UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 10.7 Free with a free account
Explaining the Leader: The Attribution Perspective
Principles of Management · Chapter 10: Classic Theories and Models of LeadershipSection 10.7 · lesson 61 of 11711 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Why People Work: Content Theories vs. Process Theories →← Born or Made? Trait Theories Meet Behavioral TheoriesNext lesson: Why People Work: Content Theories vs. Process Theories →
In this lesson
Much of what we call leadership is an explanation we build after the outcome.
- Explain attribution and its 3 cues
- Describe the errors attribution theory predicts
- Describe the attribution perspective on leadership
- Separate decision quality from outcome
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,485 words). Read along, or search it.
Classic Theories and Models of Leadership
Explaining the Leader: The Attribution Perspective
A leader makes a bold call, and the unit thrives. We call her visionary. Another leader makes the identical call, and the unit struggles. We call her rigid. This closing section asks what's really going on in judgments like those. We'll define attribution, and the three cues observers use to make one. We'll cover two predictable errors, the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias. Then we'll reach the section's central claim, that leadership is substantially an attribution. We'll see what that means for promotions, ratings, and the leadership lessons we teach. And we'll see how a manager can judge decisions fairly, before the outcome takes over.
Attribution Defined
Answering "Why Did That Happen?"
An attribution is the causal explanation an observer assigns to behavior. It's the answer to the question, why did that happen? A person forms one whenever she observes someone else's conduct, or its result. And she often forms it quickly, without much deliberate reflection. Attributions sort into two categories. An internal attribution locates the cause inside the person. Her ability, her effort, or her character. An external attribution locates the cause outside her. That means the situation, the circumstance, or the other people involved. The rest of this section turns on which of those two explanations an observer reaches for.
The 3 Cues
How Observers Decide: Internal or External
Observers use three cues to decide between an internal and an external attribution. The first is consensus. Do other people, in the same situation, behave the same way? High consensus points toward an external cause. If everyone does it under the same conditions, the situation is the more plausible explanation. The second is distinctiveness. Does this person behave differently in different situations? High distinctiveness also points external. Behavior that varies with circumstance is more plausibly explained by the circumstance than by a fixed trait. The third is consistency. Does this person behave the same way in this situation, over time? Here, high consistency points internal. A stable pattern, repeated across many instances of the same situation, is more plausibly about the person.
Table 10.7.1
The Cues at Work
Table ten point seven point one puts each cue to work. Take consensus first. If only one employee misses a deadline that others routinely meet, consensus is low. That points internal. If nearly everyone misses it, consensus is high. That points to the situation. Now distinctiveness. An employee who is late to every meeting, regardless of topic, shows low distinctiveness. That's internal. One who's late only to a single, poorly scheduled recurring meeting shows high distinctiveness. That's external. Finally, consistency. An employee who always struggles with a specific recurring task shows high consistency, and invites an internal attribution. One who struggles with it only once, unlike every previous time, shows low consistency. That points external.
2 Predictable Errors
Disposition for Them, Circumstance for Me
Attribution theory predicts two well-known errors. The first is the fundamental attribution error. It's the well-documented tendency to over-attribute others' behavior to disposition, and under-attribute it to situation. Picture an employee who arrives late. She's readily judged as disorganized, or uncommitted. That's an internal attribution. But the real cause may have been a transit disruption, a family emergency, or a scheduling conflict imposed from elsewhere. The observer either doesn't know about it, or doesn't weigh it heavily enough. The second error is the self-serving bias. It's related, but distinct. People credit their own success to their skill or effort, and blame their own failure on circumstance. Then they apply the reverse pattern to others. Someone else's success looks like favorable circumstance. Her failure looks like her own shortcoming. So the same event can get opposite explanations, depending entirely on whose behavior is being explained.
The Distinctive Claim
Leadership Is Substantially an Attribution
Now for this section's distinctive content, the attribution perspective on leadership itself. It holds that leadership is substantially an attribution that observers make. It isn't only a set of behaviors that exists independent of how it's perceived. People infer leadership from outcomes. A leader presiding over a successful unit is described as decisive, and visionary. A leader showing identical behavior in an unsuccessful unit is described as rigid, and out of touch. The behavior in both cases may be exactly the same. What differs is the outcome the observer already knows. And that outcome shapes which explanation the same behavior receives.
