example, an individual suspected of murder is in a far worse predicament than one who is suspected ... After careful deliberation it was announced by university.
Social Behavior and Personality, 1984, 12(2), 217-224 © Society for Personality Research Inc.
THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED PLANNING AND PROPRIETY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTS1 ROBERT A. GIACALONE Bryant College PAUL ROSENFELD Penn State University - The Behrend College Subjects were given the written description of an erroneous decision made by a library director, followed by a number of accounts the leader might have given, and were asked to rate the accounts on acceptability and leadership. Results showed that the subject’s perception of the decision s propriety and planning affected both the ratings of acceptability and leadership. The data were discussed in terms of methodological problems and future research directions.
The situation often arises when an action one has performed has led to some negative consequences, ultimately leading to a negative impression of the person performing the action. Perhaps people may feel that because of the action, the actor is evil, malevolent, or in some way “bad”; the actor may be seen as incompetent or unprofessional. In these cases, the person is said to be in a predicament. Schlenker (1980) defines a predicament as any “event that casts undesired aspersions on the lineage, character, conduct, skills, or motives of an actor”. The problem of a predicament is the severe disparity between the identity one wishes to create and the identity which was “given off”(Goffman, 1959). Disparity between the identity given off and the identity which one wished to create (which, presumably, has been fostered in the past) results in the person’s looking inconsistent of fraudulent. If, for example, an individual claims to have produced a product in X time to person A, and in Y time to person B, we can easily see what will happen if Persons A & B come together and discuss the incident. While the audience may see the person as a liar, they might also attribute severe problems to him (mental illness) if such inconsistencies are evidenced repeatedly. The predicament which any an individual faces, whether it is judged as such by an observer or if it seems to be a predicament for the individual alone, will cause him to attempt a number of remedial tactics (Goffman, 1971) designed to alleviate or eradicate the negative impression; ultimately, the impression management techniques (IM) (Goffman, 1959; Schlenker. 1980) used will serve to sway the negative judgement of the actor into a judgement which is less negative, neutral, or even positive. In general, these techniques constitute verbal forms of impression management, although combined forms, implementing both verbal and non-verbal forms have been noted (Jones and Berglas, 1978). The process of verbal impression management used by persons in predicaments known as motive talk (Mills, 1940), neutralization (Sykes and Matza, 1957), and accounting (Scott and Lyman, 1968) is designed to re-establish a positive identity following the predicaments by offering reasons for the behavior in question. While the processes leading to verbal impression management in a predicament are very similar, each of the aforementioned approaches expound on particular aspects of the same general process; their focus is directed at diverse notions within the verbal IM process. It was Mills (1940) who noted the verbal IM strategies of persons in predicaments. Unlike many psychologists (cf. Cofer & Appley, 1964) who ascribed the motives to 1
A version of this paper was presented at the 1984 Eastern Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada.
217
218
GIACALONE AND ROSENFELD
internal processes, Mills clearly stated that motives are words which represent the anticipated consequences for situations where the conduct is in some way questionable. According to Mills, we cannot look for “real motives” (internal processes, independent of the person’s verbalizations), but rather, can only understand the motive in terms of its societal context (Mills, 1940). Sykes and Matza’s (1957) analysis of the 1M strategies used by delinquent boys shows that although the delinquent behavior is antinormative, delinquents still desire to stay within the framework of their social systems; this desire was manifested in verbal IM strategies which sought to “neutralize” the overt antinormative behavior by aligning these acts to normative reasons and goals. Thus, a series of rationalizations or justifications were used to make observers aware of how the antinormative actions were “not so far” from societal norms and practices. Scott and Lyman (1968), extended the area of verbal 1M to include excuses. Together, excuses and justifications became known as accounts. With this dichotomy, Scott and Lyman separated the strategies: justifications referred to an account in which the person accepted the responsibility for an act, but did not concur with the negative aspects of that act while excuses were methods which denied responsibility for the act. ORGANIZATIONALLY RELEVANT STUDIES While some studies have been done on accounts, only a few studies might be considered organizationally relevant. Data by Shields (1979) on the accounting process showed that diverse forms of accounts are not equally effective; that is, an excuse was far more