Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships

In this article, we present a model of emotions and attributions of intentionality within the leader-member relationship. The model is predicated on two central ideas. The first is that leadership is intrinsically an emotional process, where leaders display emotion and attempt to evoke emotion in their members. The second is that leadership is a process of social interaction and is therefore appropriately defined in terms of social, psychological theories such as the attribution theory. Our focus is on the perspective of members, not the leaders. Specifically, members' attributions about their leader's intentions influence how the members evaluate, interpret, and eventually label the leader's influence attempts as either true or pseudo transformational leadership. These attributions are determined by and themselves influence the members' emotions. We describe each of the elements of the model and conclude with a discussion of the implications of the model for theory, research, and practice. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships

In this article, we present a model of emotions and attributions of intentionality within the leader–member relationship. The model is predicated on two central ideas. The first is that leadership is intrinsically an emotional process, where leaders display emotion and attempt to evoke emotion in their members. The second is that leadership is a process of social interaction and is therefore appropriately defined in terms of social, psychological theories such as the attribution theory. Our focus is on the perspective of members, not the leaders. Specifically, members' attributions about their leader's intentions influence how the members evaluate, interpret, and eventually label the leader's influence attempts as either “true” or “pseudo” transformational leadership. These attributions are determined by and themselves influence the members' emotions. We describe each of the elements of the model and conclude with a discussion of the implications of the model for theory, research, and practice.

Attributions for the performance of self and other: It matters who the "other" is

This study tested hypotheses that locus of causality attributions for the academic performance of others are influenced by whether the other is a specific individual, or a typical other, and whether the other is similar or dissimilar to self. The research was carried out in two studies. Study 1 entailed development of two scales to measure perceptions of interpersonal similarity: 254 Australian undergraduates rated their similarity to either a specific other or to typical other students. In Study 2, 332 subjects completed one of the 16-item scales developed in Study 1, along with Rosenberg's self-esteem scale, and self-attribution and other-attribution versions of the Multidimensional Multi-attribution Causation Scale (MMCS). Results showed that attributions for the academic performance of others were strongly affected by whether the other was perceived to be similar or dissimilar to self, especially when the other was a specific individual. In particular, causal attributions for similar specific others were more favourable than attributions for self.

Social rules and attributions in the personnel selection interview

The study investigated the social rules applicable to selection interviews, and the attributions ions made by interviewers in response to rule-breaking behaviours by candidates. Sixty personnel specialists (31 males and 29 females) participated in the main study which examined their perceptions of social rules and attributions about rule breaking in their work experience. They listened to audiotapes of actual selection interviews, and made judgments about hireability communication competence, and specific social rules. Results indicated that interview rules could be categorized into two groups: specific interview presentation skills and general interpersonal competence. While situational attributions were more salient in explaining the breaking of general interpersonal competence rules, internal attributions (ability, effort) were more salient explanations for the breaking of more specific interview rules (with the exception of the preparation rule where lack of effort was the most likely explanation for rule breaking). Candidates previously judged as competent communicators were rated more favourably on both global and specific measures of rule-following competence, as well as on hireability. The theoretical and practical implications of combining social rules and attribution theory in the study of selection interviews are discussed.

'You can criticise because you care': How attributions affect responses to ingroup and outgroup critics

There are times when people feel compelled to stand up and articulate their group's shortcomings, an act that carries with it enormous social risks. Indeed, a mechanistic reading of social identity theory might lead one to believe that ingroup critics are doomed to face hostility because they are attacking a fundamental part of people's self-concept. But often ingroup critics are doing more than attacking their group — they are trying to incite positive change. Criticism is the cornerstone of protest, and it is difficult to imagine how a group can be reinvigorated, reinvented, or reformed without some process of critical self-reflection. Thus, although the ingroup critic might create tension within the group, it is possible that internal criticism could be seen by other group members as beneficial in terms of promoting positive change and stimulating innovation, creativity, and flexibility in decision making. In this talk I examine the 'identity rules' that ingroup critics need to follow to avoid defensiveness, and look at empirical evidence of how factors such as language, the intergroup context, and choice of audience shape people's attributions regarding criticism and their subsequent evaluations of critics.