3.3 Attributions: Interpreting the Causes of Behavior

Attribution Theory

Attribution of organizational events

Attribution theory examines how people interpret and explain the causes of behavior. In the workplace, this matters because the explanations managers land on directly shape decisions about promotions, discipline, training, and team assignments.

There are two core types of attributions:

• Internal (dispositional) attributions assign causes to an individual's characteristics, traits, or motivations. For example, a manager concludes an employee is late because of poor time management or lack of motivation.
• External (situational) attributions assign causes to factors outside the individual's control. That same lateness gets attributed to a traffic jam, a train breakdown, or a road closure.

The distinction sounds simple, but people are surprisingly bad at making accurate attributions. Two major biases distort the process:

• Fundamental attribution error is the tendency to overemphasize internal factors and underestimate external factors when explaining other people's behavior. You see a coworker perform poorly and assume they're lazy, while ignoring that they were given outdated software and no mentorship.
• Self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute your own successes to internal factors (your skills, your hard work) and your failures to external factors (budget cuts, an uncooperative team). This protects your self-image but can create blind spots.

One more concept ties into this section: locus of control refers to an individual's general belief about whether they can control events affecting them. Someone with an internal locus of control tends to believe their outcomes result from their own actions, while someone with an external locus of control tends to believe outside forces drive outcomes. This belief shapes the kinds of attributions a person habitually makes.

Kelley's attribution theory factors

Kelley's covariation model gives you a structured way to figure out whether an internal or external attribution is more appropriate. Instead of going with your gut, you evaluate three types of information:

• Consensus: Do other people behave the same way in this situation?

  1. High consensus: Most employees arrive late during a snowstorm. That points toward an external attribution.
  2. Low consensus: Only one employee consistently arrives late. That points toward an internal attribution.

• Consistency: Does this person behave this way repeatedly over time?

  1. High consistency: The employee is late every Monday morning. The behavior is stable, which supports an internal attribution.
  2. Low consistency: The employee is rarely late. This one-off occurrence suggests something external caused it.

• Distinctiveness: Does this person behave this way only in specific situations, or across many situations?

  1. High distinctiveness: The employee is only late when relying on public transportation. The behavior is tied to a particular circumstance, pointing toward an external attribution.
  2. Low distinctiveness: The employee is late regardless of transportation mode or weather. The behavior shows up everywhere, pointing toward an internal attribution.

The key is combining all three factors. The classic pattern for a confident external attribution is high consensus + low consistency + high distinctiveness (everyone does it, this person doesn't usually do it, and it only happens in this situation). The classic pattern for a confident internal attribution is low consensus + high consistency + low distinctiveness (nobody else does it, this person always does it, and they do it across many situations).

Attribution biases in workplace behavior

Beyond the fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias covered above, several other biases distort how people interpret behavior at work:

• Actor-observer bias: Actors tend to attribute their own behavior to external factors, while observers attribute that same behavior to internal factors. An employee blames their tardiness on traffic; their coworkers assume it's poor time management. The difference comes from perspective: you're aware of the situational pressures on yourself but not on others.
• False consensus effect: People overestimate how much others share their own beliefs and attitudes. A manager who favors a new flexible work hours policy might assume everyone else does too, leading to surprise and conflict when employees push back.
• Halo effect: One positive characteristic creates an overall positive impression that colors all subsequent judgments. A manager sees an employee excel in sales and assumes they'll be equally strong in marketing and product development, setting unrealistic expectations.
• Horn effect: The opposite of the halo effect. One negative event creates an overall negative impression. An employee stumbles during a single presentation, and the manager begins doubting their competence in data analysis, report writing, and everything else. This leads to unfair treatment and missed opportunities.

Additional Attribution Principles

• Causal attribution is the broader process of inferring the causes of events or behaviors. It's the umbrella term for what this entire topic covers.
• Correspondent inference theory explains how people infer stable personality traits from observed behavior. You're more likely to draw trait inferences when someone's behavior is freely chosen rather than forced by the situation.
• Discounting principle: When multiple plausible causes exist for a behavior, you give less weight to any single cause. If an employee works overtime but also just got told about a possible promotion, you discount "intrinsic motivation" as the sole explanation.
• Augmentation principle: When behavior occurs despite external constraints working against it, you give more weight to internal factors. If an employee delivers excellent work even with inadequate resources, you're more confident the cause is internal (talent, effort) because they succeeded against the odds.