Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre

Summary by Prof. Sang H. Nam

The tendency for individuals to take greater personal responsibility for success than for failure, commonly referred to as the self-serving bias in attribution theory research, is one of the most robust findings in social psychology (Bradley, 1978). It has been found, for instance, that U.S. managers often tend to avoid responsibility for poor corporate performance while claiming credit for success.

Although the existence of the self-serving bias is well documented, it is important to note that almost all prior management research has been carried out in the United States. This leaves unanswered the question of whether a similar bias would be found in non-Western countries having different cultural orientations. Anecdotal observations and some research evidence suggest that Asian managers may behave quite differently than their U.S. counterparts.

Based on studies in non-work settings, there is reason to believe that the self-serving bias commonly found in the U.S. may not be prevalent in some non-Western cultures. Two different cultures - one rooted in Eastern neo-Confucianism and the other in Western pragmatism - differ in their concept of and attitudes towards the self, and thus in self-serving attributions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). However, this has not yet been investigated among actual managers making work-related attributions.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether managers from two different cultures differ in their attributions of personal responsibility for group performance outcomes. To compare contrasting cultural orientations, managers from Korea and the U.S. were studied.

THEORY
Two psychological explanations for this tendency have been discussed in the literature, one focusing on motivational processes and the other on cognitive processes. Briefly, the motivation argument suggests that individuals bias their attributions to satisfy their need for self-esteem. In an achievement context, the need for self-esteem is satisfied when images of self-competence are enhanced and protected. The cognitive argument, on the other hand, suggests that individuals tend to hold positive self-perceptions (Myers, 1987), expecting a success rather than a failure in an achievement context (Schwartz & Smith, 1976). Thus, they more easily see a connection between their internal attributes (e.g., effort and ability) and expected success than unexpected failure. Both arguments assign a prominent role to positive self-perceptions in explaining self-serving attributions. Moreover, self-perceptions appear to be a critical variable linking culture and the likelihood that self-serving attributions will be made.

Research evidence from anthropology and cross-cultural psychology suggests that individual self-perceptions are shaped by socio-cultural processes. In the U.S., children are led to believe that they are more competent than the average student (Stigler & Perry, 1990). In contrast, several studies document that Asians hold more modest self-perceptions (Wada, 1988).

One important dimension along which cultures have been contrasted concerns the orientation toward individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). Individualism is characterized by the primacy of individual goals, achievement benefiting the individual, self-esteem, and self-reliance (Mead, 1967). In contrast, collectivism emphasizes the subordination of individual goals to the group (Mead, 1967) and places greater importance on the group's needs, norms, and beliefs than those of the individual (Triandis, 1990). Cultures that stress self-reliance and self-esteem encourage the development and maintenance of a positive self-image, while cultures that subordinate the individual to the group place less emphasis on the self and thus make positive self-perceptions less important, perhaps even socially undesirable.

Based on these arguments, we believe that culture influences attributional processes by shaping the importance of positive self-perceptions. Managers from cultures characterized by individualism will show a greater tendency to make self-serving attributions because of the importance of maintaining a positive self-image. In contrast, managers from collectivistic cultures are less likely to make self-serving attributions because of the tendency to subordinate the interests of the individual to the group. In this study, we compared managers from Korea (collectivism) and the U.S. (individualism).

Several hypotheses consistent with our arguments were tested in the study. The predictions focus on attributions for the success and failure of groups managed by individuals because group level outcomes accentuate the role of the individual vis-a-vis the group, a critical distinction underlying individualism and collectivism.

H1: Korean managers will take more personal responsibility for group failure than success.

H2: American managers will take more personal responsibility for group success than failure.

H3: Korean managers will take more personal responsibility for group failure than American managers.

H4: American managers will take more personal responsibility for group success than Korean managers.

METHODOLOGY
Sample. Five hundred and eighty managers in the U.S. and Korea were asked to participate in the study, of which 387 or 63.8% responded by returning questionnaires. The final sample is composed of 178 Korean and 146 U.S. managers. The managers came from a variety of different companies and industries, including manufacturing, banking, accounting, and high technology.

Research Design and Measures. A 2X2 (country by group performance outcome) factorial design was used to test the hypothesized relationships. Each study participant received a written scenario in which he or she was described as having been recently appointed as the manager of a task force charged with solving a turnover problem that existed in their organization. The manager was told that he or she had complete autonomy in designing the work of the task force and in selecting its members. The task force was further described as having submitted recommendations to reduce turnover which were subsequently implemented. Half the managers were told that, despite the task force recommendations, turnover doubled in the succeeding six months (group failure). The other half of the mangers were told that turnover declined by 50% six months after implementing the recommendations (group success). Managers were randomly assigned to either the group success or group failure condition.

After reading the scenario, managers were asked to distribute 100% across three categories of possible causes for the group's success or failure: something about yourself as a manager of the task force (e.g., management ability, effort, design of the task force, leadership); something about the task force (e.g., how hard the members worked, their ability to understand the problem, their commitment to finding a solution); or something about the work environment (e.g., support from the boss, factors beyond the task force or manager's control).

RESULTS
Hypothesis 1. As predicted, Korean managers attributed greater personal responsibility for group failure than for group success (F = 5.40, p<.05).
Hypothesis 2. This hypothesis was not confirmed (F<1.0). American managers attributed approximately the same amount of personal responsibility for group success and failure.
Hypothesis 3. As predicted, the Korean managers' attribution of personal responsibility for group failure was significantly greater than for the U.S. managers (F =6.95, p<.01).
Hypothesis 4. The prediction that U.S. managers would take significantly greater responsibility for group success than Korean managers was not confirmed (F<1.0).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The primary goal of this study was to determine whether managerial attributions of personal responsibility for group performance outcomes would differ between managers from collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Although the hypotheses were only partially supported, the pattern of results is consistent with the view that culture influences managerial attributions.

Where the results diverge from predictions is primarily attributable to an unexpected pattern of responses by U.S. managers. Managers from the U.S. were no more likely to claim personal responsibility for group success than failure, a finding contrary to the self-serving bias found so often in research in this country. In addition, U.S. and Korean managers did not differ in their attribution of personal responsibility for success.

Although impossible to verify in the data, it is possible that American managers have become more collectivistic and less individualistic since Hofstede's (1980) seminal work. The period of the 1980's and early 1990's has been one of intense interest in management practice and questioning of traditional techniques. As a consequence, many U.S. organizations have altered their cultures to stress teamwork and collaboration as individual problem solving has been inadequate for increasingly complex organizational problems. To the extent that fundamental shifts in the values held by many American managers have taken place, the previous assumption that the United States is a highly individualistic culture, and uniformly so, may no longer apply.

The increasing globalization of business suggests there is a great need to develop a better understanding of differences that may exist among managers from different countries and cultural backgrounds. To the extent that such differences exist, they may manifest themselves in strained communication between managers from different cultures and in misunderstandings of the reasons for success or failure in joint ventures. As managers from different cultures increasingly come into contact with each other, both between and within companies, the importance of cross-cultural research grows.

REFERENCES
Bradley, G.W. 1978. Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 56-71.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98: 224-253.

Mead, M. 1967. Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive People. Boston: Beacon Press.

Miller, D.T. & Robs, M. 1975. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Facto or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82:213-225.

Myers, D. 1987. Social Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, J.M., & Smith, W.P. 1976. Social comparison and the inference of ability difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34: 1268-1275.

Stigler, J.W. & Perry, M. 1990. Mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese and American classrooms. In J. Stigler R. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. 1988. Illusion and well-being : A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103:193-210.

Triandis, H.C. 1990. Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.s), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1989. 41-133. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wada, M. 1988. Information seeking in self-evaluation of ability. Proceedings of the Japanese Psychological Association Meeting. 52:222.