Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, Thomas Carlyle1 explicated how a leader or the one in a controlling position (like the manager) is the stereotype of authoritative power and employees always tend to see him as the archetypal person from whom power originates. Such confusion in a socio-cultural and historical base of knowledge of a person combined with his/her personal mental bent may lead to a lot of fallible ideas about one’s own manager, who similarly may be thwarted from taking an effective action due to his own mental blocks. This is the problem of perception.
The perception of a person (in an organization) may be defined as a cognitive information processing process that enables us to interpret and understand our environment.2 Hence, it explains how Perception functions through the Social Information Processing Model where it centers on the concept of bounded rationality. In such a model the perception is basically guided either by partial or selective attention, distorted through the subjects’ own mental capability or the kind of meaning that he/she chooses to give to any given “raw” situation. Then the factors like memory and how they remember those given situations also influence and control perspective. Thus perceptions are victims of social generalizations, mental understanding of people’s characteristics, wish-fulfillment, make the mistake from being too judgmental about a person’s superficial attributes and also be selective in guiding one’s understanding of another person or situation that one deems plausible.
Attribution theory attaches two types of explanation for things that happened in the above-explained paragraph, i.e. it gives two kinds of explanation: External Attribution and Internal Attribution. Thus the question naturally arises that by knowing the kinds of attribution that people make or subordinates make, in this case, can managers control their behavior? .