Attributional Comparisons Across Biases and Leader ...

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3 Fall 2006: 393-408

Attributional Comparisons Across Biases and Leader-Member Exchange Status Constance R. Campbell Associate Professor of Management

Georgia Southern University Cathy Owens Swift Professor of Marketing

Georgia Southern University Leadership is a phenomenon involving a leader, a follower, and the relationship between the two (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Two theories that address the relational nature of leadership in organizational settings are attribution theory (Green and Mitchell, 1979) and leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau ei ai, 1975). Attribution theory asserts that people continuously attempt to develop causal explanations for events experienced by themselves (Kelley, 1967) and others (Kelley and Michela, 1980), and that the resulting perception of causality influences future behavior (Abramson et at, 1978; Campbell and Martinko, 1998; Sabini et al, 2001). LMX theory suggests that supervisors develop high quality "ingroup" exchanges with some subordinates and develop low quality "outgroup" exchanges with other subordinates (Dansereau etal, 1975). The quality of the exchange relationship is related to positive outcomes

for in-group members (Vecchio and Gobdel, 1984) and negative outcomes for out-group members (Tanner e< a/. 1993). With respect to attributions, an important issue is the target of the attribution, or the person about whose behavior an attribution is made, in that there are asymmetries in attributions one makes about oneself and others (Weary et al., 1989). The selfserving bias, f'or example, is the tendency for individuals to take credit for their successes and to blame situational factors for their failures (Kelley, 1967), while the actor-observer bias is the tendency to attribute one's own performance to situational factors and to attribute others' performance to internal factors (Jones and Nisbett, 1972; Martinko and Douglas, 1999). Findings regarding these two biases are robust (Wilson and Levine, 1997); however, a comparison of the selfserving and actor-observer biases in-

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3 Fall 2006 (393)

394

Campbell and Swift

dicates a contradiction in the attributions expected when performance is positive (Martinko and Gardner, 1987). The self-serving bias predicts that an actor will make an internal attribution for his or her positive performance, while the actor-observer bias predicts that an actor will make an external attribution for his or her positive performance. Although numerous studies provide support for the occurrence of the actor-observer bias in negative performance situations (cf., Bernardin, 1989; Jundt and Hinsz, 2002), there has been little examination of the actor-observer bias when performance is good, providing little evidence to resolve the contradiction in predictions between the self-serving and actor-observer biases. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau et al, 1975) may help to resolve this contradiction, in that leaders may be more likely to make attributions for in-group members' performance that are similar to attributions that they would make for their own. In other words, the selfserving bias may extend from leaders to their in-group followers (Davis and Gardner, 2004). Simultaneously, leaders' attributions for out-group members may still be subject to the actor-observer bias. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of LMX status with the self-serving and actor-observer biases. Two additional goals of the current study were to obtain both the leader's and the member's point of view about LMX status and to examine both positive and negative performance incidents. The following section summarizes the research related to attributional biases and details how leader-member exchange theory may assist in resolving the contradictory predictions inherent in the

self-serving and actor-observer biases. A survey study exploring attributional biases on the basis of LMX status is then described, and the results and their implications are then discussed. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

The foundational assumption of attribution theory is that people engage in cognitive activity, (developing explanations for events (Kelley, 1967). The resulting attributions can be classified by their presumed locus of causality, either internal (ability and effort) or external (task difficulty and luck) to the actor (Weiner et al, 1971). Dyadic relationships are a primary focus in attribution theory (Heider, 1958), and Green and Mitchell (1979) specifically address the leadermember dyad in their suggestion that leaders' perceptions of the cause of followers' behavior influence the leaders' future behaviors. Subsequent research has upheld this prediction (Gibson and Schroeder, 2003; Swift and Campbell, 1998). The attribution process, however, is not completely objective, as biases can occur. One such bias is the selfserving bias (Kelley, 1967), which occurs when actors take credit for their success and blame situational factors for their failure (McAllister et al, 2002; Miller and Ross, 1975). This bias extends to cross-cultural work relationships (Peterson et al, 2002). In the actor-observer bias, actors make internal attributions for others' performance and external attributions for their own performance (Floyd, 2000; Jones and Nisbett, 1972). The focus of exploration of the actor-observer bias in work settings, though, has primarily been on poor performance (Bernardin, 1989; Martinko and Gardner, 1987; Nelson and Beggan,

