Why Did You Do That?
Attrl"bUtlOn
" T h e o r y"m
Organizations
Jean M. Bartunek
66
Jean M. Bartunek is associate professor of What people believe about the reasons for
organizational studies at Boston College.
their own and others' behavior can greatly
affect manager-subordinate relationships
in organizations.
ccasionally we are able to
O determine with certainty
the reasons people act as
they do. More often, such certainty
isn't possible; we simply do not
have enough information to fully
understand people's actions. Yet,
even in the face of ambiguity, we
are likely to "fill in the blanks," to
make use of any information we
have to explain behavior. We often
don't think very much about the
explanations we come up with, but,
whether we analyze them or not,
the reasons we assign for people's
behavior affect our responses to-
ward them.
Managers are more concerned
with examining reasons for behav-
ior than other people. In fact, the
need to explain behavior is likely to
be particularly strong for managers,
since part of their job involves
evaluating their employees' perfor-
mance. An incorrect analysis is like-
ly to have detrimental effects on
organizational effectiveness, since
misunderstandings encourage break-
downs in communication. So it is
useful and important for managers
to increase their awareness of fac-
tors which affect how they judge
others and themselves.
Factors affecting our under-
standing of behavior have been ad-
dressed by a branch of social
psychology called attribution theo-
ry. Just as researchers who have
studied the way we perceive other
people have noted that there are a
large number of factors that affect
and distort our perception of oth-
ers, a attribution theorists have
noted that there are a large number
of factors that affect the reasons we
assign for people's behavior. Attri-
bution theorists suggest that we
tend to assume that people's behav-
ior is a result of either their person-
ality characteristics (such as person-
ality traits, skill, or effort) or of
external situational characteristics
(such as the presence of external
rewards or punishments, task diffi-
culty, or luck). They divide the
personality and situational charac-
teristics into those which are stable
(for example, ability and task diffi-
culty) and those which are unstable
(for example, effort and luck).
They focus on both the processes
by which we make attributions and
the factors which affect the attribu-
tions we make.
The Attribution Process
rdinarily, in attempting to
O determine whether situa-
tional or personality factors
1. Sheldon Zalkind and Timothy Costello,
"Perception: Implications for Administration,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1962:
218-235.

are the major causes of behavior,
we are on tentative ground. So we
look for specific cues in different
situations which help us determine
whether a person's behavior is due
to the situation or the person. For
example, a manager who is con-
cerned about determining the rea-
sons for the behavior of an employ-
ee, may observe several employees
working on jobs similar to that
employee's, or watch that employ-
ee work on a variety of jobs over a
long period of time. Harold Kelley
has suggested that when opportuni-
ties such as these are available, we
try to determine whether other
people behave the same way as the
person whose behavior we are try-
ing to understand, and whether the
person's behavior is consistent
across a variety of situations and
time periods? Thus, if all employ-
ees performing one particular job
behave the same way as the ob-
served employee does, and if the
employee's behavior is different
when he or she is performing differ-
ent jobs, the manager is likely to
attribute differences in behavior to
the situation, in this case the job.
But if the employee's behavior is
both different from that of the
other employees and consistent
when performing different jobs, the
manager is likely to attribute the
behavior to the employee's person-
ality.
This process sounds fairly logi-
cal and rational. However, there are
several factors which can predispose
us to attribute people's behavior
2. Harold H. Kelley, "The Processes of
Causal Attribution," American Psychologist,
1973: 107-128.
Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory in Organizations
67
incorrectly. Two of the most im- behavior, we tend to overestimate
portant factors affecting judgment the importance of the situation,
are the following: 1) whether the and underestimate the importance
person explaining the behavior is of our own personality characteris-
the actor or an observer, and 2) tics.
whether the action being described Jones and Nisbett suggest a
is a success or a failure. Very number of reasons for this bias.
