Basically, Grant puts it that in face of problems leaders will make a decision based on the challenge they are facing. He further asserts that situations are tame, wicked or critical and depending on the situation the social constructivist approach is enhanced. The main reason behind this is that the three situations can be linked to different forms of resource which are calculative, ideological and coercive (Grant 2005). Unlike many other researchers Grant handles a unique area where he analysis language and leadership. His, concept takes into consideration that at times the nature of certain situations determines how problems are solved.
This seems to reflect a deterministic view, which in addition could be seen as limitative because the possible influence of other factors is not sufficiently taken into account. It could be argued, for instance, that the appearance of consistent behaviour may be caused, at least partially, by the similarity of situations in which people are usually involved and in response to which they develop standard reactions based on cognitive factors, social and cultural influences, etc. Indeed, apart from built-in personality traits, other factors, such as the environment and the interaction personality-situation, are nowadays acknowledged as having an impact on behaviour and require that personality is examined on multiple levels (e.g. Funder,
Basically, the theory of social independence emphasizes on the interaction amongst group members that determines the outcome of a situation, and this interaction is dependent on structure of the group’ goals (Deutsch, 1949 as cited in Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Social interactions influence the final outcomes of the group tasks. Social independence occurs when the group members share the goals with action of each individual affecting the individual’s outcomes (Johnson, Johnson, & Roger, 2006). External validity and generalizability of research were established based on social interdependence in an extent to which very rare for social sciences (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Social interdependence has been categorized into three types: positive
Conversely, the attribution theory deduces the cause of behavior from behavioral consequences. Hence, the attribution is the causal explanation and inference that the observers make to predict and evaluate human behavior. In summary, attribution is seeking causes of results. That is to say, people analyze their own behavior or others by utilizing their perceptions, thoughts, judgments and so on, and then they find out and explain the reasons for those behaviors. Therefore, attribution is an important component of human cognitive process, as well as an important influence on the formation of self-concepts.
TRA has been applied to explain the behavior beyond the acceptance of technology and includes four general concepts: behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, intention to use and actual use. It argues that individuals evaluate the consequences of a particular behavior and create intentions to act that are consistent with their evaluations. A particularly helpful aspect of TRA from a technology perspective is its assertion that any other factor that influences behavior does so only indirectly by influencing attitude and subjective norms. Such variables would include, amongst others things, the system design characteristics, user characteristics (including cognitive styles and other personality variables) and task characteristics. TRA is a very
Thus, the theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the cause of an action to the factor that co-varies most closely with that action.  Harold Kelley's covariation model of attribution looks to three main types of information from which to make an attribution decision about an individual's behavior. The first is consensus information, or information on how other people in the same situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second is distinctive information, or how the individual responds to different stimuli. The third is consistency information, or how frequent the individual's behavior can be observed with similar stimulus but varied situations.
Once we have exposed ourselves in the manners we choose, we employ Tactical Impression Management systems to continue shaping how we are viewed by those we interact with. The downfall to our self-presentation and management systems is the ultimate factor of embarrassment when our identity meets reality, and they do not fall into alignment. Self-presentation, as defined by DeLamater and Daniels, is all conscious and unconscious attempts by people to control the images of self they project in social interaction. In simpler terms, whether we realize it or not we portray ourselves to others in the specific ways we want to even if it is not necessarily true to who we are. There are three self-presentation methods that we employ in order to control people’s impressions, including: authentic self-presentation, ideal self-presentation and tactical self-presentation (DeLamater & Myers, 2011).
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an important look at the methods humans use in our interaction with our shared environments and how we relate differently to shared experiences (Cohen, D., Cohen M., Cross, H., 1981). Differences in how individuals relate to and understand our surroundings are displayed and sorted using scales for several fields. Extroversion and introversion are determined and assigned to this indicator using either E or I. A clear definition between sensing and intuition is also defined by the assignment of S or N. Also, thinking and feeling are compared and determined adding the letters of either T or F to the result. The last letter in ones conformed profile will include either J or P for judging compared to perception.
Thibaut and Kelly describe three different matrices in social exchange to illustrate the patterns people develop (173). The given matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors and internal factors (173). Furthermore, this is a way to explain how there are choices that come from factors that are around us which can be dependent on our skills. However, these factors can be worked on to be able to bring one to the effective matrix. The effective matrix represents an expansion of alternative behaviors and or outcomes which ultimately determines the behavioral choices in social exchange(173).
Social Cognitive Theory proposes that individuals do not simply respond to environmental influences, but rather they actively seek and interpret information (Nevid, 2009). Individuals “function as contributors to their own motivation, behavior, and development within a network of reciprocally interacting influences” (Bandura, 1999, p. 169). Although Social Cognitive Theory covers many topics such as moral judgment and physiological arousal, research has been primarily focused on self-efficacy, or the beliefs regarding one 's capabilities of successfully completing tasks or goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). According to Bandura (2005), social cognitive theory takes on an agent-like perspective to change, development and adaptation. Bandura describes an agent as someone who intentionally influences one’s functioning and life circumstances; “In this view, people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting.
Fundamental Attribution Error Behavior is something that changes depending on the situations that you are exposed to. This supports the fact that your behavior is also determined by different social factors that you that you could be in. In this essay I will describe the different research/case studies that’s supports the idea that our behavior changes when we are in the presence of others such as, the presence of an authority figure, the presence of a group on bystanders observing the same emergency as us, pressure from a group to change your belief even though you are wrong, social expectation to live up to a role and lastly a good or bad leader. The first social situation that shows that we change our behavior in the presence of others is when we are in the presence of an authority figure. Stanley Milgram conducted a study with participants that were chosen as the subject, and affiliates of Milgram were the victims.