Figure 10.7.1
The Same Call, 2 Outcomes, 2 Verdicts
Figure ten point seven point one makes that claim concrete, with a leader at a fictional firm, Harborline Manufacturing. It runs the same scenario twice. In both versions, the leader makes the identical call. Her action is stated the same way each time. In the first version, the result succeeds. And observers attribute it to decisive, visionary leadership. In the second version, the result fails. Now observers attribute it to rigid, out-of-touch leadership. Nothing about the leader's action changed between the two. Only the outcome changed, and the attribution followed the outcome.
The Romance of Leadership
Crediting Leaders Beyond the Evidence
The romance of leadership was named back in Subchapter nine point one. Here it's developed fully. It refers to a documented tendency to attribute organizational outcomes to leaders, far beyond what the evidence supports. It's the attribution perspective, applied to an entire organization's performance, rather than to a single behavior. A dramatic organizational result invites a dramatic, leader-centered explanation. That explanation is more satisfying. It's also more readily told, and retold. The more accurate account is messier. It involves industry conditions, structure, and resources. Subchapter nine point one identified those factors as sharing responsibility for the same outcome.
The Implications
Outcome Knowledge Contaminates Judgment
This attribution pattern has real organizational consequences. First, leadership assessments are contaminated by outcome knowledge. Picture an evaluator who already knows how a leader's unit performed. She can't cleanly separate her judgment of the conduct from that knowledge. That contamination affects promotion decisions, and performance ratings. Subchapter thirteen point ten develops those mechanics in full. Second, it affects the historical accounts that leadership lessons are drawn from. A case study about a successful leader tends to describe her decisions in flattering, dispositional terms. An identical decision by an unsuccessful leader would never receive them. So much of what's taught as leadership wisdom may reflect outcome-driven attribution, as much as any genuine, replicable lesson. That's worth remembering every time you read a story about a celebrated leader.
Judging Employees
Judge the Decision, Not the Result
The same pattern operates when a manager judges her own employees. The same behavior is read differently, depending on the outcome it happened to produce. Separating the quality of a decision from the quality of its result is a discipline. It has to be deliberately applied. It doesn't happen automatically. The default runs the other way, toward judging a decision by its result, not by the reasoning and information available at the time. Subchapter fourteen point three takes up decision quality, independent of outcome. Just culture reasoning, developed fully in Subchapter thirteen point nine, offers a structured corrective. Before choosing any response, it distinguishes three categories. Human error is an unintentional slip, one anyone in the same position might have made. At-risk behavior is a choice made because its risk was genuinely underestimated. Reckless conduct is a conscious disregard of a known, substantial risk. Make that distinction before the outcome colors the judgment. It forces an evaluator to assess the decision at the point it was made.
Chapter Synthesis
From Fixed Styles to the Observer's Lens
This section closes the chapter, so let's step back. The chapter opened with Fiedler's fixed-orientation model. It moved through two frameworks built on the opposite premise, that the leader adapts. The situational model, and path-goal theory. It covered Machiavellianism, as a construct that needs careful, structural handling. It covered leader-member exchange theory, and its dyadic view of relationships within a single team. And it covered the trait and behavioral traditions that preceded and fed all of the above. It closes with the attribution perspective, which turns the lens back on the observer herself. Much of what looks like an objective judgment about a leader is an attribution, shaped by outcomes the observer already knows. Chapter eleven turns from leadership to motivation. That includes expectancy theory, which path-goal theory already named, and now hands forward in full.
Case Vignette
2 Employees, 1 Decision, 2 Judgments
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Marisol, a department head at Harborline Manufacturing, reviewed two employees who'd made the identical call in the same week. Each had shipped ahead of a final quality check. Each relied on the same reasonable, documented judgment. Given the batch's consistent recent history, the check was very likely to pass. One shipment would have passed the check. The other wouldn't have. It revealed a defect the check would have caught. Reviewing both cases, Marisol found herself calling the first decision appropriately confident, and the second careless. Yet she'd confirmed the reasoning behind both had been essentially identical. She caught the pattern only when she deliberately applied the just culture distinction. She asked what each employee had actually known and decided at the moment of the call, before either outcome was known. Both decisions turned out to reflect the same category of reasoning. A documented, evidence-based judgment that turned out wrong in one case through ordinary variation, not greater carelessness. That closes Chapter ten. Chapter eleven begins with motivation in the workplace.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Explaining the Leader: The Attribution Perspective
What is attribution theory in organizational behavior?
What is the difference between the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias?
What is the attribution perspective on leadership?
How can managers avoid judging decisions by their outcomes?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →