To Apologize or Justify
Leader Responses to Task and Relational Mistakes
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21477294 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrea L Hetrick (0000-0001-8771-5137, University of New Mexico, corresponding author), Lily D Blocker (0000-0003-4354-1897, Stony Brook University), Joshua Fairchild (0000-0003-0049-0137, Creighton University), Samuel T Hunter (0000-0002-2036-7681, Pennsylvania State University) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 30-45 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Basic and Applied Social Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0197-3533 • E-ISSN: 1532-4834 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01973533.2020.1828083 |
| OpenAlex | W3106104736 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 61 |
Leadership roles are complex, creating an environment where leaders are likely to make mistakes that result in negative outcomes. We shift the conversation in the literature from examining the effectiveness of mistake responses toward exploring why leaders use different mistake recovery methods. We employ an online experimental method to distinguish between task and relationship mistakes for leaders and suggest that different attributions are made for these two types of mistakes (Study 1). We found that task mistakes are viewed by leaders as more specific and less personal, and that relationship mistakes are viewed as more global, describing the leader’s stable characteristics rather than a specific event. From these findings, we predict that leaders are more likely to apologize for task mistakes and are more likely to justify their relationship mistakes rather than admit wrongdoing for them. We find support for these predictions using a mixed methods approach, employing a laboratory experiment (Study 2) and a critical incident method surveying a panel of leaders (Study 3). As such, this paper extends our understanding of the mistake recovery process for leaders by demonstrating that 1) leaders’ relationship mistakes are viewed as more globally representative of the leader than task mistakes, and 2) leaders are more likely to apologize for task mistakes but more likely to justify relationship mistakes. Relational and task mistakes, however, were not found to be different in regard to their ambiguity or the extent to which they were viewed as a mistake
Ambiguity · Attribution · Cognitive psychology · Conversation · Epistemology · Mistake · Political science · Wrongdoing · Communication · Computer Science · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior · Psychology · Social Psychology · Workplace Violence and Bullying
Attribution theory
Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy
The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research.
Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization.
An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior
Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding
When more blame is better than less
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management
Amazon Mechanical Turk in Organizational Psychology
Removing the Shadow of Suspicion
Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions
On doing relevant and rigorous experiments
How Does Leader Humility Influence Team Performance? Exploring the Mechanisms of Contagion and Collective Promotion Focus
Correlational effect size benchmarks.
Attributional processes of leaders in leader—Member interactions
Amazon's Mechanical Turk
TurkPrime.com
Attribution Theory and Research
Impression Management in Organizations
To Lead Is to Err
Attribution theory in the organizational sciences
Data Collection in a Flat World
The Effectiveness of Accounts Following Transgression
Leadership, membership and organization
| Citations per year | 0.8 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |