The Fundamentals Attribution Error - Essay Example

The Fundamentals Attribution Error Answer: Fundamental attribution error or the correspondence bias is “the tendency to draw inferences about a person's unique and enduring dispositions from behaviors that can be entirely explained by the situations in which they occur” (Gilbert & Malone 1995, p.21). It means primarily holding other people’s behavior responsible for certain outcomes instead of analyzing the situation or the environment in which the particular outcome is taking place .It implies being biased towards attributing the negative causes to people’s behavior not taking into account situational factors. It also implies that when people try to explain their own behavior they are not able to or are willing to accept their shortcomings. It is in a sense saying I am okay and you are not okay or I am effective and efficient and you are not effective and efficient, or I and my group are okay and you and your group are not okay. There are many theories to explain the fundamental attribution error but it is generally accepted that this error arises due to differences in perception and values amongst individuals. In this particular case there is a growing discontent among staff in the division of the firm which is providing legal services to the corporate, the corporates are hiring many of the capable legal consultants as their own employees from firms such as the one being discussed which are not able to value their employees, that the firm is only two years old and is growing in all other markets except the corporate law market. This implies that the firm’s resources and structure are not suitably aligned to serve the needs of the corporate law market. The department serving the corporate sector does not have the correct structure and reward basis required to skillfully serve the corporate demands. The corporate law market significantly differs from other law markets (property, marriage, taxation etc) in the sense that the sector is highly complex and in addition to having a very good understanding of law the service provider should also have a holistic viewpoint, an understanding of the business environment affecting its corporate clients. Corporate law generally addresses issues like entering into a transaction on behalf of the corporate, acquiring property which can give rise to conflict of interest, choosing the directors and officers for the organization and arriving at proper negotiations and assigning responsibilities to the director, officer or a majority shareholder, issuing stock and deciding upon the rights of the shareholders with respect to the corporation, issues related to mergers, acquisitions , consolidation or the termination of an organization etc. as evident all these issues besides requiring an in depth knowledge of law requires an insight into the overall environment which is effecting or can have an effect on the operations of the corporate. When the emphasis is on the holistic picture then two heads are always better than one. The firm should instead of rewarding only on the basis of a particular partner’s acceptability to a corporate client should foster an environment of team work, diversity (in knowledge areas) and knowledge sharing and endeavor to provide a holistic solution to its corporate clients. At present many solicitors or partners though being legal experts may not be having an understanding of the business environment effecting the corporate in a particular industry, this may be leading to their unsatisfactory performance as result of which they are not able to compensate their junior staff working under them as per industry standards. Also the value system of the firm which emphasizes individual merit in winning over clients is proving to be a hindrance in attracting cross viewpoints, suggestions from other partners and in being able to provide a holistic solution to their clients. The partners should be humble enough to accept their shortcomings to their own selves and should welcome team work and should suitably reward able employees, this being actually not their shortcomings but the industry demand of their changing times. Team structure if properly implemented should not undermine individual merit in any way. 2. What ethical dilemmas are evident in this organization and what could be done about them? Answer: Ethical dilemmas are “Situations where an individual is required to define right and wrong conduct”. (Robbins 1996, p.20). In this organization the senior members have won over clients through their own merit and hard work, are very proud of the fact and they measure another partner’s ability by their individual merit in being able to create a client base for their own selves. The older partners may be vary of discussing their cases with other partners or asking for opinion lest their own hard and long years of work in winning over those clients gets exploited by others who may view it as an easy way to win over clients also they fear that their weaknesses may get exposed to others having an exploitative mentality, instead of being thanked for being given a case they may be blamed for being inefficient and incapable. Though such a stance by the older members may keep away the exploitative mentality and undeserving people but it also keeps away the capable advisors, who are keen to arrive at holistic solutions and win a case for the organization rather than only for their own selves, who have a belief in their own abilities and also value team work, who know the nature of corporate law and fear that inability to share knowledge may lead to loss of clientele. As is mentioned in the case, that an experienced senior solicitor who has newly joined the firm in a senior position, feels, that his endeavor to carry out his own duties of fixing legal problems for the corporate was being looked upon as poaching by few of the senior partners. According to Robbins( 1996, p.157), ethical decision making revolves around