effective than a justification in conveying remorse. Riordan (1981) further showed that while excuses diminished responsibility, justifications reduced the perceived wrongfulness of the action. Additionally, Riordan showed that believability was not particularly instrumental in effecting the efficacy of the account; rather the degree to which the account was a good explanation for the behavior accounted for more variance. Finally, Wood and Mitchell (1981) examined the efficacy of accounts used by nurses in a hospital setting and found that they were able to reduce the responsibility for inadequate performance of duty. ISSUES IN THE ACCOUNTING PROCESS While Scott and Lyman (1968) did not delineate the ways in which an account may or may not work, it is obvious that some accounts are effective while others are not. What are the processes which control the efficacy of an account? It seems that a number of these issues are readily discernible. PREDICAMENT SEVERITY Of primary importance to the actor giving an account is the audience’s subjective estimation of the actor’s culpability. While a variety of actions might lead to similar predicaments, it is the audience’s subjective interpretations of the predicament which the actor must satisfy. It seems defensible, therefore, to assume that an actor would choose an account designed to sway his audience toward a “best case reading” (Schlenker, 1980) of the action. The severity of the predicament, however, should dictate, in part, the audience’s reaction to the action. For example, an individual suspected of murder is in a far worse predicament than one who is suspected of lying. A question, then, must arise regarding predicament severity: Are there cases in which no account will work or cases in which an account will not mitigate any negative attributions made? Furthermore, we must question whether the efficacy of an account is jointly dependent on a variety of factors, one of which is the audience’s subjective appraisal of the severity of the predicament. Perhaps there is a decreasing linear function of accounts, suggesting that as an audience’s subjective appraisal of an action grows increasingly negative, the number of potentially efficacious accounts decrease. PRIORITIZING ACCOUNTS Once the actor decides to give an account, the most efficacious account is one which the audience will believe and the actor can give (i.e., there are no environmental constraints which would stop the actor from giving the account). The actor must now PERCEIVED PLANNING AND PROPRIETY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTS
PERCEIVED PLANNING AND PROPRIETY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTS
subjectively analyze the predicament (taking into account the audience’s subjective estimation of the predicament) and decide whether he can justify the action, excuse it, or, if necessary, apologize for it. The ways in which the actor can account for a behaviour are numerous; how then does he choose a particular line of impression management? We might postulate that a hierarchy of accounts exists for the actor which prioritizes them on the basis of how they have worked before (under similar circumstances), either for the actor himself, or for others. Additionally, the actor must choose the account which permits the least amount of damage to his identity. For example, an executive who misses a business meeting may note that he forgot due to his involvement with a client; on the other hand, he could say he forgot because he was feeling sick due to a hangover. In the former, the account is desirable, while in the latter, the account lacks in its desirability. Given equal opportunity to use either account (that is, if the audience is unaware of surrounding events), the former account seems least damaging. EMOTIONAL/INTELLECTUAL PREDICAMENT Observers might make a distinction between what they see as an emotional predicament (i.e., losing one’s temper) and an intellectual predicament (i.e., failing to know the correct choice). The difference it seems is not in the action itself, but in the presentation of the action; that is, in the account given for the action. Assuming that the observer makes this distinction (from the actor’s account), will one type of account be more efficacious than another? Is it in the actor’s best interest to present his behavior in terms which make it seem least calculating and spontaneous (thus making the action seem emotionally driven) or very calculating and planned but gone awry (thereby expressing one’s good intentions which have been hurt by environmental forces)? AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS The expectations of an audience to which the account is given may determine what form the account takes. For example, the reasons given for industrial sabotage will be quite different if the audience is the police and not fellow saboteurs. Sabotage will require an account to the police, regardless of the organization: however, sabotage may not require any account if the saboteur was hired by the mob for a “hit” of the company. (In fact, a “good job” by the saboteur may result in his trying to take credit or enhance his action, an impression management strategy referred to as acclaiming (Schlenker, 1980)). PRESENT STUDY Within the context of the present study, we were interested in ascertaining the effect of each subordinate’s perceptions of how well-planned and how proper a