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3 Fall 2006

BL\SES AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE

2004). In addition, the attributions that have been examined in these studies have not been consistent across studies, making comparisons of results difficult. The previously-mentioned contradiction in predicted attributions under these biases may be resolved by Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, with its supposition that leaders do not relate to all members in the same manner (Dansereau et al, 1975). Subordinates with whom leaders have high-qtiality relationships are known as "in-group" members, while subordinates with whom leaders have lower quality relationships are known as "out-group" members (Dansereau et al, 1975). The results of relationship quality are generally positive for in-group members (Erdogan and Liden, 2002) and negative for outgroup members (Duval and Silvia, 2002; Vecchio and Gobdel, 1984). One positive outcome for in-group members is the attributions that their supervisors make about them. A few prior studies have explored supervisor attributions when subordinate performance is positive, consistently finding that supervisors were more likely to make internal attributions for the effective performance of their in-group subordinates and to make internal attributions for the ineffective performance of their out-group subordinates (Gibson and Schroeder, 2003; Heneman et al, 1989; Swift and Campbell, 1998). However, all of these studies compared supervisor attributions across LMX status (i.e., "in" versus "out") but not within groups (i.e., "in" positive performance compared to "in" negative performance), thus their data do not permit an evaluation of attributional biases.

395

In-group dyads are expected to have "shared conceptions of their environments" (Scandura et al, 1986: 580). Schneider's Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) theory argues that similarity, or homogeneity, on psychological attributes attracts people to others by reducing the psychological distance between individuals (Schneider, 1987). In fact, people who sense that they do not fit the group will leave the organization (Pendergrass, 2002). LMX status, therefore, as a psychological attribute, may result in reduced psychological distance for in-group dyads and greater psychological distance for out-group dyads. This implies that supervisors may make attributions about in-group members that are more like self-target attributions and may make attributions about outgroup members that are more like other-target attributions. If both ingroup supervisors and in-group subordinates are making self-target types of attributions, we would expect in these dyads to see both leaders and members displaying the self-serving bias when making attributions about in-group members' work performance. This expectation is reflected in the following hypotheses: HI: When performance is positive, supervisors will make greater internal than external attributions for in-group subordinate performance. H2: When performance is negative, supervisors will make greater external than internal attributions for in-group subordinate performance. H3: In-group subordinates will make greater internal than external attributions for their own positive performance. H4: In-group subordinates will make greater external than internal attributions for their own negative performance.


Campbell and Swift

tive

in

eX B

13

WV

13

13

E

iS

1w

WV

B X A

OH

E

n

i

E

c

X

WV

13

E

o

13

E

X

E

fnte

1

13

ega tive

u o c

[nte:

396

External

H4: Internal = External

6.30

3.66

4.11

4.09

The Out-group: The Actor-observer Bias

Supervisor (Observer)

Subordinate (Actor)

Positive Performance

Negative Performance

Hs: Internal = External

H6: Internal > External

4.60

3.93

4.38

3.39

H7: Internal > External

Hs: Internal < External

5.60

3,53

4.12

4.00

Hypotheses which were not supported are italicized.

make external attributions for their negative performance was supported (t = 2.18, p < .05). However, the predicted outcome for this situation under both biases would be tbe same; therefore, this result does not distinguish between tbe two biases. DISCUSSION Although not all outcomes of tbe study were as predicted, tbe interpretation of the outcomes is relatively straightforward. The results of the current study indicate fairly strong support for the existence of the self-

serving bias in three of the four situations explored. Specifically, there was evidence for tbe occurrence of the self-serving bias when supervisors made attributions for tbe performance of tbeir in-group subordinates and when both in- and out-group subordinates made attributions about their own performance. The results provided some support for the presence of the actor-observer bias when supervisors made attributions about the performance of tbeir out-group subordinates. Consistent with prior research, these results provide yet further evi-