three criteria-utilitarianism that is providing the greatest good for the greatest number; focus on rights(of individuals) and focus on justice (to individuals) Since the question revolves around ethics, to solve the dilemma the firm needs to take into consideration the following: i) Not only one ethical issue, that of encouraging hard work and individual merit, but also other ethical issues like loosing clientele by being individually in equipped to provide a solution, should be considered. A partner needs to be appraised not only by his/her merit to win over clients but also the clients who s/he has not been able to provide adequate service to. ii) If a partner aware of his/her own incapability to serve a client deliberately keeps mum, does not seek timely advice from others and looses the client then such an individual is a liability to the firm and such behavior is highly unethical as loosing a client not only badly reflects upon a particular individual but on the entire reputation of the firm, a client may hesitate to again deal with the firm just because of the gross misconduct of particular individuals. iii) The firm should implement transparent reporting systems where each partner should provide details of the clients being handled and the progress from time to time; if a particular case is taking an extraordinary long time then the partner in charge of it should be asked for an explanation based on which further action should be taken. iv) If the delay is being caused due to individual shortcomings then advice from other partners should be taken but the final outcome will be the responsibility of the individual initially handling the case. v) The other partners who have given advice to cases which are not their own can record the details in their personal records. Also the individual who is taking advice should record details pertaining to the advisor and nature of the advice etc in his/her own personal records. vi) The firm should assign separate personnel possibly an HR manager to review the individual records and carry out performance appraisal. vii) The firm may also decide to separate its business development activities from the legal advisory cell, cases brought in by the business development cell can be put in a data base accessible to the legal advisors who can then select and notify to the business development regarding their interest in particular case(s). In the event of a tie the case may be assigned to one of the interested advisors based on factors like know-how, experience, past performance etc. Such changes should be incorporated after the members of the firm have been explained the reasons for the change. 3. How are cultural norms in this workplace undermining performance? What cultural changes are needed if any and how might you tackle such a change? Answer: “Organization culture is a common perception held by the organization members” (Robbins 1996, p.681) The culture of the firm being discussed is mainly based on individuality which is further endorsed by senior members having an individualistic bent of mind. The firm is characterized by lack of team work and mistrust amongst its members. Cultural norms are usually set by people who themselves have those mindset which may be due to the long years of experience they have behind them which has taught them to embrace such values and as such is a very difficult to change as it involves basically changing the mindset or the attitudes of people. To bring about a cultural change from an individualistic work culture to that of a team based structure and shared knowledge a carefully designed training program should be implemented. The training program should be aimed at changing the attitude of people. The training can have the following modules. i) Sensitivity Training: The participants should be made to perceive themselves individually as well as to understand how others perceive them. In this case for example the senior partners perceive themselves as being hardworking and of high merit whereas they are being viewed by others as ‘pompous’ (according to a newly joined senior advisor).Similarly the newly joined senior advisor may be perceiving himself as trying to help and do his duty whereas he is being viewed by few of the senior partners as a person lacking individual merit and a poacher. The Johari window provides an insight for carrying out such an analysis. (Luft and Ingham 1955) Known to self Not known to self Known to others Arena Blind Spot Not Known to others Facade Unknown Or the I am okay you are okay window can also be helpful (Harris.T. 1969) I am okay you are okay I am okay you are not okay I am not okay you are not okay I am not okay you are okay At present the firm is having an ‘I am okay you are not okay’ mindset and this should be changed to ‘I am okay you are okay’ mindset. This can be achieved by focusing on the common objectives which are the existence and performance of the firm, presenting and discussing various case studies where team work has done wonders etc. ii) Case study and games: various games and case studies requiring team work and emphasizing the role of team work should be assigned to groups undergoing training so that trainees can learn by doing which will facilitate in rapid transfer of learning in real life situations. The management should thereafter reinforce the team culture with appropriate stories, rituals, material symbols etc. within its organizational environs. Bibliography Gilbert & Malone, 1995. The correspondence bias. Vol. 117, No. 1 pp 21-38, viewed 4 May 2007, Psychological Bulletin by The American Psychological Association. Robbins, SP 1996, Organizational Behavior, 7th edition, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd ,New Delhi, India. Luft & Ingham, 1955 The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness, Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development, Los Angeles: UCLA. Harris A Thomas, 1969, I’m Ok-You’re OK, Harper & Row. Read More