How Implicit Leadership Theories
Shape Follower Attributions About
Poor Leader Performance
This chapter explores how implicit leadership theories shape follower perceptions of poor leader performance. We contend that followers’ implicit leadership theories foster external attributions that provide leaders with some latitude for poor performance. Additionally, we consider how follower needs, the quality of the leader-member relationship and leader impression management tactics reinforce this tendency. Finally, the implications for the role of follower attributions in perpetuating leaders’ power in organizations are discussed.
Traditional leadership research considers leadership synonymous with effective leadership. As Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985,) point out, “the romanticization of leadership is hinted at in the observations made by a number of social and organizational analysts who have noted the esteem, prestige, charisma, and heroism attached to various conceptions and forms of leadership” (p. 79). Recently our understanding of leadership has broadened to include the dark side of leadership (Popper, 2001), abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), “bad leadership” (Kellerman, 2004) and toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Although research now acknowledges that leadership is not always positive, the leader remains the primary focus of such efforts. Yet the locus of leadership involves the behavior, traits and characteristics of leaders as perceived by followers (Lord & Maher, 1993). Based on these perceptions, followers bestow power and legitimacy upon leaders. Accordingly, it is imperative to understand the role of follower perceptions (Lord & Emrich, 2001). In this chapter we explore how followers make attributions for leader performance and how that process is impacted by follower needs and leader-member exchange. We contend that followers view leader performance though the lens of their implicit leadership theories. Moreover, leaders engage in impression management tactics that promote attributions consistent with leadership prototypes. To maintain their leadership images, followers are likely to attribute poor performance to external factors thereby holding leaders unaccountable for their performance. In this manner, followers foster heroic illusions about their leaders.
Leader Performance
The most commonly used definition of leader effectiveness is the extent to which the leader’s organizational unit performs its task successfully and attains its goals (Yukl, 1998). Examples include profits, market share and meeting production deadlines. This definition allows followers to make different attributions for poor performance and is not a subjective measure such as follower satisfaction with the leader. Accordingly, we define poor leader performance as failure of the leader’s unit to meet its goals. Our definition centers on leader ineffectiveness rather than unethical leadership. Further, in contrast to specific leader mistakes, poor performance is more of long term issue that can be due to many factors. As Schyns and Hansbrough (2008) observe, leader mistakes can be attributed to the leader or to external elements. Given that poor performance is likely influenced by a myriad of factors, observers may be more likely to simplify sensemaking by the use of cognitive shortcuts. Thus, poor performance lends itself very well to attributional processes.
Attribution Theory and Leadership
According to attribution theory individuals engage in sensemaking to provide causal explanations for events (e.g., Heider, 1958). Applied to a leadership setting, attributions account for a significant proportion of the variation in perceived leadership behaviors (Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007). Perhaps the most well-known application of attribution theory to leadership is the work of Green and Mitchell (1979) who examined how different factors influence leaders’ attributions for subordinate performance. The authors conclude that extending attribution research to leadership studies has considerable potential for understanding leader-member interactions (Green & Mitchell, 1979). Despite encouragement to expand this line of inquiry, a recent review (e.g., Martinko et al., 2007) reflects that research still focuses primarily on leader attributions.
Green and Mitchell (1979) suggest that leaders make attributions about follower performance using controlled processing whereby they rationally weigh a variety of factors to determine the locus of follower performance. However, Lord and Maher (1993) contend “we suggest that the attribution processes described by Green and Mitchell are rarely used; rather attributional processes are linked to more schema driven processes.” Schemas serve to reduce cognitive load and simplify information processing. As noted by Martinko et al. (2007), in everyday situations people do not generally exert the cognitive effort required to make causal attributions. Consequently, follower leader perceptions are likely governed by automatic processing such as implicit leadership theories.
Implicit Leadership Theories
Lord and his colleagues posit that leadership perceptions are driven by implicit leadership theories (Lord & Maher, 1993; Schyns, Felfe, & Blank, 2007). According to implicit leadership theory, the word “leader” serves as a schema that enables observers to classify individuals as leaders based on how well they resemble the prototype (Calder, 1977; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). The word “leader” is associated with traits such as intelligence, dedication, charisma, sensitivity, and strength (Offerman, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). A recent study by Schyns and Shilling (in press) asked participants to name characteristics of leaders in general and rate them in terms of effectiveness. They found 58% of all characteristics were favorable and rated as effective while 6% characteristics were unfavorable but rated as effective. Thus, implicit leadership theories consist of primarily effective leader images.
