Attribution Theory and Workplace Perceptions of Others

Introduction

Anyone who has ever worked in an organizational setting can readily attest to the need to understand others in order to facilitate personal interactions and achieve optimal job performance. Attribution theory holds that people tend to develop perceptions about others based on their empirical observations, which are then used — consciously or subconsciously — to form assessments of those people's behaviors. In some ways, this process of applying attribution theory is intuitive and ongoing, but there are aspects of the theory that require explanation in order to better understand how and why people are motivated in this fashion. This paper reviews the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to evaluate the role attribution theory plays in how perceptions about others are formed in the workplace. A summary of the research and key findings is presented in the conclusion.

Foundations of Attribution Theory

Introduced in the mid-1940s (Cabanis & Pyka, 2013) and refined in the late 1950s by Fritz Heider (Sirin & Villalobos, 2011), attribution theory has been the focus of a growing body of scholarship, and some authorities argue that it has transcended the theoretical stage to become a legitimate field of study (Gaier, 2015). In sum, attribution theory maintains that people attempt to make sense of the workplace by assigning causality to the behaviors of their coworkers, and such attributions tend to affect perceptions of those behaviors in the future (Zamani & Giaglis, 2015). Attribution theory is based on the so-called "theory of mind," a term used to describe the awareness humans have of the existence of minds in other people and how to explain and interpret their thought processes as well as their own (Herman, 2011).

There are two basic assumptions involved in attribution theory that account for this process: (a) people want and need to make sense of their environment as well as themselves, and (b) people are motivated to better understand the reasons behind the behaviors of others as well as their own behaviors (Gaier, 2015). In addition, attribution theory also includes the adaptational implications of these interpretations about the behaviors of others (Tasman & Kay, 2008). In most cases, people tend to apply attribution theory to observed behaviors by asking "Why?" and then developing the most logical answer as the reason (Chadee, 2011).

Interestingly, some authorities maintain that the tenets of attribution theory operate regardless of whether people are aware of it. In this regard, Christian (2009) reports that:

The fundamental attribution theory, greatly simplified, says that we tend to "blame" someone's behavior on internal factors (their disposition, their personality) rather than external factors (their circumstances, the unique situation). This theory is among a handful of cognitive biases that affect our thinking whether we realize it or not. (p. 28)

This means that people tend to apply attribution theory in the workplace to account for the behaviors of others and to formulate perceptions about how those people can reasonably be expected to behave in the future, especially under similar circumstances (Christian, 2009). Likewise, attribution theory holds that people tend to make these sorts of observations and interpretations in an effort to gain more control over their environment (Cagney, 2012).

Attribution Errors and Their Consequences

Although all humans tend to apply the tenets of attribution theory to explain and understand the behaviors of others in the workplace, the process can have severe consequences when attribution errors are allowed to interfere with the accurate interpretation of observed behaviors — particularly when those errors are made by supervisors (Cagney, 2012). Conversely, employees may tend to explain and interpret the behaviors of their supervisors based on incomplete information in ways that detract from the quality of their working relationships, further eroding employee morale and job performance. It is therefore vitally important to understand just how automatically people apply attribution theory in an effort to make sense of their workplace environment, as well as the limitations that process entails.

A risk exists that observed behaviors may be misinterpreted in ways that overlook the true motivation behind them. For example, someone might observe a coworker unaccountably swerve his car in the parking lot and almost hit another vehicle, and attribute this behavior to the coworker being a poor or inattentive driver. What the observer did not see, however, was the stray dog in the parking lot that the coworker swerved to avoid (Christian, 2009). Similarly, a supervisor who surreptitiously observes a subordinate appearing not to work — simply sitting there, apparently staring off into space — might attribute this behavior to laziness or incompetence. What the supervisor did not know was that the subordinate was thinking through the best recommendation to offer, a process that requires serious thought.

These types of misinterpreted observations are alternatively termed "attribution errors," "attribution asymmetry," and "self-serving biases," which, left unresolved, can adversely affect the ability of individuals to develop accurate perceptions about others in the workplace (Cabanis & Pyka, 2013). In addition, self-serving biases tend to compel people to misinterpret behaviors in ways that are favorable to themselves but detrimental to those being observed (Farmer & Pecorino, 2010). For instance, an employee may observe a group of coworkers at a separate table in the company cafeteria casting glances her way and erroneously assume they are gossiping about her, prompting her to mentally resolve to retaliate against each person involved. What she did not realize was that her coworkers were planning a surprise birthday party for her. Similarly, employees may observe their supervisor leaving work an hour early every day and assume she is abusing her position of authority, growing increasingly resentful as a result — unaware that the supervisor had arranged to come in an hour early each day in order to leave early to care for her elderly mother.

Such misinterpretations of observed behaviors are almost always due to incomplete information or erroneous assumptions (Cabanis & Pyka, 2013). In some cases, attribution errors can be especially damaging when they form the basis for performance evaluations or other career development decisions. Because supervisors tend to subconsciously apply attribution theory to the behaviors of their subordinates, inaccurate or uninformed observations may result in inaccurate performance evaluations or other career decisions that can have life-altering outcomes (Cagney, 2012).

Conclusion

The world is a complex and challenging environment, and humans have a fundamental need to make sense of it. Attribution theory maintains that people tend to make value judgments about others based on what they observe, but those observations can be flawed in numerous ways that produce attribution errors and adversely affect the accuracy of their conclusions. Moreover, in many cases these attribution errors result from people unconsciously interpreting their observations in ways that are favorable to themselves. Taken together, it is reasonable to conclude that attribution theory provides a useful framework for understanding how observed behaviors may not always be what they first appear, and that both positive and negative management decisions are frequently based on incomplete information. In the final analysis, it is also reasonable to conclude that this process is not limited to management but applies to everyone in the workplace, and that the quality of workplace relationships will depend in large part on how well everyone recognizes that they are not, in fact, mind readers.

References

Bastounis, M. & Minibas-Poussard, J. (2012, March 15). Causal attributions of workplace gender equality, Just World Belief, and the self/other distinction. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(3), 433–439.

Cabanis, M. & Pyka, M. (2013, June). The precuneus and the insula in self-attributional processes. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 330–335.

Cagney, T. (2012, July). Supervisor and manager training: Thinking outside the box. The Journal of Employee Assistance, 42(3), 37.

Chadee, D. (2011). Theories in social psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Christian, E. E. (2009, August 1). Thinking about how we think. The Quill, 97(6), 28.

Farmer, A. & Pecorino, P. (2010, October 1). Pretrial bargaining with asymmetric information: Unilateral versus bilateral payoff relevance. Southern Economic Journal, 77(2), 369–371.

Gaier, S. E. (2015, Spring). Understanding why students do what they do: Using attribution theory to help students succeed academically. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 31(2), 6–10.

Herman, D. (2011). The emergence of mind: Representations of consciousness in narrative discourse in English. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Randle, N. & Mathis, C. (2012, January). Coping to repair the career damage of workplace weight discrimination. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 16(1), 89–93.

Sirin, C. V. & Villalobos, J. D. (2011, June). Where does the buck stop? Applying attribution theory to examine public appraisals of the president. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 334–337.

Tasman, A. & Kay, J. (2008). Psychiatry. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Zamani, E. D. & Giaglis, G. M. (2015, May). Public relations crisis and social media: An investigation into extant and prospective consumers' perceptions through the lens of attribution theory. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 33–37.