Attribution theories in Human Resource Management research: a review and research agenda

Abstract

There is no doubt that attribution theories have made their mark in social psychology and other related disciplines, but their application and extension to the field of HRs is in its infancy. Indeed, HR scholars have recently realized that understanding the process by which individuals explain the causes of behaviors and events provides insight into a host of HR-related issues. In our review of 65 papers, we identified three research streams with different foci-those that focused on HR system strength, on attributions that influence judgements and behaviors within functional HRM domains, and on the attributions employees make of the intent of HR practices. Notably, despite shared foundations, these three streams of literature rarely overlap. We summarize and provide theoretical and empirical directions for future research within each research area to help steer courses in these areas. Importantly, we also draw connections among the three streams to inspire future research to stretch the bounds of current theorizing on attributions in the field of HR.

Information, beliefs, and motivation: The antecedents to human resource attributions

“…Moreover, we heeded the advice of Lord and Smith (, p.55), who suggested that scholars should “be careful in generalizing models of attributional processes developed in a particular context to other types of attributional questions or other situations”, through our careful application and refinement of attribution theory to the HR domain. This is particularly important as several scholars have highlighted the fact that, despite its promise, attribution theory is underutilized in organizational research (Harvey et al, ; Martinko et al, ) and particularly needs theoretical and empirical development within HR scholarship (Hewett et al, ; Ostroff & Bowen, ). This is our core contribution, and it serves as a platform as research on HR attributions takes flight.…”

“…On the basis of this typology, Nishii and colleagues identified five HR attributions dependent on whether practices are believed to be designed to (a) enhance employee well‐being (internal, commitment‐focused, employee‐oriented); (b) enhance service quality (internal, commitment‐focused, organization‐oriented), (c) exploit employees (internal, control‐focused, employee‐oriented); (4) make system‐wide cost reductions (internal, control‐focused, organization‐oriented); or (5) meet trade union requirements (external attribution). This dimensional structure of HR attributions has been the subject of several empirical examinations, but questions about the nature and relationships between different HR attributions remain (see Hewett et al, ). As we explain in more detail in the methods section of this paper, we begin by examining all five of Nishii et al's original attributions, but through our empirical work, we test and refine this framework, in particular by adding an additional external attribution, focusing on compliance with external reporting regulations (see Figure ), and we finish in our discussion section with some suggestions for theoretical development of the dimensional structure of HR attributions.…”

“…Although HR attributions have a demonstrable effect on relevant employee and organizational outcomes (e.g., Nishii et al, ; Shantz, Arevshatian, Alfes, & Bailey, ), the insights from this area of research are restricted because scholars have focused solely on examining outcomes. It therefore comes as little surprise that a recent review of this literature called for studies to expand the nomological net of HR attributions by building and testing theory on antecedents (Hewett, Shantz, Mundy, & Alfes, ). If a core aim of this burgeoning literature is to explain the microprocesses through which HR influences organizational performance, then research on antecedents to HR attributions is sorely needed.…”

“…We complement this growing area of research by furthering the application of attribution theory to the HR domain. Thus far, research on HR attributions is relatively scarce (Hewett et al, ). In particular, although Nishii et al’s () propositions about HR attributions are well cited in the HR literature, they have been subject to only a small amount of empirical testing, and no research to date has explored individual‐level antecedents to HR attributions (for a review, see Hewett et al, ).…”

“…Thus far, research on HR attributions is relatively scarce (Hewett et al, ). In particular, although Nishii et al’s () propositions about HR attributions are well cited in the HR literature, they have been subject to only a small amount of empirical testing, and no research to date has explored individual‐level antecedents to HR attributions (for a review, see Hewett et al, ). To explain the microprocesses by which HR practices influence performance, the HR field needs a better understanding of the factors that lead employees to make such attributions.…”