404

Campbell and Swift

dence for the positive outcomes associated witb in-group status, in that in-group members are being credited with their effective performance and not blamed for their ineffective performance. These results are supportive of Schneider's ASA theory in terms of indicating psychological closeness within the in-group, as discovered by Warr and Pearce (2004). With respect to attributions that supervisors make about the performance of out-group members, though, the results of this study were more negative than expected. Not only are out-group members being blamed by their supervisors for their poor performance in the form of internal attributions, but their supervisors are also not giving them credit for their positive performance in the form of internal attributions. This result is contrary to, and more negative than, the predictions made by either the self-serving or the actor-observer biases. This result appears to provide strong support for the Attraction-Selection-Attrition proposition that supervisors perceive their out-group subordinates to be psychologically distant from them. It may also be indicative of differing supervisor and subordinate expectations regarding employee responsibilities, in that supervisors are expecting subordinates to exhibit greater levels of initiative, while subordinates do not view this as part of the psychological contract of the job (Boswell et al, 2001). The fact that task difficulty, an external attribution, loaded with the internal attributions of effort and ability in the factor analysis of the negative event makes the interpretation of these results less straightforward, in that it is not clear the extent to which the external attribution impacted the results. Nonetheless, be-

cause the sole external attribution factor for negative events was Bad Luck, it is clear that supervisors were more likely to attribute in-group members' poor performance to bad luck, while they were more likely to attribute out-group members' poor performance to the other factor. Thus, although we are unable to say with precision the extent to which the external attribution of task difficulty was a part of that attribution, it is clear that supervisors are more generous in their attributions for the negative performance of in-group than of out-group members. The findings have major implications for managers in evaluating the performance of subordinates. If managers blame their out-group subordinates for poor performance, tbe poor performance may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is particularly true, if, as determined by this study, the managers are not crediting these individuals for their positive performance. If a leader differentiates severely, some members are likely to become alienated from the organization and the job (Sparrowe and Liden, 1997). Thus, it is essential that managers be aware of their own tendencies to credit and blame both in-group and out-group subordinates. In fact, companies should conduct training for organizational leaders to increase their awareness of these biases. As indicated above, if subordinates do become alienated from the organization or job, this could lead to severe difficulties for the organization. These difficulties involve the outgroup members themselves, who are likely to experience lowered job commitment and a decreased sense of empowerment, further lessening their initiative and demonstration of organizational citizenship behaviors

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3

Eall 2006

BIASES AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE

(Erdogen and Liden, 2002). Supervisors may also be affected, in that out-group members tend to make lower evaluations of their supervisor's effectiveness (Deluga, 1998). The organization itself may be affected by lowered job performance among alienated employees (Gerstner and Day, 1997). Another managerial implication of the fmdings is that of diversity in the organization. If, in fact, out-group subordinates become alienated, they may tend to leave the organization, resulting in more of the subordinates being in-group members. This could lead to homogeneity of people in the organization. However, diverse members of the organization are in a position to bring unique resources to the work unit, such as differing cultural backgrounds and life experiences, which could enhance decision making in the organization by increasing the scope and variety of perspectives presented (Richard and Johnson, 2001). All of these issues point to the need to better understand the implications of the LMX relationship in the organization. If managers tend to select those who are like them (potential ingroup members), these individuals will "fit" the organization. If they fail to "fit," they leave. However, one could argue tliat homogeneity can be dangerous for the organization, as over-homogenization has been associated with organizational failure (Schneider and Goldstein, 1995). A limitation in the current study is the predominantly male sample. Typically, women tend to attribute their failure to internal causes, while men attribute their failure to external causes (Petiprin and Johnson, 1991); therefore, the results could be infiuenced by a predisposition to make

405

certain types of attributions based on gender. A second limitation is that the presentation order for the positive and negative events was not counterbalanced; thus, responses to the negative event may have been influenced by responses to the positive event. In future studies, a suggestion would be to alternate the positioning of each of these events randomly for the participants. A third limitation in the current study is the fact that the external attribution of task difficulty loaded with the internal attributions for negative events, making interpretation of this factor difficult. Further exploration of the relationship among the attributions for negative performance would be useful. Another avenue for future research is to study the level of these dyads in the organization. Gibson and Schroeder (2003) found that particularly in tall organizations, upper-level managers tend to be held to a higher standard in that they receive more blame than credit for their behavior. Conversely, lower-level managers get more credit than blame. Tiius, a future study should try to determine whether the degree of blame or credit changes depending on the level of the individual in the organization. Another area of interest in future studies would be to compare the attributions made by supervisors who are matched with their actual subordinates. It would be of interest to examine the level of convergence in attributions within matched pairs when the pairs are in-groups versus when they are out-groups. CONCLUSION

