Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Discrimination
by J a m e s C. McElroy and Paula C. Morrow
School of Business Administration, Iowa State University
PR 12,4 1 9 8 3 • 11
tend to rely on external attributions as reasons for their Sex of subordinate and nature of the task. According to
performance, whether it be success or failure[5]. Jones and Davis, observers tend to attribute socially unac-
These findings suggest that some differential treatment ceptable behaviours to personal characteristics[12]. Utilis-
may be the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, in ing sex role stereotypical information, the sex of the per-
situations where men and women demonstrate equal per- former combines with the nature of the task to yield social-
formance, men will emerge with higher expectations of ly acceptable or unacceptable behaviours. However, the
their future performance than will women as a result of nature of the resulting attributions depends on the expecta-
having taken credit for their past success (i.e. internal at- tions of the observer, with socially unacceptable
tributions). To the extent that motivation is tied to expec- behaviours yielding lower expectations. Therefore, women
tations of success, as in the goal-setting model of motiva- working on male-oriented tasks would produce lower ex-
tion, men will be moved to expend greater levels of effort pectations on the part of observers of those female per-
in future situations than women[6]. This may subsequently formers. Success would then be unexpected and attributed
lead to actual performance differences. Moreover, if to variable factors, such as luck or effort.
women publicly voice their external assessments for their Failure, the expected performance level, would, in turn,
performance, it is likely that at least some relevant others be attributed to such internal factors as the female's lack
(e.g. peers and supervisors) will accept that explanation. of ability. On the other hand, success on the part of males
Thus, women may be treated differentially on the basis of working on masculine tasks would be expected, resulting in
performance differences that are a function of the inter- ability or effort attributions, while failure, unexpected,
pretation women give to their own performance levels. would tend to be attributed to such external factors as the
While this is not discrimination per se, this process is difficulty level of the task or bad luck. Various ex-
detrimental to the advancement of women and can lead to periments have borne out these predictions[13].
discriminatory practices in those cases where someone else
is evaluating performance.
Degree of empathy. One additional factor posited by Jones
and Nisbett[14] as affecting the types of attributions
Observer Attributions observers make is the relationship between the observer
In organisational settings, individuals are not left to and the performer. Observers who have empathy toward a
themselves to evaluate their performance. Indeed, part of a performer are more likely to adopt that person's point of
manager's job involves evaluating subordinate perfor- view and look to the situation for possible explanations for
mance. Attribution theory researchers have concluded that performance. Given the nature of stereotypes discussed
individual performers and observers of those performers earlier, women are not likely to formulate close mentor-
exhibit different attributional tendencies[7]. Observers type relationships with their male superiors in male-
tend to place greater weight on the personal characteristics oriented professions. This lack of empathy may well ex-
of the performer (ability and effort), while performers acerbate the previously mentioned tendency on the part of
themselves tend to emphasise the characteristics of the managers to attribute poor performance to the performer
situation (task difficulty and luck). The two most com- and success to situational factors.
monly offered explanations for this bias in perspective are
(a) the perceiver's focus of attention and (b) the salience of
information. The former refers to the idea that the situa-
tion is the primary focus of attention for the performer Conclusions
while the performer is the dominant focus of attention for To summarise, research based on attribution theory has
the observer[8]. The latter explanation refers to the notion clearly demonstrated that equivalent performance by
that situational information is more important to the per- males and females is not explained by the same attribu-
former, while performer personal characteristics are more tions. Therefore, women, particularly those working in
important to the observer[9]. What this amounts to is a male-dominated occupations/organisations, may find
tendency on the part of observers to attribute the perfor- themselves being treated inequitably as a result of these
mance of others to personal characteristics. The specific observer-attributional tendencies.
context of a situation, however, complicates matters con- The implications of attributional biases in performance
siderably. appraisal are far ranging and will be difficult to
ameliorate. First, the attributional biases we have un-
Managers as observers. Stephen Green and Terence Mit- covered are insidious and complex. They are the result of
chell[10] have proposed that managers constitute a special subconscious mental processes engendered by lifelong
class of observer. That is, the nature of their role leads socialisation practices. Moreover, they are mediated by a
them to exhibit rather unique attributional tendencies. Ac- number of situational factors (e.g. sex role congruency of
cording to Edward Jones and Keith Davis[11], behaviour the task) making generalisations difficult. Sensitising
that is seen as having an impact on the observer is more managers about these perceptual biases is therefore dif-
likely to be attributed by the observer to the personal ficult. Other problems revolve around the manager's dif-
characteristics of the performer. However, Green and ficulty in divorcing his/her own involvement or respon-
Mitchell argue that managers are likely to attribute perfor- sibility (i.e. an external attribution) in the subordinate's
mance to subordinate personal characteristics only in those performance. Despite these problems, it is in industry's
cases where the performance is poor, and particularly in best interest to find ways of educating managers on the
those cases where the impact of the outcome is serious. nature of attributional processes.
