The leadership fallacy: How misattribution of leadership leads to a blaming game

IF 2.3 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2024.102753
Nikola Frollová , Marcel Tkáčik , Petr Houdek
{"title":"The leadership fallacy: How misattribution of leadership leads to a blaming game","authors":"Nikola Frollová ,&nbsp;Marcel Tkáčik ,&nbsp;Petr Houdek","doi":"10.1016/j.joep.2024.102753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Assigning responsibility for a project’s success or failure is key to organizational performance, yet attribution fallacies often interfere. Our experimental study (<em>N</em>=339) shows team members mistakenly attribute too much influence to their leaders on task outcomes. Despite task outcomes being randomly determined by easy or hard difficulty rather than leadership, leaders received undue credit or blame. Leaders assessed their teams more negatively in difficult tasks, except for female leaders, who were more lenient in assessing both conditions than men. Leaders' self-assessments did not differ between experimental conditions, confirming their self-motivated evaluation; moreover completing an easy task boosted their confidence for harder challenges. Our study shows that attributional errors manifest differently in the evaluation of leaders and followers and demonstrates that success in simpler tasks can increase leaders' confidence, potentially leading to riskier behaviors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48318,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Psychology","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102753"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487024000618","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assigning responsibility for a project’s success or failure is key to organizational performance, yet attribution fallacies often interfere. Our experimental study (N=339) shows team members mistakenly attribute too much influence to their leaders on task outcomes. Despite task outcomes being randomly determined by easy or hard difficulty rather than leadership, leaders received undue credit or blame. Leaders assessed their teams more negatively in difficult tasks, except for female leaders, who were more lenient in assessing both conditions than men. Leaders' self-assessments did not differ between experimental conditions, confirming their self-motivated evaluation; moreover completing an easy task boosted their confidence for harder challenges. Our study shows that attributional errors manifest differently in the evaluation of leaders and followers and demonstrates that success in simpler tasks can increase leaders' confidence, potentially leading to riskier behaviors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
领导力谬误:错误归因领导力如何导致指责游戏
分配项目成败的责任是组织绩效的关键,然而归因谬误却经常干扰项目的实施。我们的实验研究(N=339)表明,团队成员错误地将任务结果的影响过多地归因于领导。尽管任务结果是由难易随机决定的,而不是由领导决定的,但领导却得到了过多的信任或指责。在困难任务中,领导者对团队的评价更为负面,但女性领导者除外,她们在两种情况下对团队的评价都比男性领导者宽松。领导者的自我评价在不同的实验条件下没有差异,这证实了他们的自我评价是出于自我动机;此外,完成一项简单的任务增强了他们应对更难挑战的信心。我们的研究表明,归因错误在领导者和追随者的评价中表现不同,并证明了在简单任务中的成功可以增强领导者的信心,从而有可能导致更高风险的行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
31.40%
发文量
69
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic phenomena and processes. The Journal seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using behavioral science methods for the study of economic behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that underlie economic behavior. It deals with preferences, judgments, choices, economic interaction, and factors influencing these, as well as the consequences of judgements and decisions for economic processes and phenomena. This includes the impact of economic institutions upon human behavior and well-being. Studies in economic psychology may relate to different levels of aggregation, from the household and the individual consumer to the macro level of whole nations. Economic behavior in connection with inflation, unemployment, taxation, economic development, as well as consumer information and economic behavior in the market place are thus among the fields of interest. The journal also encourages submissions dealing with social interaction in economic contexts, like bargaining, negotiation, or group decision-making. The Journal of Economic Psychology contains: (a) novel reports of empirical (including: experimental) research on economic behavior; (b) replications studies; (c) assessments of the state of the art in economic psychology; (d) articles providing a theoretical perspective or a frame of reference for the study of economic behavior; (e) articles explaining the implications of theoretical developments for practical applications; (f) book reviews; (g) announcements of meetings, conferences and seminars.
期刊最新文献
How group deliberation shapes distributional preferences: An experimental analysis Rank reversal aversion, inequality aversion, or favoring merit? Motives behind distributive decisions in the disinterested dictator game Leaving money on the table When choice matters: The asymmetric effects of precommitment implementation on healthy food choice Natural disasters, environmental values, and the importance of politics: Empirical evidence from worldwide survey data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1