Once activated, implicit leadership theories are subject to the same cognitive processing errors as other schemas including selective attention, encoding, and retrieval of schema consistent information as well as cuing schema consistent information where such information does not objectively exist (Phillips & Lord, 1982; Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1993). Perceptions of leadership and leadership behavior are significantly influenced by information about leader performance (Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978; Phillips & Lord, 1981). Lord and Maher (1993) note success enhances perceptions of leadership while failure limits perceptions of leadership. Thus, leadership schemas provide information about what attributes generally go together. Individuals classified as leaders are presumed to be intelligent, dedicated, strong, and effective. Poor performance is inconsistent with such leader images. In order to preserve their leader images, followers will likely attribute poor leader performance to external factors, such as the situation or bad luck. As noted by Fiske and Taylor (1984) “if people can attribute inconsistent behavior to situational causes, they can forget the behavior and maintain their schema based impression” (p. 164). Here we suggest that being categorized as a “leader” provides superiors with some degree of latitude or protective halo for poor performance.
Proposition 1: Followers, consistent with their implicit leadership theories, will attribute poor leader performance to external factors.
Attachment Theory
Unmet follower needs may also impact perceptions of leader performance. Hunt, Boal, and Sorenson (1990) posit that individual differences in implicit leadership theories may be the result of early childhood experiences. In particular, parental models of leadership may play a pivotal role in shaping leadership schemas (Keller, 2003; Popper & Mayseless, 2002). As such, the leader-led relationship can be examined from an attachment perspective and depicted as a close relationship with attachment components (Popper, Mayselness, & Castelnovo, 2000). Further, attachment theory provides a theoretical foundation to examine how follower needs and motives might shape expectations of the leader-follower relationship (e.g., Keller, 2003) and leadership perceptions.
According to attachment theory, during childhood individuals form strong bonds with caregivers that promote survival of the species (Bowlby, 1977). Since infants cannot survive on their own, they are motivated to obtain proximity and protection from their caregivers. In the best case scenario, caregivers are lovingly responsive to their children’s signals and provide a safe haven and a secure base from which children may confidently explore their environment. Interactions with responsive others promote the formation of attachment security characterized by comfort with closeness and interdependence (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Perge, 2003) as well as the expectation that partners are trustworthy and reliable (Shaver & Hazan, 1994). Yet not all caregivers consistently respond to their children’s needs. Inconsistent caregiver responsiveness produces attachment anxiety characterized by a preoccupation with attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), a strong need for closeness, worries about relationships and fear of rejection (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). Finally, consistent caregiver unresponsiveness produces attachment avoidance characterized by defense self-reliance and preference for emotional distance from others (Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996).
In adulthood, the attachment system is activated during encounters with physical or psychological threats (Bowlby, 1969/1982). During such times, individuals seek proximity to supportive others, or turn to internalized representations of attachment figures (Mikulincer et al., 2003). In the work place leaders help followers cope with stress by providing a safe haven and thereby fulfill their attachment needs (Popper & Mayseless, 2002). However, the attachment system is chronically activated for individuals who score high in attachment anxiety (Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002). Instead of focusing on work, such individuals may be preoccupied with finding someone to meet their unmet needs (Hazan & Shaver, 1990).
Unmet attachment needs may have implications for cognitive processing. For example, it has long been noted that unmet needs can influence one’s interpretation of ambiguous stimuli (Allport, 1955; Erdelyi, 1974). Moreover, since the attachment system is always primed in anxious individuals, it tends to bias cognitive processing in a self-sustaining manner (Mikulincer et al., 2003) whereby such individuals are biased to perceive proximity seeking as viable and search for even minimal signs of interest and availability. Thus, highly anxious individuals may be predisposed to view leaders as potential attachment figures and project their unmet attachment needs onto leaders with the hope that they will be fulfilled. Highly anxious followers may be especially motivated to maintain the perception that leaders are capable of meeting their needs. Indeed, highly anxious individuals may be motivated to see leaders as omnipotent and therefore capable of providing the save haven they so desperately crave. Since poor performance is inconsistent with leader images of the strong, heroic protector, anxious individuals may preserve their leadership schema by attributing poor leader performance to external factors. In this manner, unmet attachment needs may have important implications for leadership perceptions.
Proposition 2: Highly anxious followers will attribute poor leader performance to external factors.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
According to leader-member exchange theory, leaders establish two qualitatively different types of relationships with followers. In-group members receive greater latitude in performing their tasks, as well as more time and attention from leaders. In exchange, in-group members provide leaders with greater loyalty and take on additional responsibilities. As noted by Graen (2003), in-group relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect and commitment. In contrast, relationships with out-group members remain on an explicitly contractual level (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). One predictor of group status is similarity. For example, Liden and his colleagues (1993) report that similarity between leaders and followers in terms of values, problem-solving, and demographic characteristics is positively associated with leader-member exchange quality.
