Article Component Papers (ATTRIBUTION & LEADERSHIP)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585 www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review

Mark J. Martinko a,⁎, Paul Harvey b,1, Scott C. Douglas c,2

a Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA b Department of Management, Whittemore School Of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA

c Department of Management, School of Business Administration, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review literature that has focused on the role of attributions in leadership processes and to explore and explain how the study of attributions does, and can, contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of leadership. The historical roots of attribution research are discussed, along with early attributional research in the leadership area. Two streams of attributional criticisms are addressed and recent attributional research relevant to leadership is reviewed. We argue and demonstrate that attributions account for significant proportions of the variance in leadership behaviors. We conclude with suggestions for including attributional perspectives in comprehensive models of leader behavior. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Attribution; Attribution Style; Leadership; Leader-Member Relations

1. Introduction

The purpose of this article is to review literature that has focused on the role of attributions in leadership processes and to explore and explain how the study of attributions does, and can, contribute to our understanding of leadership. There are at least three reasons why such a review and discussion is important to the field of leadership at this time. First, there have been more than 50 published studies concerned with the role of attributions in leadership processes since the late 1970s. Although there have been some general reviews of the role of attribution theory in the organizational sciences (Martinko, 1995; Martinko, 2004; Martinko, Douglas, & Harvey, 2006), we are unaware of any comprehensive review that focuses on the role of attributions in leadership processes. More importantly, there appears to have been little systematic effort to synthesize and understand this relatively large and significant body of research within the context of leadership.

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 850 510 7066; fax: +1 850 644 7843. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J. Martinko), [email protected] (P. Harvey), [email protected] (S.C. Douglas).

1 Tel.: +1 603 862 3301; fax: +1 603 862 3383. 2 Tel.: +1 406 243 6148.

1048-9843/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.004

562 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Second, as will be discussed below, there appears to be some confusion regarding the definition and role of attribution processes. In some cases it appears that the term attribution has been viewed as synonymous with perceptions, while in others attribution theory appears to be constrained within the domain of the theory originally suggested by Heider (1958), Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum (1971) and Kelley (1967). Clearing up these definitional problems and domain issues is important because there have been criticisms of attribution theory in the context of leadership processes (e.g., Cronshaw & Lord, 1987) that appear to be directed more toward perceptual processes in general rather than toward the domain that is typically considered to be encompassed by attribution theory. Misunderstandings of these criticisms need to be cleared up because they may lead to the rejection of attributional perspectives in situations where they can make valuable contributions.

Finally, as Weiner (2004) has noted, the extension of attribution theory into areas such as leadership has “stretched” attribution theory and has resulted in extensions of the theory that contribute to new research contexts, and also enhance and enrich the more general domain of attribution theory. We believe that it is important to point out these contributions.

We begin with a brief discussion of the historical roots of attribution research to clarify what we consider to be the domain of attribution theory. We then begin our review of the published literature within a historical context, starting with the work in the early 1980s conducted by Mitchell and his colleagues. Following the review of that body of literature, we examine the criticisms that have been directed toward attribution research, particularly those of Mitchell (1982), who was critical of his own work, and those of Lord and his colleagues (e.g., Cronshaw & Lord, 1987), which appear to hold attribution theory accountable for processes that are beyond its domain. Although there appeared to be a decline in attribution research in the leadership domain immediately after those criticisms, a steady stream of research has developed and continued through recent years. In the latter part of the manuscript we review that research, integrate it with the prior work, and describe how and where it contributes and can add to the domain of leadership research.

Before beginning our review, it is appropriate to delineate the criteria we used to select the articles for review. First, we wanted to make sure that we kept the scope of the review manageable and focused on leadership processes. Therefore, the articles we included had to either discuss or investigate leadership and attribution processes. Articles that discussed more general motivational processes such as goal setting, impression management, and employee selection were not included unless they were explicitly concerned with leadership processes within an attributional context. In addition, we did not consider articles that discussed leadership as a causal explanation for organizational performance (e.g., Lord, 1985; Staw, Mckechnie, & Puffer, 1983; Staw, 1975) in detail in this review because they are not concerned with leadership processes. Second, we searched the literature published in the major journals from 1975 to the present. Included among these journals were the Academy of Management Journal, The Leadership Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Management, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Personnel Psychology. Finally, we searched major databases including Google Scholar, Expanded Academic ASAP, JSTOR, ABI/Inform, and APA PsychArticles.

2. Attribution theory: Historical roots and definition

The origins of attribution theory are almost universally traced to the work of Fritz Heider (1958) and his notion that attributions are the result of the fundamental cognitive processes by which people ascertain cause and effect so that they can solve problems and become more efficacious in their interactions with their environments. Heider's most illustrative example was the notion of people as naïve psychologists trying to ascertain the causes of positive and negative outcomes. Thus, within Heider's original context and with respect to this review, an attribution is defined as a causal ascription for a positive or negative outcome.

The work of Heider was extended by Kelley (1971, 1973) and Weiner (1972, 1986). Kelley worked on the front end of the attribution process, identifying the types of information people used to make attributions (i.e., consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness information). Weiner focused on the consequences of attributions and discussed how the dimensions (e.g., locus of causality, stability, and controllability) of attributional explanations (e.g., effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty) affected emotions and behavior. In addition to Weiner and Kelley, Jones (1976) and his colleagues (Jones & Davis, 1965; Jones & Nisbett, 1971) as well as many others (e.g., Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Diener & Dweck, 1978; Ross, 1977) have made important contributions to the development of attribution theory.

563M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

3. Early attribution–leadership research: The Green and Mitchell model

The first systematic effort to explore the relationship between attribution processes and leadership processes was stimulated by the work of Green and Mitchell. In their 1979 article, Green and Mitchell proposed a model depicting how member behavior led to informational cues that influenced leader attributions which, in turn, influenced leader behaviors directed toward members. In building their model, Green and Mitchell relied primarily on Kelley's (1967) covariation analysis but also recognized and discussed a number of factors that moderated the behavior that leaders direct toward their members. The moderators included self-based consensus processes, the actor–observer and self- serving biases, leader expectations, the personal characteristics of the leader and member, the effects of multiple causation, leaders' expectations, the effects of subordinates' behavior, leaders' perceptions of the members' responsibility, the perceived ease of changing people as opposed to situations, and boundary conditions such as organizational policies.

Following the explication of their model, they generated more than twenty different hypotheses. In general, these hypotheses stated how different patterns of attributions lead to different types of leader behavior. For example, attributing failure to a lack of effort as opposed to ability leads to relatively more severe disciplinary behavior. At the conclusion of their article they warned that because of the various moderators and constraints on leader behavior, the link between leader attributions and leader behavior is probably less direct than most researchers would suspect. They ended with a call for research on attributions and leadership and the assertion that such research had considerable potential for understanding the complexities of leader behavior and, in particular, leader–member interactions.

After the Green & Mitchell (1979) article, a large number of studies were generated by Mitchell and his colleagues, most of which supported the basic processes described in the Green and Mitchell model. Almost all of these studies were directed toward identifying the factors that influenced leaders' reactions to poor member performance. The first, by Green & Liden (1980), manipulated attributions (internal and external) and demonstrated that attributions influenced both the focus and intensity of disciplinary actions. More specifically, when information was manipulated to cue internal attributions, disciplinary actions were directed toward the member and tended to be relatively severe.

In a somewhat similar study, Mitchell & Wood (1980) reported two studies of nursing supervisors in which they manipulated Kelley's three dimensions of information and attributions (consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness) and then tested to see whether or not the dimensions of information were related to supervisors' attributions and whether or not the attributions were related to disciplinary actions. As they indicated in their discussion, the results were consistent with the predictions of the Green & Mitchell (1979) model. Dimensions of information were related to attributions and attributions were related to disciplinary actions. This study was followed by a study by Wood & Mitchell (1981) that investigated the effects of accounts and apologies on leaders' attributions and expectancies. As expected, accounts that related attributions for poor performance to external factors were related to relatively more lenient leader reactions regarding member responsibility. The study also provided general support for the Green & Mitchell (1979) model, confirming the link between leaders' attributions and intended disciplinary actions. A similar study was reported by Knowlton & Mitchell (1980), which examined the effects of ability and effort attributions on leaders' ratings of poor performance. As with the prior studies, performance attributions were clearly related to leaders' ratings of their subordinates, but other factors such as the experience of the leaders were also important.

The last two studies in this group were conducted by Mitchell & Kalb (1981, 1982). In the first study, Mitchell & Kalb (1981) demonstrated that both the severity and importance of the members' performance affected leaders' attributions. More specifically, they found that when leaders received information indicating that the outcomes of members' behaviors were significant and important, they were more likely to perceive the members as responsible for negative outcomes. In their later research (Mitchell & Kalb, 1982), they reported on the effects of leader experience on attributions for member performance in both a laboratory and field study. In both studies they found that more experienced leaders tended toward relatively more external than internal attributions for members' poor performance. As with many of the above studies, these studies suggested additional variables that may affect leaders' attributions and, subsequently, leaders' evaluations and responses to poor performance.

In viewing these studies as a group, we developed several distinct impressions. First, in very few cases were attributions directly assessed. More specifically, attributions were often cued by dimensions of information, as in the Wood & Mitchell (1981) study, and it was inferred that subjects actually made the attributions suggested by the informational cues. Moreover, although sometimes there were manipulation checks, and although they usually achieved significance, there still was not a direct link between the attributions and leader behaviors assessed in most of

564 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

these studies. A second issue is that in almost all of the studies, leader behavior was inferred from leader intent. Thus, again, there were no direct tests of the links between actual leader behaviors and attributions. Third, although there were often direct manipulations of information, particularly in the case studies, almost all of the behavioral data were obtained via questionnaires. While the measurement of attributions is difficult without questionnaires, we see the failure to link attributions with actual behaviors as more serious as a result of the possibility of common method variance. Finally, the objective of this group of studies appears to be much narrower than the scope of the model originally suggested by Green & Mitchell (1979). More specifically, these studies were almost all oriented toward explaining and accounting for the variance in leader reactions to poor performance by their members. The Green and Mitchell model appears to forecast a much wider range of leader–member interactions and, as suggested in their 1979 article, the interaction between the attributions of both leaders and members is likely to affect the overall quality of leader–member relations. Thus, when we view this group of studies, the scope and focus appear to be somewhat narrow.

Despite criticism regarding methodological issues and the focus of this group of studies, it is important to note that the results of these studies, taken as a whole, provide fairly strong support for the Green and Mitchell model. There were no counterintuitive surprises and the findings were generally consistent with the model. Moreover, as Green and Mitchell suggested in their explication of their model, although there was a relatively clear link between the dimensions of information, attributions, and leaders' reactions to member performance, there were often other factors that significantly moderated the link between leaders' attributions and their reactions or intended reactions to subordinate poor performance.

4. Criticisms of attribution theory

As described in the introduction, there have been two major streams of criticism relating to attribution theory: one initiated by Mitchell and the other by Lord and his colleagues. In this section we will review and share our perspective of these criticisms.

Perhaps the most cited and, at least to us, the most curious criticism of attribution theory in the leadership area is that of Mitchell (1982). This article appeared shortly after the series of studies we reviewed in the previous section. In this manuscript he observed, as we described above, that there were many factors that affected supervisory reactions to poor performance besides leaders' attributions. These factors included the nature of the task outcomes, policies guiding leader responses, and the costs/benefits of leader responses. These were many of the same factors that were mentioned as moderating the leader attributions–leader reactions process described in the Green & Mitchell (1979) model. Therefore, we think it is somewhat curious that, at least in his 1982 article, Mitchell seems to be surprised at the fact that they also account for significant proportions of the variance in leader responses. Although Mitchell notes, and our review substantiates, that in almost all of the studies reviewed above attribution processes were significantly related to leader reactions, he goes on to suggest that leader attributions play a minor role in shaping leader reactions to members' performance.

We have become somewhat sensitive to Mitchell's criticism because it is cited frequently and, we must admit, has frequently been cited in reaction to our own work. We have several reactions to these criticisms that we hope place the criticisms in context. First, as Martinko (2004) has noted, just as there are multiple consequences (i.e., outcomes) for behaviors, there are multiple attributions for the outcomes of these behaviors. Moreover, each of these outcomes may result from the interaction of several factors making it unrealistic to describe causes in the dichotomous categories that are used to classify attributions. Thus, most of the research designs that designate a single outcome and ask for the “primary” attribution for the outcome are unrealistic. In most of the Mitchell studies, attributions were manipulated through information cues and a single cause was then inferred. In such unrealistic designs, we would not expect attributions to account for most of the variance in leaders' behaviors, especially since the factor that was analyzed was the dimension of information and not the attribution.

A second factor which militates against any one variable explaining leader behavior is the notion of over- and under- specified models. In over-specified models with multiple variables that may or may not be related to the outcome measure, variance is lost as these unrelated variables consume degrees of freedom in the design. On the other hand, in under-specified models, variance is unexplained because systematic sources of variation are not accounted for. Thus, as Weiner (1995) has noted in his discussion of predicting aggression from attributions, complex behaviors have many causes, and we should not be surprised about the inability to predict behavior in complex social situations because the

565M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

models are underspecified. Thus, it seems premature to throw out the baby with the bath water when the expectations for attributions are unrealistic.

A similar point was made by Gilbert (1989) who also noted that attribution theory is often criticized for claims that attribution theories have never made. Even Green & Mitchell (1979) expressed doubt that attributions would account for major portions of the variance in leader behavior unless moderators were controlled or accounted for. Nevertheless, despite the reservations they expressed, they encouraged research on their model suggesting that attributions could explain a significant, although perhaps small, portion of the variance in leader behaviors. In summary, our reaction to the Mitchell criticisms is that they are the result of expectations and standards that would be unrealistic for any theory of complex behavior. We agree that attributions may only account for small proportions of the variance in under- and over- specified designs. However, the amount of variance explained in many attribution–leadership studies is significant, and we question Mitchell's assertion that attributions play a “minor” role compared to other factors in predicting leader behavior. Rather, we would suggest that because of the multiple factors associated with such behaviors, it would be difficult to claim that any one factor is dominant. The consistency with which attributions have been related to leader behaviors suggests that they are an important component in understanding leader–member interactions.

A second major stream of criticisms came from the work of Lord and his colleagues (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987; Lord & Maher, 1990; Lord & Smith, 1983; Phillips & Lord, 1986). The main concern expressed in this series of articles is that the cognitive labor necessary to make the rational judgments described by attribution theorists precludes the use of such processes for everyday occurrences. As a result, this group of studies suggests that people are most likely to attend to and use the most salient and immediate cues (Taylor & Fiske, 1978) or use scripts and heuristics (e.g., Schank & Abelson, 1977) when forming behavioral responses to everyday events. While Lord and his colleagues do not disagree with the notion that people engage in rational information processing as suggested by Kelley (1973) and Weiner (1986), they suggest that such processes are not typical and are reserved for particularly important or surprising events. More specifically, Lord & Smith (1983) cite Wong & Weiner (1981), noting that rational attributional processes are most likely to occur when outcomes are disappointing or surprising. Thus, Lord and his colleagues recognize that people do engage in the rational processes suggested by attribution theory, but emphasize the boundary conditions under which these processes are most and least likely.

Unfortunately, we believe that the criticisms of Lord and his colleagues have been misinterpreted and overgeneralized. In particular, in reviews of our own work, we have frequently seen the study of Cronshaw & Lord (1987) cited as evidence that the leader–member interaction process suggested by the Green & Mitchell (1979) model is unrealistic. The application is particularly frustrating in that the Cronshaw & Lord (1987) study did not investigate leader–member interactions. Rather, it focused on the process by which people form general leadership impressions as opposed to making a causal ascription for performance. Thus, the Cronshaw and Lord study treated leadership as a social perception and was not concerned with the interaction between leaders and their members.

In ending this discussion of the limitation of attribution theory with respect to the context of leadership, we want to emphasize that we do not mean to minimize the importance of the limitations that Mitchell and Lord and his colleagues have noted. We acknowledge that attributions probably account for a small but significant proportion of the variance in leaders' behaviors and that, as Lord has noted, there are boundary conditions under which leaders are more or less likely to engage in the cognitive effort necessary to develop explicit attributions. We will say more about these issues later when we discuss future research directions.

5. Recent works: 1985–2007

Research on the Green & Mitchell (1979) model dropped off in the early 1980s, perhaps as a reaction to the criticisms described above. However from the middle 1980's to the present, a steady stream of research on the role of attributions in the leadership processes re-emerged. Although much of this work continued to test the propositions of the Green and Mitchell model, other studies explored additional aspects of the relationship between attributions and leadership processes.

5.1. Research relevant to the Green & Mitchell (1979) model

There has been a substantial amount of research by Ashkanasy and his colleagues (Ashkanasy, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997; Ashkanasy & Gallois, 1994) that has focused on validating the relationships predicted by the Green & Mitchell (1979) model between the dimensions of causal information, attributions, and leadership behaviors.

566 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Perhaps the most comprehensive test of the Green and Mitchell model is described in Ashkanasy (1989). In this study, using case scenarios, he showed that Kelley's three dimensions of information (i.e., consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness) had the predicted effects on whether subjects increased or decreased their attributions to Weiner's four primary attributional explanations (i.e., ability, effort, tasks, and luck/chance). In addition, the results demonstrated that, with a few very minor exceptions, the attributional explanations were related to evaluation variables as predicted by the model. Thus, for example, in the cases of failure, less negative reactions were associated with ability attributions and more negative reactions occurred when failure was attributed to a lack of effort.

Importantly, the Ashkanasy (1989) study found that attributions for failure accounted for more than 30% of the variance in the subjects' evaluative responses. Thus we found this study to be a very convincing demonstration that Kelley's information cues are related to attributions and that these attributions are then related to evaluations that are consistent with the predictions of the Green & Mitchell (1979) model.

Ashkanasy's 1991 study essentially replicated the results of the 1989 study, again supporting the predictions of the Green & Mitchell (1979) model regarding the relationships between Kelley's dimensions of information, attributions, and evaluations. Similarly, Ashkanasy (1995) found evidence of relationships between Kelly's (1967) dimensions of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information, Weiner's (1986) causal explanations of ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty, and leader evaluations that were generally consistent with Green & Mitchell's (1979) logic. For instance, Ashkanasy found that highly consistent workplace behaviors (i.e., those that an employee performs regularly and repeatedly over time) were associated with ability attributions. Specifically, high levels of ability were attributed to consistently high performance behaviors, promoting favorable evaluations, whereas low levels of ability were attributed to poor performance behaviors, promoting less favorable evaluations. Thus, much of Ashkanasy's work can be viewed as supporting the Green and Mitchell model without any major modification or revisions.

However, a study by Ashkanasy & Gallois (1994), although supporting the relationships between attributions and evaluations, did not find strong support for the relationships between Kelley's dimensions of information and evaluations. In contrast to prior studies which used case scenarios and “paper people,” this study employed a laboratory setting and multiple situational cues in addition to Kelley's informational dimensions. The other cues included performance information, supervisory control, suggesting task oriented versus more general leadership styles, and task control wherein the subjects were to evaluate explicit or creative outcomes. The authors concluded that while the relationship between attributions and supervisory evaluations were robust across methods, contextual variables such as the nature of the task, supervisory control, and knowledge of success or failures were also important determinants of supervisory evaluations. We view these findings as consistent with those suggested by the Green & Mitchell (1979) model which suggested that there were a number of factors that could mediate and moderate the relationship between attributions and supervisory evaluations. However, their discussion also appears to go one step further in that they suggest that although attributions may play an important role, it also appeared that the subjects responded to the most salient cues (e.g., performance outcomes) in an impressionistic fashion. Thus, while not discounting the importance of attributions in supervisory evaluations, the authors suggest that, in everyday situations, decisions of responsibility may take cognitive shortcuts and use the information that is most salient and convenient to make a decision, very much similar to Simon's (1947) earlier notions of saticficing. As such, we do not view these results as disconfirming the Green and Mitchell model. Rather, they begin to delineate the conditions under which other types of information besides Kelley's informational dimensions affect both attributional processes and evaluation decisions. The notion that the subjects reacted in an impressionistic fashion in a laboratory study where the stakes were neither particularly important nor surprising is consistent with Weiner's (1986) view that attribution processes will not be engaged in routine situations. Finally, in discussing this study in a later paper, Ashkanasy (2002) noted that none of the predictions based on the Green and Mitchell model were contraindicated and all were in the predicted directions although some failed to achieve statistical significance.

Two other papers by Ashkanasy are particularly relevant to the Green & Mitchell (1979) model. In his 1997 study, Ashkanasy again tested Green and Mitchell model's basic propositions that both informational cues and attributions would account for significant variance in supervisors' evaluations beyond the variance contributed by performance feedback. He concluded that “Overall the results of the present study add further to the weight of the evidence supporting the Green & Mitchell (1979) model … in both samples attributions were shown to unequivocally affect evaluative responses over and above the direct affects of informational cues.”

567M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Finally, in 2002 Ashkanasy summarized his work in the area of attribution theory. Essentially, he concluded that the basic relationships between Kelley's dimensions of information, attributions, and evaluations of performance suggested by the Green and Mitchell model were supported across a wide variety of studies employed in different cultures with different methodologies. Our own conclusions regarding the Green and Mitchell model closely mirror those of Ashkanasy (2002). In particular, as Ashkanasy has repeatedly noted, attributions have a robust effect on leaders' evaluations of members beyond the variance accounted for by Kelley's informational cues and other variables such as performance levels and task interdependency.

In addition to the work of Ashkanasy, there have been several other studies that investigated issues related to the Green and Mitchell model. More specifically, a study by Gioia & Sims (1986) investigated the attributions and observed behaviors of twenty-four managers placed in a simulated performance appraisal situation. In this situation they provided information about the subordinates' work histories and work performance. Their primary focus in this study was to investigate how the information on work history and performance influences the leaders' attributions, the nature of the interactions between the leaders and their subordinates, and whether or not the verbal interactions between leaders and managers shifted the attributions of the leaders. In general, as suggested by the Green and Mitchell model, performance outcomes affected attributions although history did not have an affect, suggesting that the information on performance level was more salient and may have been more highly valued. Their main finding which they stressed in their discussion was that leaders probed for causal information when interviewing subordinates and appeared to shift their attributions based on the information they received in the interaction with their subordinates.

Our interpretation of these results is that they are consistent with the studies by Ashkanasy & Gallois (1994) and Ashkanasy (1995) that indicated that immediate impressions of employee performance (e.g., the positive or negative nature of an employee outcome) influenced leader evaluations more strongly than attributions based on work history. In addition, these results demonstrate that when leaders have limited information on history and performance they probe for more information to make attributions before evaluating performance. Moreover, since much of this information probably appeared surprising because approximately half the members had work histories that were inconsistent with their performance, we would expect that the leaders would want more information and become more engaged in the attribution search process than usual. This observation is consistent with Weiner's (1986) assertion that attribution processes are cued by information that is surprising and important. Thus, this study appropriately depicts the process by which leaders gather information to make attributions about performance and the results are not inconsistent with either attribution theory or the Green and Mitchell model. The results make an important contribution by demonstrating how leaders gather information to make attributions, by demonstrating that attributions are malleable and sensitive to additional information relevant to causation, and by demonstrating that attribution search processes are cued when information is lacking or inconsistent.

Three additional studies appear to support the findings summarized above, demonstrating that although attributions affect leader behaviors and evaluations, other variables also play a role in leader evaluations and behaviors. More specifically, Tjosvold (1985) hypothesized and confirmed that ability and effort attributions would affect the nature of intended interactions with subordinates but also showed that whether or not the subjects believed that they had a cooperative, competitive, or individualistic relationship affected the nature of intended interactions. Similarly, Moss & Martinko (1998) demonstrated that effort and ability attributions affected the types of feedback leaders gave to subordinates but also that these same dimensions of feedback were affected by task interdependence. Finally, Offermann, Schroyer, & Green (1998) demonstrated that performance attributions had significant effects on leaders' communications with subordinates and their disciplinary actions.

Thus, as a group, the body of work by Mitchell and his colleagues, the work of Ashkanasy, and the other studies that followed all appear to confirm the basic tenets of both attribution theory and the Green and Mitchell model in that attributions appear to be systematically related to leaders' and members' behaviors but also that these behaviors are often substantially influenced by other factors such as member performance on specific tasks and task interdependence. When we view this body of research as a whole, we find it appropriate to echo Ashkanasy's (2002) observation that the finding that attributions are systematically related to leaders' evaluations and interactions with members is robust across many different samples and methods. The finding that other variables also affect evaluations and interactions is neither contradictory to attribution theory nor the original Green and Mitchell model that suggested that other factors would moderate the relations depicted by the model. With these findings in mind, we will now turn to other research relevant to the role of attributions in leadership processes.

568 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

5.2. Different approaches to attributional leadership research

Attribution theory has been applied to a wide array of phenomena associated with organizational leadership. In this section, we summarize some of the more prominent research streams.

5.2.1. Research on biases An important focus of attribution research has been in the area of attributional biases. While some of this body of

research has related to confirming the Green & Mitchell (1979) model, other objectives of this body of research have included identifying the effects of these biases on conflict between leaders and members (Martinko & Gardner, 1987), the accuracy of performance evaluations (Herriot, 1981), and the quality of strategic planning processes. As a group of studies, these works almost all universally confirmed the existence of the bias they investigated, demonstrated their potential effects and, as we will point out, have implications for leadership processes.

5.2.1.1. The self-serving bias. The self-serving bias is the tendency of individuals to take credit for their successes (i.e., make internal attributions) and blame failures on external sources (i.e., make external attributions) (Zuckerman, 1979). Clearly this can be a problem for the leader–member relationship because, when the bias is operational, leaders tend to blame members for their failures whereas members tend to blame external sources, including their leaders, for their failures. The empirical research in this area almost unequivocally confirms the existence of this bias and its effects. More specifically, Dobbins & Russell (1986) confirmed this bias, demonstrating that leaders blamed their subordinates for their failures while the subordinates blamed the poor performance of their organization and their leaders.

Similarly, a series of studies investigating letters to shareholders demonstrated that organizational leaders consistently claimed credit for organizational successes while blaming the poor performance of their organizations on external sources (Bettman & Weitz, 1983; Clapham & Schwenk, 1991; Salancik & Meindl, 1984; Staw et al., 1983). To the extent that letters to shareholders represent an organizational message to investors, this research is significant in that it demonstrates the influence of attributional biases at the organizational level.

Finally, it is important to note that while the self-serving biases appears to be more prevalent in individualistic cultures (Martinko & Douglas, 1999; Van Boven, Kamada, & Gilovich, 1999), a meta-analysis by Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin (2004) indicates that this bias is prevalent in all cultures, although it also appears to be exacerbated in individualistic cultures. Thus, as suggested by the original Green and Mitchell model, the self-serving bias appears to have an important influence on attributions for performance for both leaders and members.

5.2.1.2. The actor–observer bias. The actor–observer bias is the tendency of observers to attribute the behaviors and outcomes of actors to their internal dispositions (i.e., make internal attributions) whereas actors attribute their outcomes and behaviors to their external environment (i.e., make external attributions). The most common explanation for this bias is that actors' attentions are on their external environments and, as a result, regardless of whether their outcomes are successes or failures, actors are biased in that their explanations tend to emphasize the external factors that were the focus of their attentions. Similarly, observers, who are frequently leaders watching the performance of members, focus their attention on the members. As a result, they are biased toward explaining both the successes and failures of their members in terms of internal characteristics.

The actor–observer bias has been well documented in both the psychological (e.g., Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich, 2002; Feldman, 1981; Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002; Pruitt & Insko, 1980; Ross, 1977; Van Boven et al., 1999) and organizational literature (e.g., Bernardin, 1989; Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Brown & Mitchell, 1986; Mitchell & Wood, 1980). An example of this research is the work of Bernardin (1989) in which he found that leaders tended to make dispositional attributions for their members' failures while making external attributions for their own failures. The research on the actor–observer bias has also demonstrated that this bias is less pronounced when the leaders have direct experience with the tasks that the members are performing (Mitchell & Kalb, 1982). On the other hand, this bias appears to be exacerbated as the tenure of the leader increases (Fedor & Rowland, 1989).

Culture also appears to be related to the tendency to demonstrate the actor–observer bias (Martinko & Douglas, 1999). Van Boven et al. (1999) found that Japanese subjects were less biased toward attributing actor behaviors to dispositional factors than were subjects from more individualistic cultures. Similarly, Miyamoto & Kitayama (2002) found that American observers showed stronger dispositional biases for actor behavior than did Japanese subjects.

569M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

In conclusion, although the actor–observer bias has not been researched extensively in the context of leader– member relationships, the research that has been done indicates that this bias is pervasive and, although affected by culture, appears to exist across cultures.

In the context of leader–member relations, this bias has particularly important implications in that it can lead to leader–member conflict (Martinko & Gardner, 1987), particularly when members are unfairly blamed for the poor performance of the organization. Likewise, as demonstrated by numerous studies (e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980; Mitchell & Wood, 1980), attributions for performance often lead to disciplinary actions and training recommendations which are likely to be ineffective when performance problems are inappropriately attributed to the characteristics of the members.

5.2.1.3. Other biases. In addition to the actor–observer and self-serving biases, both the false consensus and hedonic relevance biases may effect leaders' and members' evaluations of member performance as well as the quality of their relationships. The false consensus bias is the notion that people in general, and in this case leaders, view their own behavior as normative and expect other people to behave, perform, and make decisions that are typical of their own behavior (Krueger & Clement, 1994; Ross, 1977). Although there has been very little direct investigation of this bias in the context of leadership, Feldman (1981) suggested that it could have important implications in leadership contexts, noting that supervisors often use their own behavior as the standard for evaluating the behavior of others. Thus, research on this bias may be particularly helpful in understanding differences in leaders' and members' perceptions of performance.

Research on the hedonic relevance bias (Jones & Davis, 1965), may also offer insight into the dynamics of leader and member relations. This bias suggests that leaders will be oriented toward making attributions that maximize their rewards and outcomes. Research on this bias has been quite limited, although one study demonstrating its effects was conducted by Dossett & Greenberg (1981). They argued and found support for their hypothesis that leaders' evaluations of members' success and failure would be more positive to the extent that the leaders were involved in setting goals with their members.

In summary, attributional biases appear to be pervasive phenomena that affect leaders' and members' evaluations of member performance as well as the quality of their relationships. As we will see below, many of these biases have implications for the quality of leader and member interactions.

5.2.2. Attribution style One potential way of measuring the strength of attributional biases and determining their effects on leader and

member relations is the construct of attribution style. Unlike attributions, which are causal explanations for specific events, attribution style is the tendency to make attributions that are similar across situations (Abramson et al., 1978; Kent & Martinko, 1995; Russell, 1991). Attribution style can be viewed as a trait-like characteristic that is multi- dimensional and subsumes one-dimensional biases such as the self-serving and actor–observer biases (Martinko, Moss, Douglas, & Borkowski, in press). The most well-known and investigated examples of attribution styles are the optimistic and pessimistic attribution styles. People with an optimistic attribution style have a tendency to attribute success to internal and stable factors while attributing failure to external and unstable factors such as luck and chance (Abramson et al., 1978). On the other hand, pessimistic styles are characterized by external and unstable attributions for success and internal and stable attributions for failure, such as lack of ability.

The findings from the research on attribution style closely parallel the research on attributions, demonstrating that attribution styles are related to attributions, which, in turn, are related to expectancies, emotions, and behaviors. More specifically, attribution styles have been found to be related to depression and drug abuse (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989), learned helplessness and empowerment in organizations (Campbell & Martinko, 1998), aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), and the productivity of salespeople (Seligman & Schulman, 1986).

Although the majority of the research on attribution styles has focused on intrapersonal attributions, a recent study by Martinko et al. (in press) extended the notion of attribution styles to an interpersonal/leadership context. Based on earlier theory developed by Martinko & Gardner (1987), which suggested that the cumulative effect of the actor– observer and self-serving biases predisposed leaders and members to interpersonal conflict, the Martinko et al. (in press) study demonstrated the impact of leader and member attribution styles on the quality of leader–member relations. More specifically, this study demonstrated that when leaders expressed pessimistic social attribution styles with respect to members' poor performance (i.e., tended to make internal and stable attributions for member failure), members with optimistic attribution styles who tended to attribute their failures to external and unstable factors tended

570 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

to perceive poor leader–member relations. Importantly, the interaction between the attribution styles of leaders and members was replicated across two very different samples. In addition, in at least one of the samples, there was a main effect of leader attribution styles suggesting that members who had leaders with pessimistic social attribution styles perceived poor leader–member relations.

The Martinko et al. (in press) study appears particularly important in that it demonstrates that leaders have social attribution styles that can be reliably measured. Although other dependent variables were not tested, we would expect that, because attribution styles measure the tendency to make particular types of attributions, the attribution styles of leaders are probably also predictive of leaders' expectancies for member performance, their emotional reactions to their members, and the way they treat their members. Thus, this appears to be a promising and productive area for further research.

5.2.3. Demographic variables Gender, age, and culture all appear to be related to attributional tendencies and, as a result, can be viewed as proxies

for the attribution styles of both leaders and members. In terms of gender, numerous studies have demonstrated that men are generally more self-serving in their attributions than women (Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977; Dobbins, Pence, Orban, & Sgro, 1983; Feather, 1969; McElroy & Morrow, 1983). In addition, at least two studies (Feldman-Summers & Kiesler, 1974; McElroy & Morrow, 1983) also demonstrate that observers tend to attribute the successful performances of women to effort whereas the successes of men are more likely to be attributed to ability.

Several studies demonstrate that older employees tend to be more self-serving and evaluate themselves more positively than younger employees (Ferris, Yates, Gilmore, & Rowland, 1985; Mezulis et al., 2004). On the other hand, there is evidence that observers are less likely to attribute the success of older employees to ability (Ferris et al., 1985) but are also more likely to attribute their failure to a lack of ability (Banzinger & Drevenstedt, 1982). Research on the relationship between age and observer evaluations also has implications for leadership research. Chen & Blanchard-Fields' (1997) study indicated that older observers were more likely to shift their attributions from situational to dispositional over time, whereas younger observers displayed the opposite tendency, moving from initially dispositional to situational attributions. Thus it appears that age and the experience of leaders may influence the nature of attributional processes.

Finally, another demographic difference that appears to be related to attributional processes is culture. Numerous studies have demonstrated relationships between culture and attributional processes. One of the most consistent findings in cross-cultural attribution research is that cultures tend to differ in their members' displays of internal and external attribution styles. More specifically, American subjects tend to be more internal in their attribution styles than Korean (Cha & Nam, 1985; Jae-Ho & Ki-Dok, 1985), Chinese (Morris & Peng, 1994), and Chilean (Betancourt & Weiner, 1982) subjects. Diener & Diener (1995), Martinko & Douglas (1999) and Morris & Peng (1994) have all attributed these differences to variations in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures which stress personal control versus collective responsibility, respectively. Martinko & Douglas (1999) argued that as a result of these cultural differences, conflicts between leaders and members from different cultures regarding beliefs about the responsibility for employees' successes and failures are likely.

There has also been a substantial amount of research on biases between cultures that appears relevant for leadership situations. Islam & Hewstone (1993) found that that members of one culture (i.e., the in-group) tend to make self- serving attributions regarding the performance of their group members while making derogatory attributions about the performance of members from other cultures (i.e., the out-group). Similar results reported by Taylor & Jaggi (1974) supported this notion, demonstrating that Hindus and Muslims made internal attributions for socially desirable acts by their group members but made external attributions for these same types of behaviors when they were performed by members from the other culture.

The implications of this research are fairly clear. If attributions and attribution styles are affected by culture in the way the research suggests, both leaders and members from different cultures are predisposed to being biased in their attributions for performance. This will likely affect leaders' expectations for member performance, the emotions of both the leaders and members, and the ways in which leaders and members behave and interact. Thus an understanding of these relationships appears quite important in both the development and understanding of productive and high quality leader and member relations.

5.2.4. Personality traits Recent research has suggested that personality traits are significantly related to leadership emergence and effectiveness.

A developing stream of theory and research is beginning to demonstrate that there are significant relationships between

571M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

attribution processes and many of the traits associated with leadership, including the core self-evaluation constructs (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Cable & Judge, 2003) of locus of control, self-efficacy, and negative affectivity.

5.2.4.1. Locus of control. Perhaps the most researched personality variable associated with attributions is locus of control. Locus of control is concerned with peoples' beliefs that their rewards and outcomes are under their control (internal locus) or determined by factors outside of themselves (Rotter, 1966). There are obvious parallels between the concepts of locus of control and the attributional dimension of locus of causality. People with an internal locus of control believe that they control their fate (Anderson & Schneier, 1978) and, we would expect, tend to make internal attributions for both successes and failures. On the other hand, people with an external locus of control feel their fate is controlled by factors outside of themselves and would be more likely to attribute their outcomes to external environmental factors. The major distinction between the two concepts is that locus of control is a persistent trait whereas locus of causality is concerned with causal ascriptions for the outcomes of specific events.

Importantly, numerous studies document relationships between locus of control, behavior, and performance (Anderson, Hellriegel, & Slocum, 1977; Goodstadt & Hjelle, 1973; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Mitchell, Smyser, & Weed, 1975; Perlow & Latham, 1993; Storms & Spector, 1987). Despite the apparent relationship between locus of causality and locus of control, we are aware of only one study that investigates the relationship between these two variables. More specifically, a study by Markus & Kityama (1991) showed that Japanese students who are characterized as having an external locus of control made more external attributions than American students who were characterized as having an internal locus of control. Our view of this result is that locus of control may be a suitable proxy measure indicating biases towards internal or external attributions. Further research in this area would seem to be worthwhile, especially to determine whether differences in locus of control between leaders and members lead to attributional conflicts and affect the quality of leader–member relations.

5.2.4.2. Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be defined as “beliefs in one's capabilities to mobilize the motivations, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Self-efficacy is important from a leadership perspective because there are significant relationships between self- efficacy and performance levels (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987; Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995; Singer, 1989; Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984; Wood & Locke, 1987).

The study by Silver et al. (1995) showed that people with high self-efficacy were significantly more self- serving in their attributions than those with low self-efficacy. Silver et al. concluded that self-serving attributions enhance self-efficacy in that attributing success to ones' own internal and stable characteristics such as ability increases individuals' beliefs that they will succeed on the task in the future. Clearly, given the results of research indicating that self-efficacy beliefs make a significant contribution to performance beyond levels of ability (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), developing a greater understanding of the role of attributions in enhancing both leader and member efficacy beliefs would seem to be an important objective in facilitating leadership performance.

5.2.4.3. Negative affectivity. Watson & Clarke (1984) defined negative affectivity as the degree to which people experience disturbing emotions such as fear, hostility, anger, and anxiety. Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas (2002) and Martinko et al. (2006) have both argued that it is likely that the proclivity to experience these negative emotions is related to attribution style. The rationale for this assertion can be found in the work of Weiner (1995) which asserts that attributions are related to emotions. More specifically, Martinko et al. (2002) argued that since people high in negative affectivity have an increased tendency to focus on their negative characteristics, it is likely that they are biased towards pessimistic attributions for failures and the associated negative emotions. In addition, Martinko et al. (2002) argued that since negative affectivity is a stable characteristic, people high in negative affectivity probably also view the causes of failure as more stable than others, further contributing to pessimistic attributions for failure. Finally, in a study linking attributions to organizational aggression, Douglas & Martinko (2001) found a significant positive relationship between hostile attribution styles and negative affectivity. Thus, it would seem that further exploration of the relationship between negative affectivity and attribution styles would be informative. It would be particularly interesting to see if there is a relationship between optimistic and pessimistic attribution styles and the tendency to experience negative affectivity and to investigate how these variables affect the quality of leader–member relationships.

572 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

5.2.5. Impression formation There have been a number of works oriented towards explaining how members' develop perceptions of charisma,

transformational leadership, politics, and dues paying. Several articles have examined the interplay between transformational/charismatic leadership and subordinate

attributions for leader behaviors. Cha & Edmondson (2006) argued that the value expansion associated with charismatic leadership (i.e., development and acceptance of values espoused by charismatic leaders) can increase the likelihood of “hypocrisy attributions,” or the attribution of leader behaviors to self-serving motives. The authors suggest that as subordinates develop new values, the odds of perceiving the leader to have behaved in a way that is incongruent with those values increases, a hypothesis that was supported in their study. Conceptual and empirical research by Dasborough & Ashkanasy (2002, 2004) also indicates that transformational leadership can produce unfavorable subordinate attributions if employees perceive incongruence between transformational leadership behaviors and perceived intentions. Results of their 2004 study indicate that when transformational behaviors are attributed by employees to self-focused, as opposed to organizationally-focused leadership motives, the employees are likely to attribute unfavorable characteristics (i.e., manipulative personality, insincerity) to the leader.

Two other conceptual works attempt to integrate attribution processes into perspectives of charismatic leadership. Waldman & Yammarino (1999) describe charismatic attributions and the ability to generate charisma attributions as an important part of CEO leadership processes. In their description of the charismatic attribution process they stress an observer perspective (i.e., close versus distant relationships) and the importance of symbolic behavior, performance information, articulating a vision, sagas, and story telling. Similarly, Gardner & Avolio (1998) described the process of developing charismatic attributions from a dramatalurgical and impression management perspective. Building on earlier work of Lord & Maher (1993), they describe attribution formation in terms of a prototype matching process rather than the systematic processing of the types of information suggested by the Kelley (1967, 1973) models.

Is has also been argued that the recently developed authentic leadership construct (e.g., Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) may have an attributional component. Harvey, Martinko, & Gardner (2006) argued that the honest and unbiased perceptions associated with authentic leadership require a balanced and accurate attribution style. More specifically, they argued that in order to form accurate perceptions of one's subordinates and one's self, the ability to accurately access and process the causal information associated with performance levels is necessary. Given that their argument has not been empirically tested, this remains an area for future research to explore.

Davis & Gardner (2004) developed a model to demonstrate how members develop perceptions of organizational politics and cynicism. Essentially they propose that employees biased towards external attributions are more likely than others to be cynical and perceive the existence of organizational politics. As in the case of Waldman & Yammarino's (1999) analysis of charismatic attributions, Davis and Gardner propose that the distance between leaders and members determines whether or not the members engage in the effortful rational processing suggested by attribution theory or engage in the automatic processing suggested by Lord and his colleagues (Lord, 1985, 1995; Lord & Maher, 1990, 1991, 1993; Lord & Smith, 1983). Importantly, this article starts to delimit boundary conditions for attributional processing, suggesting that rational processing is more likely in close relationships where information is available while automatic processing is more likely in distant leader–member relationships.

Finally, Martinko, Douglas, Ford, & Gundlach (2004) used an attributional perspective to describe how observers decide that a person has “paid their dues.” Examples of situations that would prompt dues paying evaluations would be when the winner of an election is unanticipated or when a person perceived to be incompetent is promoted. In this paper, Martinko et al. relied on more traditional attribution theory and showed how the information from Kelley's model leads to attributions that are associated with dues paying. They also described how the information from Kelley's model can be used in impression management strategies to cue attributions that lead to perceptions of dues paying.

When we look at this area as a whole, we are struck by the impression that the majority of the work in this area suggests automatic processing as suggested by Lord and his colleagues as opposed to the more traditional rational information processing suggested by the Kelley and Weiner models. We believe that the reason for this difference in theoretical explanations is that these topics are more concerned with general social perceptions as opposed to the analysis of causation for specific events. Thus, the question of why a person wins an election (dues paying) is quite

573M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

different than whether or not a person is perceived to be charismatic. We will say more about this contrast in our discussion on boundary conditions below.

5.2.6. Research on emotions and leadership Another important area of emerging theory and research is that linking attributions and emotions. The majority of

this research is developing in the social psychology literature (e.g., Weiner, 1995), but there have been some attempts to describe how the links between attributions and emotions are relevant to the organizational literature. In particular, Weiner (2004) shows how attributions and emotions are related in the areas of helping and aggression. For example, based on his analysis we would expect that when a member fails, leaders are more likely to express sympathy and engage in helping behavior if they perceive that the failure was due to factors over which the employees had no control. Similarly, Allred's (1995) work suggests that leaders are more likely to become angry and hold their members in low regard when they attribute their members' failures to internal and controllable causes.

Also relevant to the role of emotions in the leadership process is the study by Tjosvold (1985) cited earlier that found that leaders experienced negative emotions and used threats when they attributed poor performance to a lack of effort. Similarly, Harvey, Martinko, & Douglas (2006) noted that leaders are likely to form negative emotions toward subordinates when internal and stable attributions are made for poor employee performance. These negative emotions, in turn, are likely to influence both leader behaviors and future attributions for employee performance in a negative manner (Harvey et al., 2006). Finally, the work of Dasborough & Ashkanasy (2002), which was also cited earlier, makes the case that leaders' displays of emotions are an important impression management tactic that can induce emotional reactions in their members leading to attributions of transformational leadership and more productive leader and member relations. More specifically, they argue that leaders who display positive mood states that result in favorable emotional reactions among subordinates encourage perceptions of transformational leadership. On the other hand they argue that the negative mood states of leaders engender negative moods in members that lead to perceptions of pseudo-transformational leadership.

5.2.7. Attributions and leader–member relationships As indicated in our earlier review of the research on the Green & Mitchell (1979) model, the research immediately

following the model focused on leaders' attributions for member performance but did little to investigate subordinate attributions and their reactions to their leaders' attributions and behaviors. In the late 1980s, research began to emerge focusing on the interactions between the attributional processes of leaders and members.

Much of the early work in this area was conceptual. In 1987 Martinko and Gardner proposed an interactive extension of Green & Mitchell's (1979) framework, predicting that both leader and member behaviors are partially shaped by the similarities and differences in their attributions for member successes and failures. More specifically, they argued that under conditions of failure both the actor–observer and self-serving biases predisposed leaders to blame members, while members are predisposed to making external attributions. They hypothesized that over time and repeated interactions, these biases predispose many leaders and members to have conflicting attributions regarding the causes of members' poor performance. It should be noted that the study by Martinko et al. (in press) described earlier offers partial confirmation of these hypotheses if we accept the notion that attribution styles are measures of attribution biases.

In addition to the hypothesis regarding the interaction of leader and member biases, Martinko & Gardner (1987) also argued that when the self-serving and actor–observer biases were operational, leaders were more likely to make internal and stable attributions for poor employee performance and that when these attributions were communicated to employees, they were likely to make the same attributions for their poor performance and experience learned helplessness. Finally, they hypothesized that when leaders made internal and stable attributions for members' poor performance, they were likely to place those members into employee “out-groups” creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of poor performance. Thus, the Martinko and Gardner model suggested that the interaction of leaders' and members' attributional processes has important implications for leader and member interactions and behaviors.

Studies by Campbell & Swift (2006), Heneman, Greenberger, & Anonyuo (1989), and Wilhelm, Herd, & Steiner (1993) have also indicated that leaders' attributions for member performance are associated with the placement of employees into in-groups and out-groups. These studies concluded that leaders are more likely to form favorable attributions for employee performance (i.e., internal for successes) when employees belong to their in-group. Thus, whereas Martinko & Gardner (1987) predicted that attributions can influence the placement of employees into in-

574 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

groups or out-groups, Heneman et al. (1989) indicated that employees' in-group or out-group status will influence leaders' attributions for those employees. These perspectives suggest that a cyclical function might exist in which attributions continually strengthen or weaken the quality of leader–member relationships.

5.2.8. Conceptual advances In addition to the empirical work, there have been several conceptual developments that have the potential to

advance the explanatory power of attribution theory. The first of these areas is concerned with the relationship between Kelley's dimensions of information, Weiner's attributional dimensions, and attributional explanations. Much of this work is embedded in the rationale for the empirical work that was described earlier in this review. More specifically, when Green and Mitchell proposed their model in 1979, they noted that Kelley's dimensions of information were related to attributions but did not specify how the informational dimensions (i.e., consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness) were related to the attributional dimensions (i.e., locus of causality, stability, and globality) or how the dimensions of attributions were related to attributional explanations (e.g., effort and task). Later work by Gioia & Sims (1986) specified how the attributional dimensions of locus of causality, stability, and controllability were related to attributional explanations such as luck, mood, and effort but did not explain how the dimensions of attributions or attributional explanations were related to Kelley's dimensions of information. About that same time Ashkanasy (1989) advanced hypotheses predicting how each of the different types of information depicted by Kelley's dimensions would increase or decrease specific attributions. As we reviewed this research above, we noted that in almost all cases Ashkanasy's predictions were confirmed and none were contraindicated. Nevertheless, the model that Ashkanasy tested was incomplete in relating Kelley's informational dimensions to attributions in that it only predicted four attributions (i.e., ability, effort, task, and luck) when eight were logically expected.

Finally, an article by Martinko & Thomson (1998) fully articulated how the dimensions of information were related to the dimensions of attributions which, in turn, were related to eight potential attributional explanations. Thus, for example, the Martinko and Thomson article indicated that consensus information is related to locus of causality, consistency information is related to stability, and distinctiveness information is related to globality. More importantly, the model demonstrates how attributional explanations are logically related to the attributional dimensions which are related to the interaction of Kelley's informational dimensions. For example, an attribution to a specific ability is categorized as an internal, stable, and specific attribution which results from information indicating that the behavior is high in consistency and distinctiveness but low on consensus. Thus, their model shows the theoretical and logical connections between and among types of information, dimensions of attributions, and specific attributional explanations.

This type of detailed explication of the relationship between causal information, attributional dimensions, and attributional explanations is important for several reasons. First, from a theoretical standpoint, it allows prediction and control. From an experimental standpoint, these relationships must be understood and appreciated in order to develop valid tests of the theory. We suspect that at least some of the problem in accounting for significant portions of variance in attributional research designs is because some of the designs have been incomplete. For example, both Gioia & Sims (1986) and Mitchell & Wood (1980) provided information on all three of Kelley's dimensions as experimental manipulations, but only looked at whether or not the attributions were internal or external as their dependent variable, ignoring the stability and globality dimensions.

From a practical standpoint, understanding the dynamics of the relationships described above allows their application to be more precise. For example, from an impression management perspective, if one wants to create the impression of general ability, the complete model suggests that an impression of general ability can be created by providing information that is high on consistency, low on distinctiveness, and low on consensus. On the other hand, the model also suggests that these are the same types of information that a leader should look for when trying to determine if the cause of poor performance is general ability. Thus, the more complete articulation of the dynamics of the interactions between dimensions of information, attributions, and attributional explanations is necessary for further theoretical development but can also provide useful information in practical areas such as impression management and performance appraisal.

A second theoretical evolution is reflected in the work of Lord and his colleagues. As indicated earlier in this review, there have been a number of works that have been critical of attribution theory with respect to its ability to explain leadership perceptions. The basic argument of these works is that the rational information processes described by attribution theory involve an unrealistic cognitive load that is overly burdensome in many situations.

575M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Cronshaw & Lord's (1987) study is a good example of the type of research that has been used to demonstrate the perceived limitations of attribution theory. In this study the subjects watched 12 minute videotapes in which they observed a group discussion in which leadership prototypes and consensus information were manipulated. The subjects then responded to a five-item questionnaire that was intended to measure general leadership impressions, including questions about whether or not the rater would choose the ratee as a formal leader, whether the ratee's behavior was typical of a leader, and the degree to which the ratee fit the image of a leader. In reviewing this as well as the other works that have stressed the superiority of categorization as opposed to attributional models, we have observed that the domain of the types of decisions these studies target is very different than the traditional types of causation that attribution theory was intended to explain. More specifically, we would categorize the domain of these studies as general social impressions as opposed to causal ascriptions for the outcomes of specific behaviors. Other examples of the domains discussed in the works of Lord and his colleagues include personal characteristics (Lord & Smith, 1983), implicit leadership (Phillips & Lord, 1986), and leader–member relationships (Maher, 1995). In addition, if we consider the more recent works that stressed heuristic and cybernetic models of information processing, they have also usually been concerned with general leadership impressions regarding transformational leadership and charisma (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Waldman & Yammarino (1999).

The wide variety of domains to which attribution theory is being applied was addressed by Weiner at an international conference on attribution theory in 2004. At that conference and in an article that he published from the conference (Weiner, 2004), he noted that the application of attribution theory to other domains such as the organizational sciences had stretched the domain of attribution theory beyond the bounds that were initially anticipated. In particular he noted that attribution theory is being applied to areas of social impressions (e.g., charismatic leadership) which required theoretical innovation and adaptation. He noted that it is for the field to decide on the appropriate domain for attribution theory. Applying attribution theory to other domains can strengthen the application of the theory, but may also require important adaptations.

Our view is that, as recognized by Lord & Smith (1983), there have been at least three different types of perceptions that have been included under the general umbrella of attribution theory: perceptions of causality, responsibility, and personal characteristics. As suggested above, the descriptions of the attribution process described by the Green and Mitchell model and the synthesis of the Kelley and Weiner models are concerned primarily with causation. On the other hand, the theoretical explanations that have emphasized the use of prototypes, scripts, and template matching have mostly been applied in the context of social perceptions associated with personal leadership characteristics such as charisma and transformational leadership.

Thus, we believe that the question that the perceiver asks is the key to ascertaining which model will provide the best explanation of the cognitive processes that will be activated. For example, if a professor is asked whether or not Paul is an outstanding graduate student we would consider this to be a question about a personal characteristic. As Lord & Smith (1983) suggested, this type of question is most likely to be addressed by template matching and prototype fit. The professor might explore whether or not Paul is better or worse than previous students such as Scott, Bill, and Sherry. On the other hand, if the question is one that asks about the cause of a particular failure (e.g., why has James failed to meet the deadline for his thesis proposal?), the Kelley and Weiner models are more likely to describe the types of information sought and lead to the conclusions that are drawn. Thus, each of the various versions of attribution theory has evolved to answer different types of questions and, as Gilbert (1989) has observed, it is unfair to hold an attribution theory responsible for claims it has never made.

In addition to the work of Lord and his colleagues, there have been a number of other works that help explain when people use the rational information seeking process suggested by the Weiner and Kelley models versus less effortful and cybernetic decision processes. In particular, papers by Petty & Cacioppo (1986) and Petty, Cacioppo, Strathman, & Priester (2005) describe the conditions related to peripheral versus central information processing with respect to persuasion noting, for example, that individuals differ in their needs for cognition. As a result, there may be individual differences in processing that would affect whether or not a particular individual's behavior and choices are best explained by rational versus more automatic processes. Similarly, a manuscript by Douglas, Kiewitz, Martinko, Harvey, Kim, & Chun (in press), suggests that aggressive behaviors may result from three different processing routes which vary in the degree of mindful processing. Importantly, this article points out that attributions may initiate behavior but they may also be viewed as outcomes that individuals use to explain behaviors that originate in less mindful processes, such as those initiated by affective or attitudinal reactions to events.

576 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

6. Conclusions and future directions

In this section we summarize the major findings from our review, address the limitations and boundary conditions of attribution theory within the context of leadership, and point to future directions that can enhance the contributions of attribution theory to the explication of leadership processes.

As we described, much of the early research relating leadership and attribution processes focused on the Green and Mitchell model. The early work on this model conducted by Mitchell and his colleagues provided general confirmation of the model but also demonstrated that many factors besides attributions affected leadership behaviors directed at members. Examples of these factors included the severity of the consequences of poor performance, task interdependence, and the experience of the leader. The effects of these other factors had been anticipated in the explication of the Green & Mitchell model (1979). However, despite the supportive findings regarding the attributional component of the model, Mitchell (1982) expressed reservations about the potential of attribution theory to predict practically significant portions of the variance in leader behaviors. The volume of attributional work by Mitchell and his colleagues declined markedly after this critique.

After the work of Mitchell, Ashkanasy engaged in a series of studies that clearly demonstrated the relations between Kelley's dimensions of information, Weiner's attributional dimensions and explanations, and leader behaviors. In addition to the work of Ashkanasy, about a half dozen other studies had similar supportive results. Ashkanasy's conclusions regarding his work are similar to our conclusions. The overall results of the work on the Green and Mitchell model are robust and support the major tenets of the model across a variety of different samples and methods. In virtually every study, there were significant relations between and among informational dimensions, attributional dimensions, attributional explanations, and leader behaviors.

In expanding our review beyond the Green and Mitchell model we found consistent support for the notion that both leaders and members display the self-serving and actor–observer biases. There was also significant support for the notions that age, gender, culture, and individual differences including locus of control, negative affectivity, and self- efficacy are related to attributions. The work on attribution styles demonstrated that, when the attribution styles of leaders and members are incompatible, members report poor leader–member relations, suggesting important practical implications for differences in attributions between leaders and members.

We also reviewed a series of empirical studies and conceptual works that examined and considered the role of attributions in forming members' impressions of charisma, transformational leadership, organizational cynicism, and dues paying. In contrast to much of the prior work on leadership, this body of work suggests that, as opposed to the effortful and rational process described by the Green and Mitchell model, the process by which attributions are generated in these contexts is more appropriately characterized as automatic and cybernetic. The discussion which followed suggested that these types of social perceptions are probably best explained by theories of categorization and template matching (i.e., automatic processing) as opposed to the more cognitively laborious processes described by the Kelley and Weiner models.

The emerging research on the relationships between emotions and attributions in the context of leadership was also considered. This research demonstrates how attributions are related to emotions such as sympathy and anger which generate helping behavior (Weiner, 1995) and punishment (Tjosvold, 1985) respectively, but also shows how leaders' displays of emotions affect member attributions (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002).

We also looked at research that took a more interactive approach looking at the relationships between the attributions of leaders and members. Again, this research supported the notion that attributions accounted for significant portions of variance but also suggests that more recent works are beginning to recognize and focus on an interactive and dyadic level of analysis as opposed to much of the earlier work that was leader-centric. We expect this trend to continue and enable a more complete understanding of the causes and consequences of differences between the attributions of leaders and members.

Finally, we looked at conceptual advances in two general categories. First we observed that there had been considerable work extending the Green and Mitchell model by further articulating the relationships between and among Kelley's dimensions of information, Weiner's attributional dimensions and explanations, and both leader and member behavior. These extensions appear helpful in increasing the precision of the predictions of the model, but also in developing applications designed to enhance leader and member relations.

The second group of conceptual works focused on alternative explanations for attributional processes focusing on cybernetic “mindless” processing. As we discussed these perspectives it became more evident that they appear

577M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

particularly appropriate for the work concerned with social impressions such as those associated with charisma and transformational leadership.

When we view this body of research as a whole, three impressions are most salient. First, there is strong support for the relationships between and among Kelley's dimensions of information, Weiner's attributional dimensions and explanations, and leaders' behaviors as suggested by the Green and Mitchell model, particularly when it is applied to leaders' assessments of the causes of members' poor performance. Second, when the above perspective is stretched to other contexts it does not appear to provide a valid description of either leaders' or members' cognitive processes. Thus, in routine situations that are not particularly meaningful or related to a specific performance incident, and when we consider social impressions such as those associated with charismatic and transformational leadership, the less cognitively effortful processes appear to provide better explanations for experimental results. Finally, we believe that there is some definitional and domain uncertainty with respect to attributions and attributional processes. More specifically, it appears that when researchers describe alternatives to rational information processing models they also tend to discount more rational processes. Thus, even though Lord (1995, p. 348) indicates that rational models may be most appropriate for assessing causality, he ends his discussion by indicating that “to the extent that these alternative models describe causal analysis and social perceptions in organizations, the perceiver-as-primitive-processor-analogy may be more appropriate.”

In the next section we will address this criticism as well as other criticisms of attribution theory, discuss boundary conditions for a rational model of attributional processes, and suggest directions for future research.

6.1. Criticisms of attribution theory

As indicated earlier, Mitchell's (1982) criticism of attribution theory was followed by a decline in attributional research by Mitchell and his associates. In discussing this criticism previously we noted that there was consistent support for the Green and Mitchell model in the early research, that the influence of other variables on leaders' behaviors was initially anticipated by the Green and Mitchell model, and that at least some of the research designs were incomplete, potentially accounting for some of the weak results.

When we reviewed the research which followed Mitchell's criticism, particularly the research by Ashkanasy, it became quite clear that the relationships depicted by the Green and Mitchell attributional model were robust across situations and methodologies. Nevertheless, Mitchell's claim that the relationships were weak and, from a practical standpoint, potentially insignificant encouraged us to look at the significance levels in other studies of leadership. While we cannot claim to have done an exhaustive comparison, we quickly ascertained that the significance levels from the attribution studies were at least as respectable as those from other areas of organizational research. For example, in attribution studies by Ashkanasy (1989), Douglas & Martinko (2001) and Campbell & Swift (2006), attribution variables accounted for 30, 36 and 17% of the variance in their dependent variables, respectively while studies of core self-evaluations (Erez & Judge, 2001), charisma (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2001), and political skill (Breland, Treadway, Duke, & Adams, 2007) accounted for 15, 5, and 18% of the variance in their dependent variables, respectively. Thus, we do not perceive that the amount of variance accounted for by attribution variables is any less statistically or practically significant than that of other variables that have been the subject of research on leadership and organizational contexts.

Finally, with respect to the issue of practical significance, we are particularly encouraged by the results of the research contrasting leader and member attribution styles (Martinko et al., in press). This research reminds us of Gilbert's (1995) snowball analogy which suggested that a small attributional error can compound and produce large and significant consequences over time.

6.2. Definitional and boundary conditions

It is beyond the scope of this review to dictate the direction the field should take, but we can add some perspective with respect to the boundary conditions for the application of attributions within leadership contexts. First, with respect to the application of the Weiner model to leadership contexts, Weiner (1986) has repeatedly asserted that attributions are causal ascriptions (and not social perceptions) and that attribution processes are activated when outcomes are particularly important, surprising, or unexpected. Thus, in routine everyday situations, people generally do not exert the cognitive effort required to make causal attributions. Consequently, perceptions of charisma or leadership qualities that are not particularly important to individuals are probably processed through peripheral (i.e., automatic) routes as

578 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

opposed to the central processing described by Weiner's model. As such, social perceptions are probably better described by the more cybernetic models of information processing.

Second, it appears important for researchers to clearly identify and define what they mean when they refer to attributional processes because, as we have discussed, it sometimes appears that social perceptions are confused with causal attributions. Cronshaw and Lord (1987) distinguished among three different forms of attribution theory while an earlier paper by Kelley & Michela (1980) described four variations of attribution theory. As Kelley and Michela noted, there is no single attribution theory; rather, there is a family of attribution theories. As a result, it is incumbent upon researchers and theoreticians to clearly specify the nature of the attributional processes they are researching and discussing. This type of clarification will help guard against the possibility that research and criticisms of research are misinterpreted.

Finally, we would like to suggest that the boundaries of attribution theory may also be broader than many researchers have considered. As Martinko (2004) noted, attributions about success and failure can be considered beliefs about rewards and punishment. As a result, we believe that there is an attributional component inherent in almost all domains that are affected by reinforcement (i.e., success) and punishment (i.e., failure) processes. While we are well aware that many other factors play a role in motivating behavior, we believe that attributions are an important part of many of the processes in organizations that can be viewed in the context of motivated behavior. Whether or not the attributions are arrived at through rational or “mindless” automatic process, we observe that most people con- sciously (i.e., rational processing) or unconsciously (i.e., automatic processing) act in such a way that they maximize reinforcement and minimize failure and, certainly, we all think about it.

6.3. Future directions

As suggested above and described in our review, there is a wide variety of potential applications of attribution theory within the context of leadership. We will summarize the areas that are most salient to us.

6.3.1. Biases As our review indicated, there is almost unequivocal support for the notion of attributional biases. However the

majority of the studies simply confirm that leaders and subordinates have these biases but fail to explore their consequences. Thus, research that measures the degree of biases between leaders and member and then demonstrates the consequences of these biases in terms of leader–member conflict and relations would be helpful. It would also be interesting to see if interventions manipulating Kelley's dimensions of information can reduce biases and lead to less conflict and more positive leader–member relations.

Another potentially fruitful direction for future research on the influence of attributional biases concerns the extent to which leaders' attributional biases can shape members' expectations and performance. An example of this is the “Pygmalion effect,” which occurs when observers' expectations influence the performance of actors (Kierein & Gold, 2000). It would seem worthwhile to investigate whether or not members experience reduced expectancies and performance when they have leaders who are self-serving and biased toward attributing failures to the internal and stable abilities of the members.

6.3.2. Attribution styles As discussed above, attribution styles can be viewed as a trait-like disposition to display attributional biases. In many

respects, attribution styles can be viewed as reflecting the underlying scripts and templates that people engage when dealing with everyday routine situations. As the review of this research indicated, to the extent that the styles of leaders and members clash, members perceive poor leader–member relationships. However, the Martinko et al. (in press) study only considered the optimistic and pessimistic styles of leaders and members and their interactions with respect to a measure of LMX. This research can be expanded considerably to include other dependent variables such as levels of communication, agreements regarding performance appraisals, and the incidence of conflict between leaders and members.

In addition, besides the optimistic and pessimistic styles there are at least 14 other styles possible when the dimensions of attributions are combined (see Martinko et al., 2002 for a discussion of these styles) and it would be interesting to investigate the effects of these other styles on leader–member interactions. For example, it would be interesting to see if a leader who is biased towards explaining members' failures in terms of external and stable dimensions such as task difficulty is viewed by members as a supportive leader. Similarly, it would be interesting to see if members who are biased toward explaining their failures in terms of internal and unstable dimensions such as effort

579M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

begin to disrespect leaders who do not hold them responsible for failures as a result of leader attribution styles that favor external attributions for members' failures.

Finally, because attribution styles appear to be a measure of individuals' scripts and cybernetic processing tendencies, it would be informative to explore whether or not particular attribution styles of members are related to their tendencies to experience perceptions of charisma and transformational leadership.

6.3.3. Emotions The Green and Mitchell model ignored the link between attributions and emotions. However, much of the work on

attribution theory assumes and demonstrates that discrete emotions and affective states mediate the relationship between attributions and behaviors (e.g., Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Harvey & Dasborough, 2006; Harvey, Martinko, & Borkowski, 2007; Weiner, 1986). Existing research, however, has done little to empirically investigate the nature and power of affective influences on the attributional process in the context of leadership behavior and outcomes. Although past conceptual and empirical work has linked attribution-driven negative emotions, such as anger and shame, to undesirable outcomes, such as aggression, unethical behavior and substance abuse (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Harvey et al., 2007; Martinko et al., 2006), we suggest that this is a largely unexplored area. For instance, the extent to which hostile or pessimistic attributional styles influence the emotional states of leaders and, ultimately, their members and the consequences of this influence on organizational performance is a potentially interesting area for future research.

6.3.4. Impression formation We are also optimistic that the theory which has been developed can aid leaders in enacting specific impressions.

More specifically, the synthesis of the Kelley and Weiner models suggested by Martinko & Thomson (1998) articulated the types of information that are needed to form specific impressions. Thus, for example, if we consider charismatic attributions to be attributions of general ability, it would be interesting to determine whether or not charismatic impressions vary systematically with the information suggested by the Martinko and Thomson model. Similarly, the synthesized model could be used to guide the types of information needed to ensure accuracy and communicate feedback in the context of performance appraisals.

6.3.5. Levels of analysis Up to this point the majority of the research in the attribution area has been leader-centric and has focused on individual

levels of analysis. Most of the work on the Green and Mitchell model has looked at leader reactions to member behavior but has not lookedat the interactive effects of leader and member attributional processes. Nevertheless there does appear to be a trend toward more dynamic models that recognize the interactive influences of leaders and members. Several conceptual papers have described and discussed the interactions between leader and members (Bitter & Gardner, 1995; Martinko & Gardner, 1987), and the Martinko et al. (in press) study looks at the interactions between leaders' and members' attribution styles. More research describing these interactive effects is needed.

Additionally, as mentioned, the research on attributions for organizational performance in letters to shareholders suggests, at least indirectly, that attributions can be examined at the organizational level. Also, we are aware of at least one paper that examines attributions at a group level of analysis (Lepine & Van Dyne, 2001). We expect this trend to continue but also recognize that as we move toward more complex levels of analysis that include group and organizational level studies, it will also require more sophisticated statistical analyses and research designs. Moreover, because of the logistics of researching interactive behaviors in applied settings, there will be a need for innovative laboratory designs that overcome some of the limitations of field settings. We are hopeful that reviewers will recognize these constraints and be receptive to these types of approaches. In the next section, we summarize some additional opportunities for future attributional research to move beyond the individual level of analysis.

6.3.6. Extending attribution theory to other areas of leadership As suggested earlier, based on the notion that attributions are peoples' beliefs about the causes of their successes

(i.e., reinforcements) and failures (i.e., punishments), we believe that attribution processes have widespread applications in the domain of leadership. While it is beyond the scope of this article to describe all potential applications, we will briefly mention some of the existing perspectives of leader behavior and leadership processes that might expand their explanatory power using the logic of attribution theory.

580 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

One such area is balance theory. Like attribution theory, balance theory is rooted in the work of Fritz Heider (1958). It is based on the notion that a relationship between two people and a third entity can be balanced or unbalanced, depending on the attitudes of the individuals toward the third entity (Homburg & Stock, 2005). If both parties share similar attitudes toward the third person or object, their relationship is balanced. In an unbalanced relationship, tension will exist until something is done to balance the relationship (e.g., one person changes their attitude). Because a balanced relationship is often preferable to an unbalanced one, observers may desire to form similar attitudes toward, for example, new members of their workgroup. Thus, because attributions are associated with affective evaluations of others, if one person forms a positive or negative attitude concerning a new member, others may unconsciously bias their attributions in order to form a similarly positive or negative assessment.

Similarly, a large amount of leadership research has focused on the quality of relationships between leaders and other members of their social networks. For instance, Higgins & Kram (2001) argued that strong, as opposed to weak, ties between mentors and their protégés would promote a more productive and developmental working relationship. Strong relational ties are characterized by high levels of reciprocity and positive emotional affect (Granovetter, 1973). It can be argued that, in a leadership context, these relational components are influenced by the attributions leaders and members form regarding each other. For instance, reciprocal relationships require trust, and trust is formed when a history of desirable behaviors is attributed to internal and stable factors (Elangovan, Auer-Rizzi, & Szabo, 2007). In terms of affect, attribution theory indicates that positive emotional responses to others are driven by favorable attributions regarding their behaviors (Weiner, 1995).

Finally, research on patterning theory (Ocasio, 1997) suggests that the effects of leaders' attributional processes can be examined in terms of macro-level outcomes. Ocasio argues that the problems, decisions, and issues that leaders choose to focus their attention on become the problems, decisions, and issues that most strongly shape overall firm behavior. For instance, if a leader focuses his or her attention on external expansion as opposed to internal research and development, the organization is likely to favor expansion over innovation.

This patterning of behavior may have an attributional component because attributions help to indicate which stimuli are most relevant to a person (Weiner, 1986). As noted above, a problem or issue generally must be deemed relevant for a detailed cognitive analysis to be initiated. The behavior toward the stimulus is likely to be shaped, at least in part, by the attributions concerning both the stimulus and the actor. For instance, if a leader believes that he or she has the ability to help an organization expand but not to innovate, the leader may choose to focus the organization's behavior in that direction. In this way, we can see that when leaders are involved, the attribution process might influence macro-level outcomes as well as the micro-level variables more commonly studied in attributional research.

6.4. Concluding remarks

In deciding to do this review, we were motivated by a concern that attribution theory was at times unfairly criticized, somewhat misunderstood, and had been limited in its ability to contribute to the leadership literature because of some of these misunderstandings. These concerns were coupled with what we perceived to be large body of important work that had not been systematically integrated into the leadership literature. We are hopeful that we have made a contribution to both the leadership and attribution literatures by demonstrating when and how attributional perspectives contribute to understanding the dynamics of leadership processes. Although we recognize that attributional processes are only a part of the leadership picture, we believe that they are an important part that must be understood, particularly with respect to leader–member relations. We hope this review and the suggestions for research described above will help illuminate and make the leadership picture a little clearer.

References

Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, F. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358−372.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49−74.

Allred, K. G. (1995). Realizing the advantage of organizational interdependencies: The role of attributional mediated emotions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: an organizational perspective (pp. 253−271). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Anderson, C. R., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1977). Managerial response to environmentally induced stress. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 260−272.

581M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Anderson, C. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1978). Locus of control, leader behavior and leader performance among management students. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 690−698.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (1989). Causal attributions and supervisors' response to subordinate performance: The Green and Mitchell model revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 309−330.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (1991). Supervisors' responses to subordinate performance: Effect of personal-control orientation and situational control. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 525−544.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (1995). Supervisory attributions and evaluative judgments of subordinate performance: A further test of the Green and Mitchell model. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: an organizational perspective (pp. 211−228). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (1997). Attributions for the performance of self and other: It matters who the “other” is. Australian Journal of Psychology, 49, 14−20.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Studies of cognition and emotions in organisations: Attributions, affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 11−20.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Gallois, C. (1994). Leader attribution and evaluations: Effects of locus of control, supervisory control, and task control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 27−50.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801−823.

