A. Hetrick, Lily D. Blocker, Joshua Fairchild, Samuel T. Hunter
{"title":"To Apologize or Justify: Leader Responses to Task and Relational Mistakes","authors":"A. Hetrick, Lily D. Blocker, Joshua Fairchild, Samuel T. Hunter","doi":"10.1080/01973533.2020.1828083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 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.","PeriodicalId":48014,"journal":{"name":"Basic and Applied Social Psychology","volume":"43 1","pages":"30 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01973533.2020.1828083","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basic and Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1828083","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Abstract 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.
期刊介绍:
Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) emphasizes the publication of outstanding research articles, but also considers literature reviews, criticism, and methodological or theoretical statements spanning the entire range of social psychological issues. The journal will publish basic work in areas of social psychology that can be applied to societal problems, as well as direct application of social psychology to such problems. The journal provides a venue for a broad range of specialty areas, including research on legal and political issues, environmental influences on behavior, organizations, aging, medical and health-related outcomes, sexuality, education and learning, the effects of mass media, gender issues, and population problems.