briefly, managers who observe sub- First, actors know much more
ordinates' performance are likely to about their own behavior than do
evaluate that performance on a observers. Actors are much more
different basis than they would likely than observers to be aware of
evaluate their own, or than subordi- the different ways they behave in
nates would use to evaluate them- different situations. Second, simply
selves. In addition, when subordi- because of different physical per-
nates (or managers) perform suc- spectives, actors and observers tend
cessfully on a particular task, they to notice different aspects of behav-
are likely to give different kinds of ior; observers are much more likely
explanations for success than for to notice actors' nonverbal cues,
failure. while actors are more likely to
How do actor-observer differ- notice aspects of the situations to
ences and success-failure differences which they are responding. Finally,
affect the attribution process? I everyone tends to feel that person-
address this question by describing ality traits are things other people
some results of recent attribution have. We view ourselves as complex
research. These results have a num- and flexible, too responsive to the
ber of implications for organiza- environment to be characterized by
tions, especially for interactions be-a small list of personality character-
tween managers and their subordi- istics. Others, however, are not per-
nates. ceived to be as flexible as we are. 3
The tendency for an observer to
attribute an actor's behavior to the
Actor-Observer Differences
actor's personality depends, in part,
ow, first, does being an ac- on the relationship between the
H tor or an observer affect our actor and the observer. For exam-
attributions? Edward Jones ple, when observers have empathy
and Robert Nisbett have addressed for an actor, they are more likely to
this question in some detail. On the be able to take the actor's perspec-
basis of their research, they have tive and are better able to notice
concluded that when we observe situational causes for the actor's
someone else's behavior, we tend to behavior. Conversely, the more
underestimate situational influences " d i s t a n t " the observer is from the
and overestimate the influence of
personality traits. But when the 3, Edward E. Jones and Richard E. Nisbett,
The Actor and The Observer, Divergent Percep-
situation is reversed and we are tions of the Causes of Behavior (Morristown,
trying to find reasons for our own N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971).
 "The necessity for
judgment affects their interpretation
of the causes for the behavior."
68
actor, the more the observer tends
to notice only personality charac-
teristics. Edward Jones and Keith
Davis have identified additional fac-
tors which increase the likelihood
that observers will attribute behav-
ior to personality characteristics.
These include the appropriateness
of behavior to the situation and the
observer's belief that the behavior
was meant to affect him or her. ~
Appropriateness of behavior.
Most behaviors are appropriate in
some situations, but not in others.
For example, drinking beer and
yelling are socially acceptable at
baseball games, but not on assem-
bly lines. When people act in a way
that is not socially desirable or
acceptable, we tend to attribute
their behavior to their personality
characteristics. Thus, if an employ-
ee drinks beer and yells on an
assembly line, a manager will be
predisposed to assume that there is
something wrong with the employ-
ee rather than the assembly line.
Belief that the behavior was
meant to affect the observer. Ob-
servers may believe that an act is
meant to have positive or negative
effects on them. If, for example, a
manager believes that an employ-
ee's absence from work is meant to
hurt the manager, the manager is
likely to attribute the employee's
absence to personality factors such
as laziness or spite.
The tendency to attribute our
own behavior to situational causes
and others' behavior to personality
4. Edward E. Jones and Keith E. Davis,
"From Acts to Dispositions," in L. Berkowitz,
ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy (New York: Academic Press, 1965): 2.
characteristics is c o m m o n in organi-
zations. For example, Arthur Jago
and Victor Vroom investigated the
accuracy with which subordinates
were able to predict the type of
decision style their managers would
use in different situations. Jago and
Vroom found that the subordinates
were not able to predict very well;
their predictions often conformed
more to the subordinates' own
decision-making behavior than to
the managers'. However, the subor-
dinates also tended to assume that
the manager would use the same
decision style in many different
situations, while the subordinates
themselves would change their deci-
sion styles in accord with different
situational demands. Jago and
Vroom interpreted these results as
suggesting that the subordinates
saw their managers' decision styles
as reflecting the managers' personal-
ities (and thus similar in different
circumstances), but their own deci-
sion styles as affected more by the
situation (and thus changing in dif-
ferent settings), s
Success-Failure Differences
ometimes managers or their
S employees are placed in situa-
tions where they are to judge
the success or failure of their own
or others' behavior. The necessity
for judgment affects their interpre-
tation of the causes for the behav-
ior.
5. Arthur G. Jago and Victor H. Vroom,
"Perceptions of Leadership Style: Superior and
Subordinate Description of Decision-Making
Behavior," Organization and Administrative
Sciences, 1975: 103-120.
Managers' attributions about
employee success and failure.
Harold Kelley and J o h n Michela,
who have conducted an extensive
review of attribution theory re-
search, suggest that observers are
usually likely to attribute actors'
successes to personality traits such
as effort and ability, and failures to
external factors such as the difficul-
ty of the task. 6 But, as Stephen
Green and Terence Mitchell point
out, managers are not typical ob-
servers. There are some biases inher-
ent in the managerial role which are
likely to lead managers to make the
opposite attributions. One of these
biases is related to ease of response,
the other to the need to maintain
self-esteemfl
Ease of response. When prob-
lems occur in an organization, it is
typically easier for a manager to
assume that a subordinate is respon-
sible for them than to explorc the
possibility that the problems are
due to complex external factors
such as an inappropriate organiza-
tional structure or design of jobs. In
addition, it is less work to repri-
mand or fire an employee than to
change organizational practices. It
is easier for a general manager of a
major-league baseball team, for ex-
ample, to fire the manager than to
change the whole team, just as it is
easier for the manager to bench a
particular player t h a n to assume
6. Harold H. Kelley and John L. Michela,
"Attribution Theory and Research," Annual
Review o f Psychology, 1980: 457-501.