The results of the current study have implications for supervisors and


406

Campbell and Swift

subordinates alike. Because it appears that supervisors are less generous in their attributions for the performance of their out-group subordinates, they should exercise caution when assigning causality for the performance of these subordinates. Based on the notion that attributions are followed by behavior that is consistent with attributions, this may result in supervisors taking inappropriate actions toward out-group subordinates, leading to a spiral of increasingly poor performance by these individuals. Our results also suggest that all subordinates would do well to communicate closely with their supervisors regard-

ing their own performance as a means of ensuring more accurate attributions on the part of the supervisors. In conclusion, this study has extended prior research by examining LMX relationships from both the supervisor and the subordinate point of view and by exploring both positive and negative performance incidents. The results of this study suggest that in-group status has the benefit of resulting in positive attributions for one's performance, while out-group status results in attributions for performance that are more negative than was previously anticipated.

References Abramson, L., M. E. P. Seiigman and J. Teasdale. 1978. "Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87: 49-74. Bernardin, H. J. 1989. "Increasing the Accuracy of Performance Measurement: A Proposed Solution to Erroneous Attributions." Human Resource Planning \2 (3): 239-250. Boswell, W., L. Moynihan, M. Roehling and M. Cavanaugh. 2001. "Responsibilities in the 'New Employment Relationship': An Empirical Test of an Assumed VYicnomenon." Journal of Managerial Inquiry 13 (3): 307-327.

Campbell, C. and M. Martinko. 1998. "An Integrative Attributional Perspective of Empowerment and Learned Helplessness: A Multimethod Field Study." Journal of Management tA (2): 173-200.

Dansereau, F., G. Graen and W. Haga. 1975. "A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13: 46-78.

Davis, W. and W. Gardner. 2004. "Perceptions of Politics and Organizational Cynicism: An Attributional and Leader-Member Exchange Perspective." Leadership Quarterly 15: 439-465.

Deluga, R. J. 1998. "Leader-Member Exchange Quality and Effectiveness Ratings." Group &' Organization Management'2.2) (2): 189-216.

Duval, T. and P. Silvia. 2002. "Self-awareness, Probability of Improvement, and the Self-serving 'Rids." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 49-61.

Erdogan, B. and R. Liden. 2002. "Social Exchanges in the Workplace." In Leadership. Eds. L. Neider and C. Schriesheim. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 65-114. JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3

Fall 2006

BIASES AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE

407

Floyd, K. 2000. "Attributions for Nonverbal Expressions of Liking and Disliking: The Extended Self-serving Bias." Western Journal of Communications 64: 385404. Gerstner, C. and D. Day. 1997. "Meta-analytic Review of Leader-member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues." Journal oj Applied Psychology 82: 827-844. Gibson, D. and S. Schroeder. 2003. "Who Ought to be Blamed? The Effect of Organizational Roles on Blame and Credit Attributions." International Journal of Conflict Management 14: 95-117. Graen, G., M. A. Novak and P. Sommerkamp. 1982. "The Effects of Leadermember Exchange and Job Design on Productivity and Satisfaction: Testing a Dual Attachment Model.'' Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30: 109-131 and M. Uhl-Bien. 1995. "Relationship-based Approach to Leadership: Developmentof Leader-member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-level Multi-domain Perspective." Leadership Quarterly 6: 219-247. Green, S. and T. Mitchell. 1979. "Attributional Process of Leaders in LeaderMember Interactions." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25 (3): 429-458. Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Heneman, R., D. Greenberger and C. Anonyuo. 1989. "Attributions and Exchanges: The Effects of Interpersonal Factors on the Diagnosis of Employee Performance." Academy of Management Journal 32 (2): 466-476. Jones, E. and R. Nisbett. 1972. "The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Gauses of Behavior.'' In Attribution: Perceiving the Caiises of Behavior. Ed. E. E.Jones. Morristown, NJ: General Learning, pp. 79-94. Jundt, D. and V. Hinsz. 2002. "Influences of Positive and Negative Aifect on Decisions Involving Judgmental Biases." Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 30: 45-52. Kelley, H. 1967. "Attribution Theory in Social Psychology." In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Ed. D. Levin. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 192-238. and J. Michela. 1980. Attribution Theory and Research. Annual Review of Psychology: 192-238. Martinko, M. and S. Douglas. 1999. "Culture and Expatriate Failure: An Attributional Explication." InternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis 7 (3): 265293. and W. Gardner. 1987. "The Leader Member Attribution Process." Academy of Management Review 12 (2): 235-429. McAllister, H., J. Baker, G. Mannes, H. Stewart and A. Sutherland. 2002. "The Optimal Margin of Illusion Hypothesis: Evidence from the Self-serving Bias and Personality Disorders. "/oMrraaZ of Social and Clinical Psychology 21: 414-426. Miller, D. and M. Ross. 1975. "Self-serving Biases in the Attribution of Gausality: Fact or Fiction?" Psychological Bulletin 32 (2): 213-225. Nelson, J. a n d j . Beggan. 2004. "Self-serving Judgments about Winning the Lottery." Journal of Psychology 138: 253-264. JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3

