Inattribution theory, which enjoyed its heyday in the social psychology of the
1970s and 1980s, the focus is also on monitoring and grasping the behavior of
others. In this context, “attribution” refers to the motivations people assign to
specific types of conduct. For example, on the job people tend to congratulate
themselves on their achievements but blame uncontrollable external factors for
mistakes and failures. In the long run, attribution theories do little to answer our
initial question of what constitutes good leadership.
In contrast,social learning theoriescan help us. Such theories are based on the
assumption that management, leadership behavior and the leadership situation are
mutually influential. This means that managers learn not only from their own
actions, but from those of their employees, and employees learn from the behavior
of management. This process is designated as “learning by example,” and is an
important prerequisite for development and change. If everyone had to primarily
learn through trial and error, learning would be an embarrassing and lengthy
process. For example a child learns by observing its mother that the stove is hot
without having to put its hand on it. The situation is similar in business, where we
learn by observing others – every mistake is only made once, at least in theory.
Social learning theories provide a basis for the delegating leadership style,
emphasizes the need for self-management (as everyone serves as an example –
and possibly as a role model – for others), and offers valuable approaches to
working in teams.
2.3.2.4 Beneath the Surface
All these approaches and findings are always jeopardized by irrationality, because
human behavior is not only determined by logical, conscious factors and decisions:
“A person with management responsibilities should be sensitized to the fact that his
or her employees are not only rational and proactive, but that irrational processes
are a part of them that they themselves often cannot justify and leave them almost
speechless” (von Rosenstiel/Regnet/Domsch 2003, p. 23), warns Munich-based
organizational psychologist Lutz von Rosenstiel.
Irrational and subconscious factors that shape the behavior on both sides can
have consequences within organizations, such as conflicts when various defense
mechanisms (displacement, compensation, transference, identification), are trig-
gered and lead to projection, feelings of resignation, aggression, self-incrimination
or fixation. If the management understands these mechanisms, it can more accu-
rately perceive its own role and the behavior of employees and respond more
appropriately (Rosenstiel/Regnet/Domsch 2003, pp. 27–40).
My “artificial” division between approaches focusing on managers and those
mainly dealing with employees should not serve to diminish the interrelation and
interplay between the two. A relationship always has two sides, which influence
each other through their actions, perceptions and communications. The exchange
processes between leaders and employees have been studied in interaction theories,
role theory, and group-dynamic approaches, two important names in this regard
82 2 Occupation or Calling: What Makes for Good Leadership?