Compliance and Performance – Kelly’s Covariation Model
Fifteen and a half years ago I embarked on a career in the financial industry that I continue to this day. For about nine of those years, I spent time in a management role. Depending on the time and location, I had anywhere from nine people reporting to me, to upwards of twenty-four employees that I was responsible for. My main objectives were achieving success in both compliance and performance. Both are important in each of their own ways. Performance is important because it generates revenue for the company. Compliance is also equally important because we are regulated by how we actually conduct business. As I think about how social psychology applies to organizations, key topics such as leadership, work motivation, and job satisfaction always seems to catch my interest. Each of these components could carry an internal and an external factor to it. All of this is driven by behavior. But what causes this behavior? A lot of this can be explained from what is known as the attribution process. The attribution process is the process of assigning a cause to a behavior (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts; 2012). To go a little more in depth in a discussion of the attribution process, I would like to discuss one of the most popular known attribution theories which is called the Kelly’s Covariation Model. The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes (McLeod; 2010). This model discusses external and internal causes, high and low results, and three types of information which influence our judgements, including, distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency. Some key points to focus on while you continue to read this is that people tend to make internal attributions when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high. They will make external attributions when consensus, distinctiveness and consistency are all high. When consistency is low, they will make situational attributions (Kelley (1967). I’m going to now discuss how each of these three types of information correlates with the two main objectives that I always set as expectations, which are compliance and performance.
The first type of information I would like to discuss is distinctiveness. Distinctiveness describes how a person behaves differently in a variety of situations. It measures the extent of how a person behaves in the same way in similar situations. If a person behaves the same the way in all situations, then the distinctiveness is low. If that person behaves one way in one situation, but behaves another way in a different situation, then the distinctiveness is high. If my employees were successful/ unsuccessful in both compliance and performance, then it was considered internal. If my employees had a distinction between compliance and performance, then the situation was external.
The second type of information I would like to discuss is consensus. Consensus describes how a situation can either effect most of us, or possibly just a few. It measures the extent to which a situation may cause most of us to react the same way. If most of us behave the same towards a situation, then the consensus is high. If the situation causes just a few of us to behave in certain way, then the consensus is low. If most of my employees had the same results in compliance, performance, or both, then it was considered external. If only a few of my employees had the same results, then it was considered internal.
The third and final type of information I would like to discuss is consistency. Consistency describes the behavioral pattern of a person during the same situation. If the person’s behavior stays consistent during the same situations, then consistency is considered high. If the person’s behavior changes during the same situations, then the consistency is considered low. If my employees showed the same results in compliance, performance or both individually, then it was internal. If my employees showed different results within compliance, performance, or both, then it was external.
Whether it’s in my world, or maybe even in your world, I hope that I explained the attribution process in a way that you can possibly apply it towards your everyday life. I also hope you have a better understanding of Kelly’s Covariation Model, and the three types of information that truly influence our behavior in certain situations. Remember: Distinctiveness is high = external attribution, low = internal attribution; Consensus is high = external attribution, low = internal attribution; Consistency is high = internal attribution, low = external attribution. So next time you find yourself in one of these situations, you should ask yourself: Is it just you? Or is it the situation?
References:
Attribution Theory; Saul McLeod, 2010; simplypsychology.org
Applied Social Psychology; Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012; the text book and stuff…
Kelley, H.H. (1967) Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. In D. Levine (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (volume 15, pp. 192-238) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press