Organization behavior Essay

ascription possibleness an all important(predicate) tool for guessing and managing goal oriented system of rules sorts. Attri bution system is kn proclaim as the effective focal point which dishs us to assume that peoples behaviour is caused by immanent or international dappleal factors. This essay is going to discuss close the key elements of ascription theory and the relationship surrounded by them. In addition, the way of ascription theory process chokes in organizations atomic number 18 also menti one(a)d. withal it considered how ascription theory implements in organizations as an effective tool which good deal help leadhip to pass judgment employees behaviours and workplace outcomes.This essay reviewed some famous articles in attribution theory and psychology fields and abstracted relative points to discuss. Types of attributional explanations and the underlying dimensions of those attributions affected individuals emotions, expectations and behaviours . (Jianjun & Shenghua, 2009)The reason that internal and external attribution goat be useful tools in management practice is that they feces help managing directors understand causes of employee behaviours and can assist employees in fel small-scale fingering their thinking about their proclaim behaviours. If you can understand why you be scrawl a certain way, and why others around you do so, then you abide a intermit understanding of yourself, others, and your organization.The perception of the causes of certain behaviour may affect the judgment and actions of both(prenominal) managers and employees. The locus of causality can be internal or external, which stands for the credit of internal or external attribution. Also as Kelly (1967) concluded as the covariation model, which describes the three type of information that we can use to vex believe attribution decisions ar consensus, specialness and consistency. In determining whether behaviour is based on internal or external factors, you look at the level of consistency, distinctiveness and consensus of the behaviour.For instance, internal attributions be made with low consensus, low distinctiveness, and high consistency enchantment external factors when all three are high. Leaders can use covariation model to make attributions of employees performances. However, this model also has one important limitation, which is that it cannot to distinguish unintentional and intentional behaviour. (Ben, Olufemi, Olukunle &Patrick, 2012) As attribution theory is use in antithetical organizations and may be an important factor which can affect managers decision, theinnate incline of people in the way they make attributions should be paid much attention.The basic one which is called fundamental predetermine describes the tendency to make internal attributions over external attributions. It emphasizes more than on socialization such as culture or social settings. As concluded by Zuckerman (1979), on that point are two main attribution biases. The self- percentage bias is the tendency of individuals to regard their achieveres as the result of their own effort or ability and institutionalize failure on external factors. Thus, the situation could be that managers may blame employees for their failure. On the contrary, employees may dimension failures to external factors.The actor- observer bias stands for the tendency of observers to attribute the behaviours and outcomes of actors to their internal factors while actors attribute their outcomes to the external environment. For instance, managers may blame the failure on employees whereas employees are biased toward attributing their failures to external factors including their supervisors.After comparing these two biases, it is obviously that self- serving bias happens when both actors and observers focus on the outcomes while the actor- observer bias is based on the situation that actors emphasize on external factors but obse rvers focus attention on actors. In organizations, performances are evaluated by managers.Those two biases can effect managers and employees evaluations of employee performance as well as the gauge of their relationship. (Mark, 2007) In terms of leadership, if leaders dont aware that they ca-ca attribution bias, some problems leave appear in communication and team up work. Employees make attributions based on their perception of the causes attributable to leaders behaviours. (Phil, Charlotte, Julie&James, 2009) afterward employees perceived their leader are not satisfied with their performance, they tend to feel loss of self- esteem.Reflecting into behaviours, it is possible that employees assembly line satisfaction and disorder decrease. After that, it is more difficult for leaders to motivate employees to increase productivity or make better their performance. Another thing which is worth mentioned is attribution expressive expressions. ascription expressive way of li fes are tendencies to make particular types of attribution over time and across different situations. Martinko (2002) indicated that there are sixteen possible intrapersonal styles.Basically, there are two well-nigh well-known attribution styles which are optimistic attribution style and bearish attribution style. To some extent, optimistic attribution stylecan stop to self-serving bias. However, demoralized styles are characterized by external and unstable attributions for success and internal and stable attributions for failure. (Martinko, Douglas& Borkowski, 2007) In an organization, optimistic leaders believe that the employees impart perform well in the future but the pessimistic leaders have the contend ideas.Also optimistic employees think they will have a good performance while pessimistic ones have the opposed ideas. These phenomenons imply one possibility that there may be clashes betwixt the attribution style of leaders and employees. Just as the study did by Marti nko, Douglas & Borkowski (2007) demonstrated that optimistic leaders are less likely to blame their members for poor performance and make opportunities for their members to provide in the future than are pessimistic leaders, which may lead to lower quality relationships betwixt employees and pessimistic leaders.As relationship becoming less harmonious, the goal- achieve thinking will be inconsistent. In addition, Harvey, Harris and Martinko (2008) got a result through with(predicate) studying and hypothesising which presented attribution styles have gradeificantly effect on turnover intentions. There is a positive relationship betwixt hostile attribution styles and turnover intentions. (Harvey, Harris &Martinko, 2008)The situation could be someone with a pessimistic attribution style and low self-efficacy can be helped by being given tasks that allow them to succeed early on and build their confidence as they progress to more complex tasks. In dealing with someone with an opti mistic attribution style, managers can help the employee gauge whether or not they are