Search results

Drawing on attribution theory, this study aims to examine how and when abusive supervision affects insubordination, focusing on employees’ attribution bias related to leader gender.

Two mixed-method studies were used to test the proposed research framework. Study 1 adopted a 2 (abusive supervision: low vs high) by 2 (leader gender: male vs female) by employee gender-leadership bias quasi-experiment. A sample of 173 US F&B employees completed Study 1. In Study 2, 116 hospitality employees responded to two-wave, time-lagged surveys. They answered questions on abusive supervision and gender-leadership bias in Survey 1. Two weeks later, they reported negative external attribution (embodied in injury initiation) and insubordination.

Hayes’ PROCESS macro results verified a three-way moderated mediation. The three-way interaction among abusive supervision, leader gender and gender-leadership bias affects external attribution, increasing insubordination. Employees with high leader–gender bias working under female leaders make more external attribution and engage in subsequent insubordination in the presence of abusive supervision.

This study is one of the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, that examines the mediating role of external attribution of abusive supervision. Second, this research explains the gender glass ceiling by examining employees’ attribution bias against female leaders.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically test the relationship between investors’ rationality and behavioural biases like self-attribution, overconfidence.

The study applies structural equation modelling to understand whether individual investors, besides being rational, are subjected to self-attribution bias and overconfidence bias.

The study shows the empirical evidence in the support of behavioural biases like self-attribution and overconfidence existing besides investors’ rationality. Moreover, there is a statistically significant positive covariance found between self-attribution and overconfidence, implying that an increase/decrease in self-attribution results in the increase/decrease in overconfidence and vice versa. It is also observed that the personal characteristics of an investor such as gender, age, occupation, annual income and their trading experience have an impact on behavioural biases.

The study focused on rational decision making, self-attribution and overconfidence biases using primary data. Further studies can be encouraged to test the existence of behavioural biases based on both market level and individual account data simultaneously.

Insights from the study suggest that the investors should perform a post-analysis of each investment, so that they become aware of past behavioural mistakes and stop continuing the same. This might help investors to minimise the negative impact of self-attribution and overconfidence on their expected utility.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship among investors’ rationality, self-attribution and overconfidence in the Indian context using a comprehensive survey.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a positive and functional attributional model of leadership, using both leadership perceptions and leadership effectiveness as criteria. Drawing from cognitive complexity theory, and attributional complexity theory, this article identifies attributional accuracy of managers as the fundamental component of the functional model developed here. The model of leadership developed here focuses on such key leadership constructs as leader information processing using complex schemata, leader attributions and their accuracy, leader behaviors that follow their attributions, mediating variables such as subordinate self‐efficacy, satisfaction, and motivation, and outcome variables such as leadership perceptions and subordinate performance. These variables are linked in a process model.

The article depends on a critical review of the literature to build a theoretical model consistent with theory building guidelines.

Accurate attributions and the avoidance of attributional biases are identified as key factors determining effectiveness and leadership perceptions. Leader interactive behaviors, feedback latency, and the development of strategies for improving performance are identified as key consequences of attributional accuracy.

This article has implications for the ways in which managers are selected and trained to provide leadership in organizations.

The theory developed here breaks new ground in the investigation of the positive and functional attributional processes of leaders leading to organizational or unit effectiveness. This research contributes to knowledge by pointing to the functional role of accurate attributions and the delineation of the processes through which such attributions can lead to enhancing subordinate motivation and hence leadership effectiveness.

This study aims to investigate an under-researched area, the impact of causal attributions (i.e. causal stability and company-related/-unrelated attributions) on salespeople’s job satisfaction following their performance appraisal.

A pre-test and a between-subjects experimental study test the effect of accurate or biased perceptions of causal attributions on salespeople’s job satisfaction. Data collected from 209 salespeople provide evidence that they make perceptual attribution errors in their appraisals of the performance outcome they achieve or do not achieve.

When salespeople correctly attribute their performance, causal stability affects their job satisfaction. However, company-related attributions affect their satisfaction only in the case of a poor performance outcome. As expected, salespeople who make biased attributions experience misattributed or “unwarranted” satisfaction or dissatisfaction, a higher or lower satisfaction level than they would have experienced had they made proper causal attributions.

Using Weiner’s theory of emotion and motivation as a theoretical framework, this study confirms that cognitive appraisals of event outcomes (in this case performance reviews) impacts salespeople’s emotional experience. Furthermore, causal ascriptions following the salesperson’s performance appraisal affect job satisfaction.

This study discusses how managers can ensure the continued satisfaction of their salespeople, which constitutes a stable source of motivation, by understanding their performance attributions.

This study introduces a new concept of misattributed job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. While anecdotally some scholars have investigated when salespeople play “the blame game”, this study shows how salespeople correctly or incorrectly ascribe blame for the outcomes and the impact on job satisfaction.

The high failure rate for expatriate leaders is well documented. One major cause of these failures has been identified as the incongruencies in the perceptions of expatriate leaders and the host members that they manage. This article describes theory and research which suggests that a potential explanation for at least some of these perceptual incongruencies is that they are a result of culturally‐based attributional biases interacting with self‐serving and actor‐observer attributional biases. Although not all of the interactions of these biases result in incongruent perceptions, some interactions appear to be particularly prone to result in incongruent perceptions such as when leaders from highly individualistic and low context cultures interact with members from highly collectivistic and high context cultures. Suggestions for research and interventions designed to reduce incongruent attributions between leaders and members are discussed.

The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual model predicting the influence of biased causal explanations for subordinate behaviors and outcomes on a leader's functionality and the quality of leader‐member relationships.

Attribution theory is used to analyze the effect of leader perceptions and emotions on the functionality of leader‐member relationships. It is predicted that the negative emotions and expectancies stemming from biased leader attributions will promote dysfunctional leader behaviors. These dysfunctional behaviors, in turn, are believed to reduce the quality of leader‐member relationships.

Although much of the proposed model is based on empirical evidence, it is acknowledged that some key relationships have not been tested directly in past research. It is suggested that future research can seek to validate these aspects of the model. It is also suggested that future research explore the role of subordinate, as well as leader, attributions in dysfunctional relationships.

Several implications of the model for promoting functional leadership in organizations are described. The importance of leaders being aware of their attributional biases is indicated and information provided on how to assess one's attribution style. Also discussed are implications for reducing situational ambiguity and increasing causal feedback in the workplace.

This paper builds on past attribution theory research to address a shortage of research on the cognitive, interpersonal aspects of functional and dysfunctional leadership.

Healthcare workers are considered to be the most vulnerable to face mental health. Therefore, this paper aims to examine how negative leadership (despotic leadership) affects employees' psychological distress. Specifically, the authors investigated bullying behavior as mediating mechanism and hostile attribution bias as boundary condition that trigger psychological distress.

The authors collected data from 252 nurses and their immediate supervisors (as a coping strategy for common method bias) through “Google Forms” from various public and private hospitals.

The authors applied structural equation modeling and noted that despotic leadership positively affects employees' psychological distress through bullying behavior. In addition, hostile attribution bias is identified as an important factor in amplifying the effect of bullying behavior on psychological distress.

The authors collected data from high-power distance culture where negative leadership is more prevalent as compared to low-power distance culture. Their findings suggest management to discourage self-centered leaders (despotic) and employees with negative personality traits (hostile attribution bias) as these affect their mental health.

Drawing upon conservation of resources theory, this study is the first of its kind that has investigated how and when despotic leadership affects employees' psychological distress. In addition, the authors also highlighted the importance of negative personality traits (hostile attribution bias) that can amplify the association between bullying behavior and psychological distress.

The purpose of this research is to describe organization members' attributions for managerial responses to obviously externally caused crises. The authors draw from attribution theory research and the actor-observer bias to argue that organization members' proximity to managerial crisis response is a key determinant of organization members' affective and behavioral outcomes following a crisis.

The authors develop a conceptual dual-process model of attributions that explains why organization members' judgments of managerial responsibility and associated outcomes differ depending on organization members' proximity to crisis response action.

The authors focus on organization members' attributions for the failure of managerial crisis responses to obviously externally caused crisis events. The authors present propositions regarding the impact of organization members' potential biases on their attributions for managerial crisis response. Then, the authors delineate how action proximity can assuage negative outcomes of managerial crisis response failure by encouraging an attitude of understanding and awareness of situational challenges.

The authors diverge from prior applications of attribution theory to crisis management by focusing on organization members' attributions of managerial crisis response failure, rather than attributions for the initial cause of the crisis itself. The authors also extend prior work that primarily focuses on crisis response strategies by instead elaborating on how organization members' attributions operate in the wake of their management's failure to effectively respond to an obviously externally caused crisis.

In developing pricing strategies for the global marketplace, sellers have to consider the differences in how their consumers process information on prices. One potential difference is in attributions: whether the consumer blames the seller for a negative outcome such as a price increase. Prior research suggests that in individualistically oriented groups such as Anglos (and perhaps males), causal attributions are egocentrically biased: the cause of a negative outcome tends to be attributed to the actions of another person. In collectively oriented groups such as Hispanics (and perhaps females), the bias is much less. Empirical results, however, reveal that all groups demonstrate biased attributions of price increases. As a result, they have a less positive attitude toward the seller. The difference is that Hispanics and females generally infer that sellers have behaved in a more socially approved manner than do Anglos and males.

The purpose of the paper is to empirically test the overconfidence hypothesis at Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).

The study applies bivariate vector autoregression to perform the impulse-response analysis and EGARCH models to understand whether there is self-attribution bias and overconfidence behavior among the investors.

The study shows the empirical evidence in support of overconfidence hypothesis. The results show that the overconfident investors overreact to private information and underreact to the public information. Based on EGARCH specifications, it is observed that self-attribution bias, conditioned by right forecasts, increases investors’ overconfidence and the trading volume. Finally, the analysis of the relation between return volatility and trading volume shows that the excessive trading of overconfident investors makes a contribution to the observed excessive volatility.

The study focused on self-attribution and overconfidence biases using monthly data. Further studies can be encouraged to test the proposed hypotheses on daily data and also other behavioral biases.

Insights from the study suggest that the investors should perform a post-analysis of each investment so that they become aware of past behavioral mistakes and stop continuing the same. This might help investors to minimize the negative impact of self-attribution and overconfidence on their expected utility.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the investors’ overconfidence behavior at market-level data in BSE, India.