Abstract Limited attention has been given to examining how performance evaluators make decisions about a subordinate's behavior. This study, grounded in attribution theory, examines the effects of a subordinate's explanation (accountability tactics) for substandard performance on evaluation judgments. Using data from a laboratory experiment involving 88 experienced audit professionals, a subordinate's use of accountability tactics was hypothesized to interact with available client and subordinate information when auditors' form causal attributions. Contrary to expectation, accountability tactics were found to have a significant main effect only. Causal attributions, in turn, were found to influence both the subjects' end-of-job performance ratings and their tendency to work with a subordinate on future assignments.
Kaplan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.