Organizational Behavior

As part of an organization, employers and employees are constantly posed with challenges of making the rational decisions so as to reach an optimal outcome for the business. However, research has repeatedly demonstrated that in the real world, most decision making in organizations are not completely rational. Person perception is the main issue in organizational behavior and decision making for the fact that based on M.J. Martinko et al.’s (2007) assertion the limited information or immediate impressions of employee performance could result in an inaccurate perceptual judgment made by the employers. In an attempt to explain the ways in which people form perceptions about each other, this essay will examine the influence of the attribution theory towards decision-making and illustrate three common biases and errors that distort the attribution formation through the application of three mini-case. This essay will also discuss the importance of attribution theory in relation to organizational behavior as well as decision-makers in organizations.

Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals perceive and infer causality (Robert E. Ployhart and Crystal M. Harold, 2004). Johns et al. (2007) also state that the attribution theory is an attempt when individuals observe behavior to determine whether it is internally or externally caused. Internally caused behaviors refer to the behaviors which are under individual control while externally caused behaviors are the result of outside causes (Johns et al. 2007). To distinguish whether the behavior is one’s own outcomes or others’ actions, Robert E. et al. (2004) applied three pieces of information which originate from the Kelly model to infer causality: first of all, distinctiveness refers to the uniqueness of the event; secondly, consensus refers to the commonness of the event; thirdly, consistency refers to the stability of the event. Generally, if the conditions of low consensus, low distinctiveness and high consistency are satisfied an attribution is made internally whereas an external attribution is made under conditions of high consensus, high distinctiveness but low consistency (Robert G. Lord Jonathan E. Smith, 1983).

In organizations, people are always judging each other, for example, when making a decision of promotion or hiring, managers must appraise their employee based on the working histories and performance or the perception that the managers attributed according to the information they received in the interaction with the candidates during the interview. Attribution theory enables managers to categorize members’ behaviors into external or internal attribution base on the three factors. Those frequently used shortcuts also provide managers valid data to attribute accurate perceptions rapidly. However, the fundamental attribution error of attribution theory and those frequently used shortcuts can significantly distort attributions, in turn, influence individual decision-making (Johns et al. 2007).

When only limited information is provided, perceivers tend to judge an individual on the basis of a single characteristic and allow their entire evaluation to be tainted by that one trait (Johns et al. 2007). This phenomenon is generally known as Halo Effect. Consider the first mini-case in the interview scenario, Rowan the interviewer attributes a perception about Hagan, the applicant who does not tend to be an open to advice employee based on the information Rowan got from coaching Hagan on the local football team. Rowan allows himself judging Hagan on that one characteristic and overshadowing other traits which in turn affect the entire impression of Hagan, also results in a not logical decision about Hagan’s job application. Because of the low level of information processing involved in forming attributions, leaders’ evaluation of employees tends to be influenced more strongly by past impression or particular performance (Robert G. et al. 1983). Hence, decision-makers should be aware of the impacts of Halo effect during decision-making.

The other error that will distort rational decision-making is the fundamental attribution error which refers to instances where perceivers inappropriately emphasize an individual’s behaviour as a result of internal factors rather than external factors (Johns et al. 2007). Robert E. et al. (2004) propose that when forming attributions about another person’s performance, people tend to form fast internal attributions. According to the second mini-case, Sarah thought “Vikrim had difficulty on his way to the interview”, the internal attributions are initially assigned to the Vikrim’s tardiness and the likely situational factors are neglected when she assessing his action. Since, rational decision-making is based on critical thinking (M. J. Martinko et al. 2007), the causality (internal or external factors) of the attribution formation should based on the combination of three factors: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. Because of the existence of fundamental attribution error, decision-makers should pay more conscious effort considering the external factors of performance.

The third bias identified in the interview scenario is stereotyping which simplifies the world and increases the accuracy of decision-making through generalisation (Johns et al. 2007). Refers to Johns et al. (2007), in the aspect of person perception stereotyping indicates that an individual’s attribution formation is based on the perception of the group to which that person belongs. But Joseph F. Healey (2005) argues that people’s judgment and observation towards other people could be clouded as stereotyping creates prejudice. In the third mini-case, Rowan initially assigns Merel into a group of people that are unfriendly, because of her behaviour and the T-shirt she wears. The exhibition of prejudice created by stereotyping distorts Rowan’s judgment of Morel’s personality since Merel later turns out to be friendly and polite. Therefore, when applied a stereotype to a particular person, decision-makers should constantly check themselves and make sure they are not inaccurately applying a stereotype.

Attribution theory is vital in relation to organizational behaviour and decision-makers in organizations. M.J. Martinko et al. (2007) demonstrate that attribution theory is particularly helpful in understanding differences in leaders’ and members’ causalities of perceptions of performance. Importantly, this demonstration suggests that attribution theory appear helpful in developing applications designed to enhance the quality of leader-member relations (M.J. Martinko et al. 2007). Moreover, because inaccurate attributions may lead to job dissatisfaction, low motivation, or difficulties in managing conflict effectively, a better understanding of perception formation can reduce misperceptions in organizations (Robert G. et al. 1983). Besides, the application of attribution theory contribute to the rational decision-making and accurate person perception, managers in organisations can develop their organization skills so as to optimize human resources allocation, hence, improve efficiency.

In conclusion, attribution theory is vital. It develops explanations of why people behave in certain ways. Through an understanding of attribution theory and recognition of errors and biases which could distort perception judgment, managers can make decisions rationally and achieve human resources optimization in organizations.

References

Crystal M. Harold & Robert E. Ployhart (2004). The Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART): An Integrative Theory of Applicant Attributional Processing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12 (1/2), 84-95.

Johns et al. (2007). 325-201 Organisational Behaviour Customised Text. Pearson Education Australia.

Jonathan E. Smith & Robert G. Lord (1983). Theoretical, Information Processing, and
Situational Factors Affecting Attribution Theory Models of Organizational Behavior1. Academy of Management Review, 8 (1), 50-60.

Joseph F. Healey (2005). Race, ethnicity, gender, and class: the sociology of group conflict and change, 4th ed, U.K.: Pine Forge Press.

Mark J. Martinko, Paul Harvey, Scott C. Douglas (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561-585.