capable of a certain type of project by having them shadow someone doing that job or linking them with a mentor higher up in the organization. Recognizing and dealing with someone with a hostile attribution style might be difficult since this style can look similar to the optimistic style.However, this style in particular, will benefit from open communication that leads to correct attributions for outcomes. This is one type of employee that managers do not want to leave guessing about a poor performance appraisal, demotion, layoff, or other banish outcomes. Also in terms of job satisfaction, it indicated a negative relationship between hostile attribution style and job satisfaction, but suggested that satisfaction panopticy, as opposed to partially mediated the attribution styleintent to turnover relationship. (Harvey, Harries& Martinko, 2009)Inview of leaders, the attribution style of leaders i s probable sign of their expectation of employees performances, which influence how they treat and evaluate employees. ascription theory execution in different fieldsLeadershipAttribution theory plays a significant role in field of leadership. It is the tool that how leader attribute employees performance. There are many different situations. For example, when a leader is liner the negative outcome, he is more likely to have internal attribution of it. (Korsgaard, Brodt & Whitener, 2002) If the employee attributes the leaders way internally, he will blame it on leaders so that he will have a inquiry with leaders ability.Also it is possible to appear conflict between leaders and employees. In order to improve the accuracy of leaders attribution, leaders can try to do the work that employees do and may have the similar feeling with them, which is a way to gain psychological closeness. And it is better to assign tasks and duty clearly to avoid unnecessary error in working. Motivati onAccording to Harvey and Martinko (2009), we can promote and maintain employees want through five means such as screening resilience, immunization and sextuple raters for performance. However, in general situation, attributional grooming and increasing psychological closeness are most common and effective way. Attributional training helps employees accurate their attribution style and may correct their attribution biases as well as having a better understanding with internal and external factors.In other word, attributional training is a good way to make employees have a full scale recognition of workplace outcomes through effective communication between managers and employees. In term s of increasing psychological closeness, the best way is to pick experienced managers to manage employees and handle the positive or negative outcomes so that they can provide more attributional feedback to employees. Performance reviews and group workKelleys (1973) covariation model which contai ns consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness can be used by managers to evaluate and review employeesperformance. Consistency is proposed to lead to attributions regarding the stability of the outcome. For example, when an employee fails a task, if the manager is with low consensus, he will think that only this employee fail, then it is prevent correct evaluation. Also, when managers face dividing work in a group, the locus of covariation is infallible to attribute and estimate the different characteristic of employees behaviors.Recruitment and selectionWhen managers start recruitment and selection, they have to ensure that they have appropriate attribution style and try to minimize the attribution bias. For example, the interviewers will tend to believe that candidates who appear anxious in the interview are actually behaving anxious because they are lack of anti-pressure ability, rather than because they are in a stressful environment. because wrong decision and selection wil l be made because of the attribution bias.In conclusion, it is obvious that attribution theory process is related to internal and external factors through the discussion of relationship of essential portions of attribution theory process. Besides, attribution bias and styles cannot be ignored in organization behavior and activities because they will have a big effect on different fields such as leader- member relationship or motivation towards employees. As the importance of attribution theory and the functions been argued, it can be summarized that organizations should distribute advantage of attribution theory to manage employees and improve organization performance. author listBen E. Akpoyomare Oghojafor, Olufemi Olabode Olayemi, Olukunle O. Oluwatula, Patrick Sunday Okonji. (2012). Attribution theory and strategic decisions on organizational success factors. daybook of management and strategy, 3 32-39. Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Gardner, W. (2006). Promoting authenticity i n organizations An attributional perspective. ledger of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12 1-11. Harvey, P., Harris, K.J., & Martinko, M.J. (2008).The mediated influence of hostile attributional style on turnover intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22 333-343. Harvey, P. and Martinko, M.J. (2009). An Empirical examen of the Role of Attributions in Psychological Entitlement and its Outcomes. Journal ofOrganizational Behaviour, 30 459-476. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M.J. (2009). Attribution theory and motivation. Organizational Behavior, Theory and Design in Health Care, 27143-158. Kelley, Harold H., (1967).Attribution Theory in Social Psychology, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 39 242- 277 Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict the role of managerial trust-worthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 31231. Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S.C. (2007). The role, function, and c ontributions of attribution theory to leadership A review. Leadership Quarterly, 18 561-585. Martinko, M. J., Moss, S. E., and Douglas, S. C., & Borkowski, N. (2007). Anticipating the Inevitable When Leader and Member Attribution Styles Clash. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.104 (2) 158-174.Martinko, Mark J. and Thompson, Neal. (1998). A price reduction of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models. Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, 20(4) 271-284. Phil C. Bryant, Charlotte A. Davis, Julie I. Hancock and James M. Vardaman, (2010). When sway Makers Become Rule Breakers Employee Level Outcomes of Managerial Pro-Social Rule Breaking, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22 101-112. Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F. M., Anderson, N. R. & Mohamed, A. R. (2002).Locus of control, attributions and impression management in the selection interview. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 59 76. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47 245-287.