Banzinger, G., & Drevenstedt, J. (1982). Age as a variable in achievement attributions. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 468−474. Betancourt, H., & Weiner, B. (1982). Attributions for achievement-related events, expectancy, and sentiments: A study of success and failure in Chile

and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 362−374. Bettman, J., & Weitz, B. (1983). Attributions in the boardroom: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,

165−183. Bernardin, H. J. (1989). Increasing the accuracy of performance measurement: A proposed solution to erroneous attributions. Human Resource

Planning, 12, 239−250. Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: assessing human behavior at work. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent. Bitter, M. E., & Gardner, W. L. (1995). A mid-range theory of the leader/member attribution process in professional service organizations: The role

of the organizational environment and impression management. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: an organizational perspective (pp. 171−192). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901−910.

Breland, J. W., Treadway, D. C., Duke, A. B., & Adams, G. L. (2007). The interactive effect of leader–member exchange and political skill on subjective career success. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 1−14.

Brown, K. A., & Mitchell, T. R. (1986). Task interdependence and number of poor performers as factors influencing performance diagnoses. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 412−423.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 197−214.

Campbell, C. R., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An integrative attributional perspective of empowerment and learned helplessness: A multi-method field study. Journal of Management, 24, 173−200.

Campbell, C. R., & Swift, C. O. (2006). Attributional comparisons across biases and leader–member exchange status. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 393−408.

Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S. (1977). Sexism and ‘beautyism' in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301−310.

Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57−78.

Cha, J. H., & Nam, K. D. (1985). A test of Kelley's cube theory of attribution: A cross-cultural replication of McArthur's study. Korean Social Science Journal, 12, 151−180.

Chen, Y., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1997). Age differences in stages of attributional processing. Psychology and Aging, 12, 694−703. Clapham, S. E., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Self-serving attributions, managerial cognition, and company performance. Strategic Management

Review, 12, 219−229. Conger, J. A., Kunungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2001). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747−767. Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72, 97−106. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 615−634. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2004). Follower attributions of leader manipulative and sincere intentionality: A laboratory test of

determinants and affective covariates. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 203−213). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leader–member exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439−465.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653−663.

Diener, C. T., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451−462.

582 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Dobbins, G. H., Pence, E. C., Orban, J. A., & Sgro, J. A. (1983). The effects of sex of the leader and sex of the subordinate on the use of organizational control policy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 325−343.

Dobbins, G. H., & Russell, J. M. (1986). Self-serving biases in leadership: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Management, 12, 475−483. Dossett, D. L., & Greenberg, C. I. (1981). Goal setting and performance evaluation: An attributional analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 24,

767−779. Douglas, S.C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Kim, Y., & Chun, J. (In Press). An elaboration-likelihood perspective of escalating acts of

workplace aggression: Cognitive, emotional and evaluative components. Academy of Management Review. Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 547−559. Elangovan, A. R., Auer-Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2007). Why don't I trust you now? An attributional approach to erosion of trust. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 22, 4−24. Epley, N., Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2002). Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83, 300−312. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86, 1270−1279. Feather, N. T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility and valence of success and failure to initial confidence and task performance. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 129−144. Fedor, D. B., & Rowland, K. M. (1989). Supervisor attributions for subordinate performance. Journal of Management, 15, 37−48. Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127−148. Feldman-Summers, S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1974). Those who are number two try harder: The effect of sex on attributions of causality. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 846−855. Ferris, G. R., Yates, V. L., Gilmore, D. C., & Rowland, K. M. (1985). The influence of subordinate age on performance ratings and causal attributions.

Personnel Psychology, 38, 545−557. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32−58. Gilbert, D. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),

In unintended thought. New York: Guilford Press. Gilbert, D. (1995). Attribution and interpersonal perception. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 99−147). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Cognition–behavior connections: Attribution and verbal behavior in leader–subordinate interactions. Organi-

zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 197−229. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis: Of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17,

183−211. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360−1380. Green, S. G., & Liden, R. C. (1980). Contextual and attributional influences on control decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 453−458. Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader–member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 23, 429−458. Goodstadt, B. E., & Hjelle, L. A. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 27, 190−196. Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Consequences of employee attributions in the workplace: The role of emotional intelligence. Psicothema,

18, 145−151 supplement. Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Borkowski, N. (2007). Unethical behavior among physicians and students: Testing an attributional and emotional

framework. Presented at the 2007 Academy of Management conference, Philadelphia, PA. Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2006). The role of causal reasoning in dysfunctional leader–member interactions. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21, 747−762. Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. (2006). Promoting authenticity in organizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 12, 1−11. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of

employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 466−476. Herriot, P. (1981). Towards an attributional theory of the selection interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54, 165−173. Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management

Review, 26, 264−288. Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 72, 307−314. Homburg, C., & Stock, R. M. (2005). Exploring the conditions under which salesperson work satisfaction can lead to customer satisfaction.

Psychology & Marketing, 25, 393−420. Ilgen, D. R., & Knowlton, W. A. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 25, 441−456. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective consequences in majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 64, 936−950. Jae-Ho, C., & Ki-Dok, N. (1985). A test of Kelley's cube theory of attribution: A cross-cultural replication of McArthur's study. Korean Social

Science Journal, 12, 151−180. Jones, E. E. (1976). How do people perceive the causes of behavior? American Scientist, 64, 300−305.

583M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). A theory of correspondent inferences: From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 219−266). New York: Academic Press.

Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79−94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, Vol. 15. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attributions in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28, 107−128. Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457−501. Kent, R., & Martinko, M. J. (1995). The development and evaluation of a scale to measure organizational attribution style. In M. Martinko (Ed.),

Attribution theory: an organizational perspective (pp. 53−75). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Kierein, N. M., & Gold, M. A. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 913−928. Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor–subordinate relation: The role of time-pressure, organizational

commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75−82. Knowlton, W. A., & Mitchell, T. R. (1980). Effects of causal attributions on a supervisor's evaluation of subordinate performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 65, 459−466. Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596−610. Lepine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of

Management Review, 26, 67−84. Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In L. L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7 (pp. 87−128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lord, R. G. (1995). An alternative perspective on attributional processes. In M. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: an organizational perspective

(pp. 333−350). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information-processing models and their implications for theory, research, and practice. Academy of

Management Review, 15, 9−28. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), (2nd ed.).

Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology, Vol. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London: Rutledge. Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, informational, information processing, and situational factor affecting attributional theories of

organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 8, 50−60. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational

scholarship (pp. 241−261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Maher, K. (1995). The role of cognitive load in supervisor attributions of subordinate behavior. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: an

organizational perspective (pp. 193−210). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224−253. Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational sciences. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory:

an organizational perspective (pp. 7−16). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Martinko, M. J. (2004). Parting thoughts: Current issues and future directions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational

sciences: theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 297−305). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Martinko, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (1999). Culture and expatriate failure: An attributional explication. International Journal of Organizational

Analysis, 7, 265−293. Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., Ford, R., & Gundlach, M. J. (2004). Dues paying: A theoretical explication and conceptual model. Journal of

Management, 30, 49−69. Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Harvey, P. (2006). Attribution theory in industrial and organizational psychology: A review. In G. P. Hodgkinson

& J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 21 (pp. 127−187). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader–member attribution process. Academy of Management Review, 12, 235−249. Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal

reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2), 36−50. Martinko, M.J., Moss, S.E., Douglas, S.C., & Borkowski, N. (in press). Anticipating the inevitable: When the attribution styles of leaders and

members clash. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. (1998). A synthesis of the Kelley and Weiner attribution model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 271−284. McElroy, J. C., & Morrow, P. C. (1983). An attribution theory of sex discrimination. Personnel Review, 12, 11−13. Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of

individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711−747. Mitchell, T. (1982). Attributions and actions: A note of caution. Journal of Management, 8, 65−74. Mitchell, T. R., & Kalb, L. S. (1981). Effects of outcome knowledge and outcome valence on supervisors' evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 66, 604−612. Mitchell, T. R., & Kalb, L. S. (1982). Effects of job experience on supervisor attributions for a subordinate's poor performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67, 181−188. Mitchell, T. R., Smyser, C. M., & Weed, S. E. (1975). Locus of control: Supervision and work satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 18,

623−630.

584 M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Mitchell, T. R., & Wood, R. E. (1980). Supervisor's responses to subordinate poor performance: A test of an attributional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 123−138.

Miyamoto, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behavior. Journal of Personality of Social Psychology`, 83, 1239−1248.

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949−971.

Moss, S. E., & Martinko, M. M. (1998). The effects of performance attributions and leader feedback behavior following poor subordinate performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 259−274.

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187−206. Offermann, L. R., Schroyer, C. J., & Green, S. K. (1998). Leader attributions for subordinate performance: Consequences for subsequent leader

interactive behaviors and ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 1125−1139. Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study in mental retardation facilities.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831−834. Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1986). Notes on the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership

measurement. Journal of Management, 12, 31−41. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock &

M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 81−116). (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pruitt, D. J., & Insko, C. A. (1980). Extension of the Kelley attribution model: The role of comparison—object consensus, distinctiveness, and

consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 39−58. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 173−219). New York: Academic Press. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied,

1, 1−28. Russell, D. W. (1991). The measurement of attribution process: Trait and situational approaches. In S. L. Zelen (Ed.), New models, new extensions of

attribution theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. Salancik, G., & Meindl, J. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of management control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 238−254. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum Assoc. Seligman, M., & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 832−838. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan Company. Singer, M. S. (1989). Individual differences in leadership aspirations: An exploratory study from valence, self-efficacy and attribution perspectives.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 253−262. Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on

the relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 286−299. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240−261. Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the 'cause' of performance — A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414−432. Staw, B. M., Mckechnie, P., & Puffer, S. (1983). The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 582−600. Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effects of locus

of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 635−637. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology, Vol. 11 (pp. 249−288). New York: Academic Press. Taylor, D. M., & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a south Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 162−171. Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 402−418. Tjosvold, D. (1985). The effects of attribution and social context on superiors' influence and interaction with low performing subordinates. Personnel

Psychology, 38, 361−376. Van Boven, L., Kamada, A., & Gilovich, T. (1999). The perceiver as perceived: Everyday intuitions about the correspondence bias. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1188−1199. Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of

Management Review, 24, 266−285. Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465−490. Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation of a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press. Weiner, B. (2004). Social motivation and moral emotions: An attributional perspective. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the

organizational sciences: theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 5−24). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. Morristown, NJ:

General Learning Press. Wilhelm, C. C., Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1993). Attributional conflict between managers and subordinates: An investigation of leader–member

exchange effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 531−544.

585M.J. Martinko et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 561–585

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56, 407−415.

Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013−1024.

Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 356−378.

Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ‘why' questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650−663.

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.