A laboratory and a field study investigated the biasing effects of subordinate likableness on leaders' attributions for subordinate poor performance and their corrective actions toward subordinates. In the laboratory study, 96 undergraduate students served as leaders and were presented with a vignette describing an incident of poor performance committed by either a liked or a disliked subordinate. Leaders made attributions for the poor performance and then rated the appropriateness of a series of corrective actions. Analyses revealed that leaders made similar attributions for the poor performance of liked and disliked subordinates, but were more inclined to punish a disliked subordinate than a liked subordinate. A second study replicated these findings with 98 leaders in an actual organization. Implications of the results for disciplinary policies are discussed.

No abstract

The present study investigated the role of self-serving biases in leaders' and subordinates' attributions for group performance and their appropriateness ratings of various supervisory actions. Subjects were 144 undergraduate students who were randomly assigned to the roles of leader or subordinate and asked to work on a simulated manufacturing task. Following a 20-minute work session, groups received either high or low performance feedback. Leaders and subordinates then made attributions for the group's performance and rated the appropriateness of various supervisory actions. Analyses indicated that leaders attributed low group performance to subordinates, whereas subordinates attributed low group performance to leaders. In addition, leaders rated the supervisory actions of training and punishment as more appropriate than did subordinates. The implications of these findings for attributional approaches to leadership, leader-subordinate conflict, and leadership training are discussed.

No abstract