Attribution theory has been proposed to explain how we judge people differently depending on what meaning we attribute to a given behavior.60 Basically, the theory suggests that when we observe an individual’s behavior, we attempt to determine whether it was internally or externally caused. Internally caused behavior is believed to be under the control of the individual. Externally caused behavior results from outside causes; that is, the person is seen as having been forced into the behavior by the situation. That determination, however, depends on three factors: (1) distinctiveness, (2) consensus, and (3) consistency.

1. Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays a behavior in many situations or whether it is particular to one situation. Is the employee who arrived late to work today also the person coworkers see as a goof-off? What we want to know is whether this behavior is unusual. If it is, the observer is likely to give the behavior an external attribution. If this action is not unique, it will probably be judged as internal.

2. If everyone who is faced with a similar situation responds in the same way, we can say the behavior shows consensus. Our tardy employee’s behavior would meet this criterion if all employees who took the same route to work today were also late. If consensus is high, you would be expected to give an external attribution to the employee’s tardiness, whereas if other employees who took the same route made it to work on time, you would conclude the reason to be internal.

3. Finally, a manager looks for consistency in an employee’s actions. Does the individual engage in the behaviors regularly and consistently? Does the employee respond the same way over time? Coming in 10 minutes late for work is not perceived in the same way if, for one employee, it represents an unusual case (she hasn’t been late for several months), but for another it is part of a routine pattern (he is late two or three times a week). The more consistent the behavior, the more the observer is inclined to attribute it to internal causes.

Exhibit 11–4 summarizes the key elements in attribution theory. It would tell us, for instance, that if an employee, Mr. Black, generally performs at about the same level on other related tasks as he does on his current task (low distinctiveness), if other employees frequently perform differently—better or worse—than Mr. Black does on that current task (low consensus), and if Mr. Black’s performance on this current task is consistent over time (high consistency), his manager or anyone else who is judging Mr. Black’s work is likely to hold him primarily responsible for his task performance (internal attribution).

Exhibit 11–4

Attribution Theory

One of the more interesting findings drawn from attribution theory is that errors or biases distort attributions. For instance, substantial evidence supports the hypothesis that when we make judgments about the behavior of other people, we have a tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal or personal factors.61 This fundamental attribution error can explain why a sales manager may be prone to attribute the poor performance of her sales agents to laziness rather than to the innovative product line introduced by a competitor. Individuals also tend to attribute their own successes to internal factors such as ability or effort while putting the blame for failure on external factors such as luck (or an “unfair” test). This self-serving bias suggests that feedback provided to employees in performance reviews will be predictably distorted by them, whether it is positive or negative.

All of us, managers included, use a number of shortcuts to judge others. Perceiving and interpreting people’s behavior is a lot of work, so we use shortcuts to make the task more manageable.62 Such shortcuts can be valuable when they let us make accurate perceptions quickly and provide valid data for making predictions. However, they aren’t perfect. They can and do get us into trouble. What are these perceptual shortcuts? (See Exhibit 11–5 for a summary.)

Individuals can’t assimilate all they observe, so they’re selective in their perception. They absorb bits and pieces. These bits and pieces are not chosen randomly; rather, they’re selectively chosen depending on the interests, background, experience, and attitudes of the observer. Selective perception allows us to “speed read” others—but not without the risk of drawing an inaccurate picture.

It’s easy to judge others if we assume that they’re similar to us. In assumed similarity, or the “like me” effect, the observer’s perception of others is influenced more by the observer’s own characteristics than by those of the person observed. For example, if you want challenges and responsibility in your job, you’ll assume that others want the same. People who assume that others are like them can, of course, be right, but not always.

When we judge someone on the basis of our perception of a group he or she is part of, we’re using the shortcut called stereotyping. For instance, “Married people are more stable employees than single persons” or “Older employees are absent more often from work” are examples of stereotyping. To the degree that a stereotype is based on fact, it may produce accurate judgments. However, many stereotypes aren’t factual and distort our judgment.

When we form a general impression about a person on the basis of a single characteristic, such as intelligence, sociability, or appearance, we’re being influenced by the halo effect. This effect frequently occurs when students evaluate their classroom instructor. Students may isolate a single trait such as enthusiasm and allow their entire evaluation to be slanted by the perception of this one trait. If an instructor who is quiet, assured, knowledgeable, and highly qualified has a classroom teaching style that lacks enthusiasm, that instructor might be rated lower on a number of other characteristics.