Fall 2006

408

Campbell and Swift

Pendergrass, L. 2002. "Personality Similarity as a Predictor of Organizational Turnover: A Test of Attraction-selection-attribution Theory." Dissertations Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 6S (3B): 1599. Peterson, D., C. Kim, J. Kim and T. Tamura. 2002. "The Perceptions of Information Systems Designers from the US, Japan, and Korea on Success and Failure Factors." International Journal of Infcmnation Management 22 (6): 421. Petiprin, G. and M.Johnson. 1991. "The Fffects of Gender, Attributional Style, and Item Difficulty on Academic Performance."/owrraaZ of Psychology 125 (1): 45-50. Richard, O. and N.Johnson. 2001. "Understanding the Impact of Human Resource Diversity Practices on Firm Performance." Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (2): 177-195. Sabini, J., M. Siepmann a n d j . Stein. 2001. "The Really Fundamental Attribution Error in Social Psychological Research." Psychological Inquiry 12: 1-14. Scandura, T., G. Graen and M. A. Novak. 1986. "When Managers Decide Not to Decide Autocratically: An Investigation of Leader-Member Exchange and Decision inRuence." Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 579-584. Schneider, B. 1987. "The People Make the Place." Personnel Psychology 40 (3): 437-454. and H. Goldstein. 1995. "The ASA Framework: An Update." Personnel Psychology 48: 747-773. Sparrowe, R. and R. Liden. 1997. "Process and Structure in Leader-Member Exchange." The Academy of Management Heview 22 (2): 522-552. Swift, G. O. and G. Gampbell. 1998. "The Effect of Vertical Exchange Relationships on the Performance Attributions and Subsequent Actions of Sales Managers." The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 15: 45-56. Tanner, J. Jr. and S. Gastleberry. 1990. "Vertical Exchange Quality and Performance: Studying the Role of the Sales Manager." The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 10 (2): 17-28. , M. Dunn and L. Ghonko. 1993. "Vertical Exchange and Salesperson Stress." The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 13 (2): 27-37. Vecchio, R. and B. Gobdel. 1984. "The Vertical-dyad Linkage Model of Leadership: Problems and Prospects." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34: 1,5-21. Warr, P. and A. Pearce. 2004. "Preferences for Gareers and Organizational Gultures as a Function of Logically Related Personality Traits." Applied Psychology: An International Perspective 53: 423-435. Weary, G., M. Stanley andJ. Harvey. 1989. Attribution. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag. Weiner, B., I. Frieze, A. Kukla, L. Reed, S. Rest and R. Rosenbaum. 1971. "Perceiving the Gauses of Success and Failure." In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Eds. E.Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins and B. Weiner. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, pp. 95-120. Wilson, S. and K. Levine. 1997. "Attribution Complexity and Actor-observer Bias." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12 (3): 709-727.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVIII Number 3

Fall 2006