Success will tend to be attributed to external factors (e.g. Firms that are successful in eliminating treatment sex
quality of managerial supervision). This pattern is not only discrimination will benefit through increased ability to hire
a convenient response, as opposed to searching for other and retain the best female employees and will see higher
reasons for performance, it is one that maintains the productivity among those women whose successes and
manager's self-esteem. failures are attributed to the proper underlying cause. Male
12 • PR 12,4 1983
employees would likewise benefit from improved appraisal 129-44; Deaux, K. and Farris, E., "Attributing Causes for One's
Own Performance: The Effects of Sex, Norms and Outcomes",
procedures. Indeed, the exceptional manager of tomorrow Journal of Research on Personality, 1977, pp. 59-72; Wiley, M.G.,
will have the ability to make correct unbiased assessments Crittendon, K.S. and Brig, L.D., "Why a Rejection? Causal At-
about the causes of behaviour and will be able to help tribution of a Career Achievement Event", Social Psychology
subordinates explain their job behaviour to themselves in Quarterly, 1979, pp. 214-22.
ways which will stimulate them to try even harder. The 6. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. and Latham, G.P., "Goal
alternative is to continue our present course of "filling in Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980", Psychological
Bulletin, 1981, pp. 125-52.
the blanks" with our latent attributional tendencies and
7. Jones, E.E. and Nisbett, R.E., "The Actor and the Observer:
perpetuating self-confirming cycles[15]. Such a position is Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior", in Jones, E.E.
difficult to defend on any grounds. et al.(Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior,
General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J., 1972, pp. 79-94.
8. Ibid.
9. Kanouse, D.E., "Language, Labeling, and Attribution", in
Jones, E.E., et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of
Behavior, op. cit.
10. Green, S.G. and Mitchell, T.R., "Attributional Processes of
References Leaders in Leader-Member Relations", Organizational Behavior
1. Terborg, J.R. and Zalesny, M.D., "Women as Managers: A and Human Performance, 1979, pp. 429-58.
Review of Research on Occupational Sex Discrimination", in 11. Jones, E.E. and Davis, K.E., "From Acts to Dispositions: The At-
Rowland, K.M., London, M., Ferris, G.R. and Sherman, J.L. tribution Process in Person Perception", in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),
(Eds.), Current Issues in Personnel Management, Allyn and Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic
Bacon, Boston, 1980, pp. 357-67. Press, New York, 1965, pp. 219-66.
2. Ibid. 12. Jones, E.E. and Davis, K.E., ibid.
3. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S. and Rosen- 13. Deaux, K. and Emswiller, T., "Explanations of Successful Perfor-
baum, R., "Perceiving the Causes of Success and Failure", in mance on Sex-Linked Tasks: What is Skill for the Male is Luck for
Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, H.H., Nisbett, R.E., Valins, the Female", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974,
S. and Weiner, B. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of pp. 80-5; Feldman-Summers, S. and Kiesler, S.B., "Those Who
Behavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J., 1972, pp. are Number Two Try Harder: The Effect of Sex on Attributions of
95-120. Causality", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974,
4. Miller, D.T. and Ross, M., "Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution pp. 846-55.
of Causality: Fact or Fiction?" Psychological Bulletin, 1975, pp. 14. Jones, E.E. and Nisbett, R.E., op. cit.; Regan, D.T. and Totten,
213-25. J., "Empathy and Attribution: Turning Observers into Actors",
5. Feather, N.T., "Attribution of Responsibility and Valence of Suc- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, pp. 850-56.
cess and Failure in Relation to Initial Confidence and Task Perfor- 15. Bartunek, J., "Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory in
mance", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, pp. Organizations", Business Horizons, No. 5, 1981, pp. 66-71.
PR 12,4 1983 • 13