Schyns, Kroon, and Moors (2008) contend that an idealized image of supervisors as considerate (Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002) is related to the perception of LMX and they report an interaction between idealized considerate leader images and a need for leadership (De Vries, Roe, & Taillieu, 1999). Thus when followers’ ideal leader is considerate they feel more dependent on their leader and perceive more LMX. As those followers might feel dependent on their leaders, they will be less likely to blame their leader for poor performance. Thus, on the basis of their implicit leadership theories and their dependence on their leader, “in-group” followers will have a tendency to attribute poor performance to external factors.
Proposition 3: In-group members will attribute poor leader performance to external factors.
Leader Factors That Reinforce Follower Implicit Leadership Theories
Charisma. According to Meindl (1990), charisma is “hyper-romanticism” (p. 182), meaning that charismatic leaders are often regarded as larger than life. “Transformational leadership, with its emphasis on charisma and vision, is in part a matter of perception and attribution, myth and symbol that is likely to have a romanticized component to it” (p. 182). A recent meta-analysis found that people who romanticize leaders also perceive more charisma in their actual leaders (Schyns et al., 2007), meaning that charisma itself contains some form of idealized leadership image. Poor performance is at odds with such heroic leader images and inconsistent with followers’ implicit leadership theories. Furthermore, followers of charismatic leaders report that their desire for leader approval was their primary source of motivation (Conger, 1989). Thus, charismatic leaders, by matching their followers’ implicit leadership theories, on the one hand, and providing individual consideration (e.g., transformational leadership; Bass, 1985), on the other hand, provide followers with a greater sense of self-worth: Followers get attention from their idealized leader. Accordingly, it seems unlikely that followers will attribute poor performance to charismatic leaders as their self-worth is dependent upon keeping their leadership images intact.
Proposition 4: Followers will attribute the poor performance of perceived charismatic leaders to external factors.
Impression management. Leaders often seek to convey the message that they are important, competent and in control of events (Pfeffer, 1977, 1981). In an analysis of annual reports Salancik and Meindl (1984) found that top management consistently credited themselves with positive outcomes while blaming negative outcomes on the environment. According to Gray and Densten (2007), “leaders are motivated to transmit these images through impression management and ‘woo’ followers into constructing romantic images of leadership” (p. 558). Consequently, leaders reinforce their followers’ romantic leader images and use the self-serving bias to make attributions for their performance. By making external attributions for poor performance, leaders promote effective leadership images consistent with followers’ implicit leadership theories.
Proposition 5: Leader impression management tactics promote followers’ tendency to attribute poor leader performance to external factors.
Status. The status of the leader may also reinforce followers’ implicit leadership theories. Hollander (1992) suggests that leaders accrue status (e.g., idiosyncrasy credits) by fostering perceptions of their competence and conformity to group norms. Once earned, these credits allow leaders greater latitude for action. For example, charisma represents a great fund of idiosyncrasy credits (Hollander, 1992). It is possible that status provides leaders with greater latitude for poor performance as followers are more likely to view higher level leaders through the lens of implicit leadership theories. Since status is earned by perceptions of competence, followers have already made some positive assessment about leader performance. Accordingly, poor leader performance is inconsistent with existing leader images.
Proposition 6: Leader status promotes followers’ tendency to attribute poor leader performance to external factors.
Prototypicality. As we have argued above, followers often evaluate leader performance through the lens of their implicit leadership theories. This may provide superiors categorized as leaders with a protective halo whereby leaders are presumed to be effective. However, implicit leadership theories may work against leaders who are “unusual” and do not fit the prototype (e.g., women, minorities; Schyns, 2006). Since these individuals were never presumed to be effective, intelligent, and dedicated, poor performance is consistent with their categorization as “non-leaders”. In such cases, followers may readily attribute leaders’ poor performance to internal factors.
Proposition 7: When leaders do not fit followers’ leadership images, followers will attribute poor leadership performance to internal factors.
Discussion
In summary, followers may evaluate leaders through the lens of their implicit leadership theories. Leaders who fit the prototype are presumed effective. Poor performance is inconsistent with such leader images. To maintain their leadership schemas, followers may attribute poor leader performance to external factors. The use of automatic processes to evaluate leader performance has important organizational implications. Leaders may reinforce this tendency by the use of impression management techniques whereby they take credit for good performance while attributing poor performance to external factors. By sustaining follower leader images, leaders maintain power. Follower needs may exacerbate this problem. For example, highly anxious followers may assume emotional availability is tantamount to leader effectiveness. Thus, leaders who meet follower attachment needs are deemed effective. From the perspective of the leader-follower dyad, there are no performance problems; from the perspective of the organization there is an accountability problem. Indeed, the wide spread practice of evaluating leader performance by relying on follower perceptions could result in an organizational culture that fails to hold leaders accountable. As Nicholas Kristof (2009) laments,
the marketplace of ideas doesn’t clear out bad pundits because there’s no accountability. We trumpet our successes and ignore failures—or else attempt to explain that the failure doesn’t count because the situation changed or that we were basically right but the timing was off ” (p. A27)
While our focus centered on positive implicit leadership theories, some followers may harbor negative leadership images. As Schyns and Shilling (under review) note, while implicit leadership theories largely consist of positive characteristics, the leader images of some followers include negative characteristics such as unpleasant, individualistic, or stupid. In such cases we anticipate that followers will attribute poor leader performance to leaders. Thus we expect followers with negative implicit leadership theories will also make attributions that enable them to sustain their leadership images.