director’s decision was, the respective effective these factors would have on the acceptance of an account, and the perception of the director’s leadership based on his use of the account. It was predicted that the preceived planning and propriety of the decision would affect both the acceptance of different accounts as well as the perception of the director’s leadership based on the accounts given. METHOD SUBJECTS Participants were 50 student-employees of a major northeastern library who volunteered their participation. PROCEDURE Participants were given a brief description of a library director who was appropriated one million dollars to disburse. The description read as follows: Recently, Darrel Jones, director of a large university library, was given one million dollars to use for the library. Because Mr. Jones was the director, he was put in charge of the distribution of the money. Before making a decision regarding the distribution, Jones solicited suggestions from the library staff as to the needs of the library. Staff members noted that the library needed: I) a greater selection of books, 2) a greater selection of magazines and scholarly journals, 3) new desks and furniture for the
219
220
GIACALONE AND ROSENFELD
reading room, and 4) more staff. After careful deliberation it was announced by university officials that Jones had decided to distribute funds equally among the four areas of need. Approximately four weeks after his decision (and prior to the arrival of any new products or staff), a committee which compared university libraries nationwide reported that the library Jones directed: 1) “was deficient in the total number of books,” 2) “was above average in the selection of scholarly journals and magazines,” 3) ‘was above average in the quality of comfort (desks, couches, seats in reading rooms),” and 4) “was average in the staff/student ratio.” In essence, then, the distribution of funds (although distributed equally), was not according to need. Following the description, participants were asked to rate acceptability of ten accounts (Table 1) on a scale of I (not at all acceptable) to 7 (very acceptable). The basis for these accounts was the work of Schlenker (1980). Participants were then asked to rate the same statements on the degree of leadership they displayed, using a scale from I (no leadership) to 7 (a great deal of leadership). Finally using a scale of I (not at all) to 7 (a great deal), subjects were asked how proper and well planned the director’s decision was. TABLE I: ACCOUNTS FOLLOWING THE DESCRIPTION 1. “The distribution of funds was an accident. Staff did not follow my directives.” 2. “I used poor judgment.” 3. “I was given incorrect information by staff.” 4. “I had been sick at the time of the decision, and due to poor health, was not mentally capable of making the best decision.” 5. “Political interests within the university coerced me into distributing the funds equally.” 6. “I did not make the decision. The president of the university made it.” 7. “I distributed the funds as I did so as to make everyone on staff happy and show no favoritism.” 8. “While the report seems to indicate that I distributed funds unfairly, this is untrue. All parts of the library were helped.” 9. The only fair way to distribute funds is equally.” 10. “The report is erroneous, since it did not take into account the particular needs of our library and our community.” RESULTS CATEGORIZATION Median splits were performed on how proper the decision was (Md = 3.0) and how wellplanned the decision was (Md = 2.7) thereby creating four categories: high proper/high wellplanned decisions, high proper/low well-planned decisions, low proper/high well-planned decisions, and low proper/low well-planned decisions. FACTOR ANALYSES In order to determine if the four categories affected acceptance of accounts and perceptions of leadership, a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on both acceptance of accounts and perceptions of leadership, revealing three factors for each. ACCEPTANCE OF ACCOUNTS The first factor was indicative of accounts based on the fairness of the distribution, while the second and third factor could be labelled as accounts which attributed responsibility to the environment, and accounts which expressed the leader’s inability to make a decision, respectively. Each of the accounts which loaded .40 or higher on a factor was summed and became a cumulative index of that factor.
PERCEIVED PLANNING AND PROPRIETY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTS
PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP The first factor was indicative of accounts using the environment as an explanation for the decision, the second factor which focused on the equality of the distribution, and the third factor representing accounts which shifted responsibility for the decision. Each of the accounts which loaded .40 or higher on a factor was summed and became a cumulative index of that factor. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON FACTORS Each of the six factors was subjected to a 2 x 2 analysis of variance using the high/low blocks for proper and well-planned decisions. Account acceptance Factor I revealed no significant main effects of proper or well-planned decisions ratings (p’s < .10), although a significant interaction of proper and well-planned decision ratings was found (F( 1,34) = 4.125, p < .05). A Duncan’s multiple range test (p