7. Stephen G. Green and Terence R.
Mitchell, "Attributional Processes of Leaders in
Leader-Member Relations," Organizational Be-
havior and Human Performance, 1979:
429-458.

that his managerial style needs to
be changed. So ease of response can
lead managers to perceive their sub-
ordinates' poor performance as in-
ternally caused.
Need to maintain self-esteem.
Subordinates' behavior can be
viewed as reflecting on their manag-
er. If subordinates perform well,
the manager might be congratu-
lated; but if subordinates perform
poorly, the manager may be blamed
for inadequate supervision. This
possibility tempts managers to at-
tribute their subordinates' successes
to external factors (such as, for
example, the quality of managerial
supervision), and it also tempts
them to dissociate themselves from
the subordinates' poor performance
by attributing failures to their per-
sonal characteristics.
Terence Mitchell and Robert
Wood addressed the question of
bias and poor employee perfor-
mance by studying nursing super-
visors' attributions for their em-
ployees' failures. 8 Mitchell and
Wood investigated the impacts of
two factors, the employees' work
history and the seriousness of the
outcomes of the poor performance,
on the supervisors' attributions.
On the basis of interviews with
several directors of nursing,
Mitchell and Wood wrote six case
studies about poor nursing perfor-
mance on a hospital ward. The
cases dealt with such failures as the
administration of too much of a
8. Terence R. Mitchell and Robert E.
Wood, "Supervisor's Responses to Subordinate
Poor Performance: A Test of an Attributional
Model," Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1980: 123-128.
Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory in Organizations
drug or forgetting to put up a side
railing on a patient's bed. The case
descriptions included three levels of
nurse work history (good, bad, or
none) and two levels of outcome of
the poor performance (non-severe
or severe). For example, the non-
severe outcome of administration
of the drug was mild patient dis-
comfort; the severe outcome was a
cardiac arrest. Mitchell and Wood
administered these case studies to
several nursing supervisors and
asked them to decide whether the
employee's poor performance was
due to external factors (such as a
busy ward) or internal factors (such
as insufficient effort). They found
that, in general, the nursing super-
visors were likely to attribute their
employees' poor performance to
internal factors. In addition, they
were even more likely to make
personality attributions when the
employees' previous work history
had been poor and when the out-
comes were serious. These attribu-
tions led the supervisor to predict
that they would take action against
the e m p l o y e e - u s u a l l y reprimand or
termination.
The impact of the seriousness of
the outcome on attributions is im-
portant. The results suggest that
supervisors may sometimes hold
employees more accountable for
more serious outcomes, which may
be due to external factors, because
the quality of the supervisor's man-
agement may come into question.
Workers' attributions for their
own performance. Do people ex-
plain their own behavior in the
same way they explain other peo-
ple's? Do employees, for example,
69
view their own failures as due to
themselves, but their successes as
due to others? Probably not. In
fact, several studies indicate that
the opposite effect tends to occur:
Actors tend to attribute their suc-
cesses to internal factors, and their
failures to external causes. Kelley
and Michela suggest that this type
of effect occurs primarily because
our own positive behavior, in-
cluding our successes, can enhance
our self-esteem if we are responsible
for the behavior. 9 But taking re-
sponsibility for negative behaviors,
including failures, might decrease
our self-esteem. So to protect our-
selves, we tend to attribute our
successes to ourselves and our fail-
ures to others. Seymour Adler, for
example, recently asked several
male graduate students who also
had jobs to think of job incidents
that were satisfying and dissatisfy-
ing. 1° The graduate students were
then to rate the extent to which
they or external agents were re-
sponsible for each incident. These
students rated themselves as respon-
sible for their satisfying incidents,
but rated external agents (such as
their supervisors and co-workers) as
responsible for the dissatisfying in-
cidents.
There are some exceptions to
the tendency to attribute successes
to oneself. One of the factors which
makes a difference is the sex of the
actor: women (at least those per-
9. Kelley and Michela, "Attribution Theo-
ry."
10. Seymour Adler, "Self-Esteem and
Causal Attributions for Job Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 1980: 327-332.
70 |
forming career-oriented or similar
" m a s c u l i n e " tasks) are more likely
than men to attribute their suc-
cesses to factors (such as luck) over
which they have little control.' 1
For example, Mary Glenn Wiley,
Kathleen Crittendon, and Laura
Birg compared the reasons male and
female professors give for the ac-
ceptance or rejection of articles
submitted to journals. Wiley and
her colleagues found that both men
and women attribute rejections to
events over which they have little
control (such as the availabiIity of
journal space or the choice of re-
viewers). But men are much more
likely than women to attribute the
acceptance of their articles to fac-
tors over which they have control
(such as the amount of work
done).12 Ultimately, then, it would
appear that women are less likely
than men to take credit for career
successes.
Some Effects of Attributions
t appears that, when no evalua-
I tion of success or failure is
involved, managers and employ-
ees are b o t h likely to attribute their
own behavior to external factors
and others' behavior to personality
dispositions. When evaluation is in-
volved, which is frequently the case
11. Kay Deaux and Elizabeth Fan-is, "At-
tributing Causes for One's Own Performance:
The Effects of Sex, Norms, and Outcomes,"
Journal of Research on Personality, 1977:
59-72.
12. Mary Glenn Wiley, Kathleen S.
Crittendon, and Laura D. Brig, "Why a Rejec-
tion? Causal Attribution of a Career Achieve-
ment Event," Social Psychology Quarterly,
1979: 214-222.
in organizations, managers will still carefully. And some researchers
attribute their employees' poor per- have found that when managers
formance to the employees' person- monitor their employees' work very
ality characteristics, but they are carefully, they eventually come to
likely to attribute the employees' trust the employees' work less and
successes to external factors. At the to give the employees less credit for
same time managers are making having done well on their own.
these attributions, employees are They are more likely to attribute
likely to be attributing their own good employee performance to the
poor performance to factors out- pressure they themselves are apply-
side themselves. Men are likely to mg than to the employees' own
be attributing their successes to characteristics.t 3 Thus, these man-
internal factors over which they agers' supervision patterns can also
have some control, while women have the long-term effect of con-
are likely to be attributing their firming their own original, untested
successes to factors over which they assumptions.
have comparatively little control.
These attributions have a num- ost of the attributional
ber of effects on employees' and
managers' subsequent expectations M processes managers and
their subordinates employ
and behavior. For example, both are not fully thought out; neither
employees and managers who be- managers nor their subordinates are
lieve that success is within their likely to be fully aware of the
control should be more likely to processes they are using to deter-
work hard (a factor they can con- mine causes of their own and oth-
trol) than employees or managers ers' behavior. Nevertheless, their
who have less confidence that they attributions are likely to affect
can control their future. This re- their own behavior and the ways
sponse may tend to ensure success they respond to others.
or failure, since those who work A greater awareness of attribu-
harder are likely to be more suc- tional processes and biases cannot
cessful. Thus, subsequent behavior lead to certain knowledge about the
and outcomes may lead to confir- causes of behavior; sometimes these
mation of the original, untested causes cannot be fully known. But
assumptions. awareness" can have some positive
In addition, managers who at- effects. It can, for example, make
tribute their employees' poor per-
formance to personality characteris- 13. Lloyd H. Strickland, John C. Barefoot,
tics are not only likely to take and Pauline Hockenstein, "Monitoring Behavior
in the Surveillance and Trust Paradigm," Repre-
immediate action against the em- sentative Research in Social Psychology, 1976:
ployee (as Mitchell and Wood 51-57; L.D. Baker, Nicholas DiMarco, and
found), but also to expect that the W.E. Scott, Jr., "Effects of Supervisor's Sex
and Level of Authoritarianism on Evaluation
employee will perform poorly and Reinforcement of Blind and Sighted
again. Such managers tend to moni- Workers," Journal of Applied Psychology,
tor their employees' performances 1975: 28-32.
 Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory in Organizations

" A w a r e n e s s . . . c a n . . make both

managers and subordinates more conscious of
the traps of self-confirming cycles they can create
for themselves simply because of the
attributions they make."

71

both managers and subordinates
more conscious of the traps of
self-confirming cycles they can cre-
ate for themselves simply because
of the attributions they make; the
causes for their successes or failures
are not likely to be as clear-cut as
many people assume. In addition,
greater awareness of attribution
processes might enable managers
and their subordinates to take each
others' attributional processes into
account, to understand better the
different processes each is using
when assigning causes for behvaior
and then acting on them. Such
mutual awareness may serve to re-
duce some of the misunderstand-
ings that often exist in organiza-
tional settings. V~