Attribution Errors

Attribution theory explains the ways in which we judge people differently, depending on the meaning attributed to the situation in context. Upon joining Jensen Shoes, Brooks has worked under the supervision of both Chuck Taylor and Jane Kravitz. He was demoted to an individual contributor in his second stint under Jane.

Brooks started out with great motivation and expectation when approaching the environment project. However, his supervisors assigned him too big a workload, including 2 S.O’s in addition to the environment project. This turn of events lead Brooks to seriously consider his future at the firm.

In this regard there were some attribution errors that contributed to most of the misunderstanding that occurred between Brooks and Kravitz. The attribution errors comes into light in 3 key aspects where the perception of the supervisor and the employee showed some conflict.

Brooks was more interested in the environment project and assumed that the management would allow him more time to complete the S.O’s. Completing the S.O’s were of the highest priority for the management and they expected Brooks to meet those expectations, whatever be the situation.

Brooks felt he was being relegated to a stereotype when he was assigned the African and Latino projects the second time, even though he had no experience in this market. Management wanted to save time on the project, given Brooks background as an African American.

After a series of events such as losing his team, budget cuts and demotion for not completing his S.O’s, Brooks felt the management treatment toward him were unfair. Management on the other hand had very high expectations for Brooks given his extensive experience and felt his performance was insufficient.

The perspective of management can be better understood using attribution theory to evaluate Brooks’ performance. Attribution errors are determined based on three factors namely Distinctiveness, Consensus and Consistency.

Distinctiveness-Brook’s performance has been sub-par at best. He is behind on his S.O’s and is asking for a business trip. His failure in this aspect, consequently seems internal.

Consensus- Brooks was unable to complete his strategic objectives in time when other employees were able to do so. As a result, his failure would once again appear to be the result of internal behavior.

Consistency- Brooks was unable to complete the work assigned to him in 2 different instances and as a result his failure seems rather internal.