| Course | MGT 464 Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Perception and individual differences paper |
| Length | About 1,043 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 464 Module 1
Lazy or Unlucky? Attribution, Personality and a Sales Manager's Judgment of Two Inside Sales Reps
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
MGT 464: Organizational Behavior
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Lazy or Unlucky? Attribution, Personality and a Sales Manager's Judgment of Two Inside Sales Reps
Inland Software Partners, a composite company in Spokane, Washington, resells business software licenses and support contracts to small and mid-size firms across the Northwest. Its fourteen inside sales reps each cover a territory, selling by phone and video. Last quarter, two reps' sales fell by about a third compared with their prior four-quarter averages. The sales manager concluded that both had "lost their drive," noting that one had been leaving on time and the other seemed distracted in team meetings, and proposed placing both on performance improvement plans. The sales director asked for a closer look before approving. This paper examines how the judgment was formed and whether it holds.
How People Infer Causes
Kelley (1973) proposed that people act like everyday scientists when they explain behavior, checking how the behavior lines up with three kinds of information. Consensus asks whether other people in the same situation act the same way. Distinctiveness asks whether this person acts this way only in this particular situation or across many. Consistency asks whether the person acts this way over time. Low consensus, low distinctiveness and high consistency suggest a cause inside the person. High consensus and high distinctiveness suggest a cause in the situation.
Applying the Cues
| Cue | First rep, Coeur d'Alene territory | Second rep, Tri-Cities territory |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | The rep covering the neighboring Spokane Valley territory also fell 25% | No other rep fell more than 8% |
| Distinctiveness | Decline concentrated in two large accounts that were acquired by national firms | Decline spread across all product lines and account sizes |
| Consistency | Strong for eight quarters before this one | Gradual decline over three quarters |
| Suggested cause | Situational: loss of key accounts | Possibly personal: something changed for the rep |
Why the First Judgment Came Easily
Ross (1977) described a pervasive tendency he called the fundamental attribution error: observers give too much weight to people's dispositions and too little to the circumstances acting on them. Situational forces are often invisible to an observer, while the person is in plain view. The manager saw two reps with lower numbers and noticed behaviors, leaving on time and seeming distracted, that fit a story about effort. She did not see that two of the first rep's largest customers had been bought by national companies that moved software purchasing to their headquarters. Once a dispositional explanation forms, people tend to notice evidence that confirms it.
What Personality Research Adds
Barrick and Mount (1991) combined studies of the five-factor model and job performance. Conscientiousness, including dependability, organization and persistence, showed consistent relationships with performance across all the occupational groups they examined, while extraversion predicted performance in sales and management. The relationships were real but modest. Personality is relatively stable, so a sudden decline in a rep with a strong record is unlikely to reflect a change in character. For the first rep, eight strong quarters argue against a sudden loss of conscientiousness. For the second rep, a gradual decline invites a different question: what changed in her work or life?
The Manager's Own Situation
Attribution applies to the manager as well. She supervises fourteen reps, carries a regional quota and receives weekly sales reports showing totals by rep, not by account. The reports make people visible and circumstances invisible, exactly the condition Ross describes. Her director had also told her that the region's numbers must improve by year end, adding pressure to act quickly. Judging her as careless would repeat the error she made; the reports and the pressure shaped her judgment as much as her own tendencies did.
How the Team Was Watching
The other twelve reps knew about the proposed plans within days. Several had lost accounts to the same wave of acquisitions and wondered whether they would be next. A sales team in which people believe they will be blamed for events outside their control tends to hide problems and avoid risky but promising prospects. How the company treated these two reps would send a message to all fourteen.
What Was Learned
A conversation with the first rep confirmed the account losses; she had already found three replacement prospects. A conversation with the second rep revealed that she had been caring for a parent after surgery and had reduced her calling hours without telling anyone, fearing it would be held against her. Neither rep had lost their drive.
Consequences of a Wrong Judgment
Placing the first rep on a performance plan would have punished her for an event she did not cause and might have pushed one of the company's best reps to a competitor. Other reps would have learned that results matter more than the circumstances behind them. For the second rep, a plan without a conversation would have missed a temporary problem that flexible scheduling and short-term support could address.
Recommendations
Before any performance plan, the sales manager will complete a short review: compare the rep's decline with others in similar territories, check account-level data for lost or acquired customers and look at the trend over several quarters. Only when consensus is low, distinctiveness is low and consistency is high will the review move to a performance discussion. Every review will begin with a private conversation asking what has changed. The company will also remind employees of its leave and flexible schedule policies, so reps can raise personal problems early.