Limitations
Definition of leader performance. The definition of leader performance may have implications for followers’ causal explanations regarding leader performance. Leader performance that directly affects followers seems likely to result in different attributions than outcomes that do not implicate the follower. Specifically, when outcomes are severe, such as organizational failure, followers lose their jobs. At this point, the protective halo of implicit leadership theories would seemingly backfire. Followers might feel betrayed by leaders, reasoning a “real leader” would have been able to protect us and sustain the organization. In such cases it seems likely that leaders will be held accountable for their poor performance as it is unlikely that they have enough idiosyncrasy credits for such a substantial withdrawal. Further, the defensive attribution hypothesis (e.g., Walster, 1966) suggests that observers attribute more responsibility for accidents that produce severe consequences. This is in line with Meindl et al.’s (1985) Romance of Leadership approach, stating that leaders are held responsible for company performance not only in times of very good but also in times of very bad company performance.
This contribution represents an important departure from previous research that focused on leaders’ attributions for follower performance. We developed a theoretical framework that details how followers make attributions for leader performance. It is vital to understand these processes since leaders maintain their power and legitimacy through followers. The realities of leader performance can be obscured through imagery and self-presentation (Hollander, 1992). Followers may readily latch onto such explanations as they fit with their implicit leadership theories. This may have dysfunctional consequences where there is a disconnect between the perceptions of leaders and their followers and those outside the organization. Indeed, Hollander (1992) observes there is a pattern of excessively large bonuses and salaries paid to CEOs even in the face of lay-offs, declining earnings, and other poor performance outcomes for their firms. Recently, in the wake of the Wall Street crisis, the CEOs of failing organizations were rewarded with bailout funds and bonuses. To hold leaders accountable, we must first understand how followers evaluate their performance.
Allport, F. H. (1955). Theories of perception and the concept of structure. New Work: Wiley.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)
Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179–204). Chicago : St. Claire Press.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Beyond the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (1999). On charisma and need for leadership, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 109-33.
Erdelyi, M. H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1-25.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Graen, G. B. (2003). Interpersonal workplace theory at the crossroads: LMX and transformational theory as a special case of role making in work organizations. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity, LMX leadership: The series (Vol. I, pp. 145-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2007). How leaders woo followers in the Romance of Leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 558-581.
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R., (1990). Love and work: An attachment—theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71-75.
Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Sorenson, R. L. (1990). Top management: Inside the black box. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 41-65.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141-160.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kristof, N. (2009, March 26). Learning how to think. The New York Times, p. A27.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. (1978). The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 27-39.
Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 551-579.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Routledge.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly , 18, 561-585.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 159-203.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O., (2000). Stress and accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 509-523.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R., (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-895.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O., (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321-331.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D., (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77-102.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories : Content, structure, and generalizability, The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43-58.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-112.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 143-163.
Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1982). Schematic information processing and perception of leadership in problem solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 486-492.
Popper, M. (2001). The dark and bright sides of leadership: Some theoretical and practical implications. In J. M. Burns, G. Sorenson, & L. Matusak (Eds.), Concepts, challenges and realities of leadership. College Park, MD: Academy of Leadership.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O., (2002). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 41-65.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O., (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267-289.
Salancik, G. R., & Meindl, J. R. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of management control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 238-254.
Schyns, B. (2006). The role of implicit leadership theories in the performance appraisals and promotion recommendations of leaders. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 188-199.
Schyns, B., Felfe, J., & Blank, H. (2007). Is charisma hyper-romanticism? Empirical evidence from new data and a meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56,505–527.
Schyns, B., & Hansbrough, T. (2008). Why the brewery ran out of beer: The attribution of mistakes in a leadership context. Social Psychology, 39, 197-203.
Schyns, B., Kroon, B., & Moors, G. (2008). Follower characteristics and the perception of Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 772-788.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (in press). Implicit leadership theories: Think leader, think effective? Journal of Management Inquiry.
Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L., (1996). Attachment styles and internal working models. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 25-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C., (1994). Attachment. In A.L Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 110-130). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tepper, B. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108.
Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K. J. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision, The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 327-42.
Walster, E. (1966) Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73-79.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle Hill, NJ: Prentice-Hall.