-efficacy, avoidant decision style, political skill, and job tension.

Implications of Study and Future Research

One possible (and potentially important) implication of this research is that strong attribution biases may be healthy and adaptive, albeit only in certain cases. In the case of political skill or occupational self-efficacy, it seemed imperative (in our sample) to attribute work successes and failures to either internal or external causes. Making fuzzy attributions for work-related successes and failures likely diminishes these important work capabilities. Hence, managerial efforts to clarify the work culture and procedures so that causes and effects are clearer should reduce ambiguity and decrease the tendencies toward fuzzy attributions and their negative effects. Another implication of this research was that fuzzy attribution styles for successes are probably more important than fuzzy attributions for failures. Not only were fuzzy attribution styles for successes more strongly correlated with the outcome variables but the sample tended to possess less fuzzy attribution styles for successes (Cohens d = .29).

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

Martinez et al. Perhaps this gap is because of the power of positive reinforcement. With regard to learning behavior, positive reinforcement has generally been found to be more influential than negative reinforcement (Skinner, 1938). Attributing work successes to self or others is probably viewed as being more related to positive reinforcement; hence, it is considered more adaptive and less threatening than attributing work failures to self or others. Perhaps this explanation accounts for a part of the general tendency to make more crisp attributions for successes. Of course, this notion can be tested empirically in future research. Other fruitful areas of future research include the investigation of other attribution dimensions for fuzziness, for example, fuzzy attribution styles for controllability, intentionality, global versus specific, or stability dimensions. One could also consider multiple dimensions simultaneously. In other words, multidimensional fuzzy attribution style models could be devised and tested. Researchers could look at other important outcome variables in the work domain, including job attitudes and behaviors, expected to relate to fuzzy attribution styles. Also, researchers in other domains could consider fuzzy attribution styles to investigate phenomena beyond the workplace, such as voting behavior, mental health, and general well-being. Finally, there could be potential mediators and moderators of these relationships to investigate. For example, self-confidence could mediate the relationship between fuzzy attribution style and political skill (and occupational self-efficacy).

23 and external. We argued that fuzzy attribution styles might be symptoms of personal maladjustment. Personal maladjustment can lead to undesirable work outcomes. Much more research needs to be done to understand more about the origin and consequences of fuzzy attribution styles. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt. Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrew, P. L. (2005). Political skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black. Frieze, I. H., Francis, W. D., & Hanusa, B. H. (1983). Defining success in classroom settings. In J. Levine & M. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 3-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467-505. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308. Kent, R., & Martinko, M. J. (1995). The development and evaluation of a scale to measure organizational attribution style. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 53-75). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.) (reprint 1975). Field theory in social science (pp. 130-154). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Lewin, K. (1941). Personal adjustment and group belongingness. M. Gold (Ed.) (reprint 1999), The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader (pp. 327-332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Strengths and Limitations of Study

The national sample of working adults made the study more ready to generalize, so the sample strengthened the study. The measurement and analyses of styles for both successes and failures added another dimension of complexity that enriched the study. There was an important difference in the results between success and failure conditions that strengthened the study. Finally, considering five relatively diverse outcome variables (i.e., capabilities and affect-related variables) also strengthened the validity of the study. An obvious limitation of the study was the reliance on one attribution dimension. However, the internalexternal dimension was probably a good place to start. The research design relied on the self-reporting of all variables in a one-time cross-sectional situation that might have introduced common method biases. However, self-reports were appropriate in this study as the central phenomenon of interest was human cognition. In other words, having people assess their own thought, attitudes, and capabilities was appropriate.

Conclusion
Fuzzy attributions are located somewhere between attribution dimension poles, for example, somewhere between internal

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013

24
Lewin, K. (1944). Constructs in field theory. In D. Cartwright (Ed.) (reprint 1975), Field theory in social science (pp. 30-42). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Martinko, M. J. (2002). Thinking like a winner: A guide to high performance leadership. Tallahassee, FL: Gulf Coast Publishing. Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2), 36-50. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561-585. Mendel, J. (1995). Fuzzy logic systems for engineering: A tutorial. Proceedings of the IEEE, 83, 345-377. Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747. Perrew, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 739-752. Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 238-255. Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizations studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 818-831. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Bios
Arthur D. Martinez is Assistant Professor of Management and Quantitative Methods at Illinois State University. He received his PhD in Management from Florida State University. His research investigates social power in organizational contexts. Mark J. Martinko, PhD, is the Bank of America Professor of Management at Florida State University. His research focuses on attribution theory which he has applied to the areas of motivation, leadership, impression management, whistle-blowing, emotions, organizational deviance, abusive supervision, and entitlement. He is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Organizational Behavior; Division Chair for the Managerial and Organization Cognition Division of the Academy of Management; and Dean of Fellows for the Southern Management Association. Gerald R. Ferris is the Francis Eppes Professor of Management and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. He received a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ferris has research interests in the areas of social influence and effectiveness processes in organizations, work relationships, and the role of reputation in organizations.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on April 8, 2013