Better Reports
The finance team will add a column to the weekly report showing revenue from accounts that were lost, merged or acquired, so that situational causes appear beside each rep's totals. Managers will also receive a short training session on attribution errors, using this case with names removed.
Measures
The director will track how many performance plans are proposed and approved, the share later found to have situational causes and rep turnover.
Conclusion
The sales manager's judgment illustrates how naturally people explain others' results by their character. Kelley's cues show that one rep's decline came from her territory and the other's from a personal situation, and Ross's work explains why both were first read as laziness. Barrick and Mount's research shows that stable traits cannot explain sudden changes in strong performers. Checking the situation before judging the person makes evaluations fairer and keeps good employees.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
MGT 464 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
Aspen describes MGT 464 as examining individual, group and organizational influences on behavior at work, and a first paper commonly applies ideas about individual differences and perception to a real workplace situation. The Module 1 prompt in your classroom controls the details; here one manager's judgment is analyzed. Describe the situation and the judgment made. Explain how people infer the causes of others' behavior, using attribution theory. Apply the theory's cues to the case with evidence. Identify biases that may have shaped the judgment. Use research on individual differences, such as personality, to consider what traits explain. Recommend practices that make judgments about people fairer and more accurate.
How the MGT 464 Module 1 example is put together
The paper opens with Inland Software Partners, where the sales manager flagged two reps for performance plans after a quarter in which each sold about a third less. Kelley's American Psychologist article explains attribution through consensus, distinctiveness and consistency. A table applies the cues: the first rep's decline is distinctive to one territory that lost two large accounts and matches a similar drop for the rep covering a neighboring region, pointing to an external cause; the second rep's decline is consistent across products and unique among reps, pointing to something personal. Ross's chapter in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology describes the tendency to overweight personal causes. Barrick and Mount's Personnel Psychology meta-analysis found conscientiousness predicted performance across jobs. The recommendation adds a territory review before any performance plan and a conversation to learn what changed for the second rep.
MGT 464 Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Perception papers earn credit for explaining a theory accurately, applying it to specific evidence and identifying biases without simply blaming the person who judged. This example uses all three of Kelley's cues for each rep, which reveals that the same outcome had different causes. Ross's work explains why the manager's first conclusion was natural, and why it was wrong for one rep. Barrick and Mount's findings add individual differences while showing their limits. The table makes the analysis transparent, and the recommendations change the process and the reports rather than lecturing the manager.
MGT 464 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Attribution papers often name the fundamental attribution error and stop. Apply the full theory, examining consensus, distinctiveness and consistency with real evidence, and show how the conclusion changes. Another weakness is treating all poor performance alike; similar outcomes can have different causes. Use research on individual differences carefully, noting what traits predict and how strongly. Avoid concluding that the manager is a bad person; biases are common. Recommend changes in how judgments are made, such as gathering data before deciding. Finally, consider how a wrong judgment affects the people judged and their colleagues. Look at the information the judge was given, since reports shape what people notice.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 464 and Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 464 Module 2: Motivation at Work
- MGT 464 Module 3: Teams and Team Effectiveness
- MGT 464 Module 4: Group Processes and Decision Making
- MGT 464 Module 5: Decision Making and Biases
- MGT 464 Module 6: Conflict and Conflict Management
- MGT 464 Module 7: Organizational Communication
- MGT 464 Module 8: Organizational Culture
- BUS 454 Module 1: Ethics and the Stakeholder View
- MGT 474 Module 2: Project Selection and the Charter
- MGT 215 Module 7: Selecting and Implementing a CRM System
- BUS 320 Module 8: Small Business Marketing Plan
MGT 464 Module 1 questions, answered
What does MGT 464 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 464 opens with individual differences and perception, so applying attribution and personality research to a workplace situation is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What is Kelley's covariation model?
A model of how people infer causes using consensus (do others behave the same way), distinctiveness (does the behavior occur only in this situation) and consistency (does it occur over time).
What is the fundamental attribution error?
The tendency, described by Ross, to overestimate personal causes and underestimate situational causes when explaining others' behavior.
Where can I find a free MGT 464 Module 1 sample paper?
The example above applies attribution theory and personality research to a sales manager's judgment of two inside sales reps whose numbers fell.
Which personality trait best predicts job performance?
Barrick and Mount found conscientiousness related to performance across all occupational groups they studied.