Culture and Expatriate Failure - An Attibutotonal Explication

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1999, Vol. 7, No. 3 (July), pp. 265-293
CULTURE AND EXPATRIATE FAILURE: AN

ATTRIBUTTONAL EXPLICATION
Mark J. Martinko
Scott C. Douglas
Florida State University
The high failure rate for expatriate leaders is well documented. One
major cause of these failures has been identified as the incongruencies
in the perceptions of expatriate leaders and the host members that they
manage. This article describes theory and research which suggests that
a potential explanation for at least some of these perceptual incongru-
encies is that they are a result of culturally-based attributional biases
interacting with self-serving and actor-observer attributional biases.
Although not all of the interactions of these biases result in incongruent
perceptions, some interactions appear to be particularly prone to result
in incongruent perceptions such as when leaders from highly individu-
alistic and low context cultures interact with members from highly col-
lectivistic and high context cultures. Suggestions for research and inter-
ventions designed to reduce incongruent attributions between leaders
and members are discussed.
The effectiveness of multinational corporations is largely dependent upon the
expatriate managers chosen to fill host country positions (Nicholson, Stepina, &
Hochwater, 1990; Yun, 1973). It is estimated that seventy percent of senior and
middle managers employed by Japanese firms abroad are Japanese expatriates
(March, 1991). It is also estimated that over 80,000 U.S. citizens work in expatriate
positions (Arvey, Bhagat, & Salas, 1991). However, research indicates that expa-
triate managers are often negatively viewed by host cultures (Nicholson et al.,
1990) and that there is a high failure rate among expatriates (Black, 1988; Black &
Stephens, 1989; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990; Tung, 1981, 1988;
Zeira & Banai, 1985). It has been estimated that five percent of European multina-
tional transfers, thirty percent of U.S. multinational transfers, and five percent of
Japanese multinational transfers are mistakes (Tung, 1987). Further, host countries
often lobby heavily against the employment of expatriate managers and simultane-
ously lobby heavily for the employment of host country members (Lee, 1983).
The globalization of businesses and markets has resulted in firms sending
more managers abroad to fill host country positions (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron,
1994). Increasingly, expatriate managers are being viewed as strategic partners in
266 ATTRIBUTIONS AND EXPATRIATE FAILURE
the coordination and control of multinational corporations (Gregersen, Hite, &

Black, 1996; Yun, 1973). However, the cross-cultural nature of the expatriate
assignment makes it more problematic than the domestic managerial position
(Nicholson et al., 1990). The culmination of problems concerning cross-cultural
adjustment, in addition to the more traditional problems concerning the acceptance
of a new managerial position, too often result in failure, which we define as the
expatriate returning early and never completing the intended duration of the
assignment. The estimated direct cost for each U.S. multinational expatriate who
returns early is between $55,000 and $150,000 (Naumann, 1992). In addition, indi-
rect costs associated with expatriate turnover often exceed estimated direct costs
(Ashamalla & Crocitto, 1997; Harvey, 1985). Annual costs for the expatriate
turnover of U.S. multinationals is estimated to be between $2 and $2.5 billion
(Lublin, 1992). Although we were unable to obtain specific monetary estimates for
expatriates from countries and cultures other than those from the U.S., the large
number of expatriates working for multinational corporations from other countries
suggests that the costs of unplanned expatriate turnover are significant for multi-
national firms, regardless of their cultural base.
Due to the costs of expatriate turnover described above, the international
business literature has been replete with efforts to isolate the factors causing diffi-
culty in cross cultural adjustment (Naumann, 1992). One of the primary factors, the
underdeveloped state of cross cultural training programs, has received much atten-
tion (e.g., Black, 1988; Black & Mendenhall, 1990, 1991; Mendenhall & Oddou,
1985; Triandis, 1994). Mendenhall and Oddou (1988) argue that success in a for-
eign work assignment is dependent upon the development and possession of spe-
cific skills. One of the specific skills, perception, involves the cognitive processes
which an individual uses to analyze self-behavior as well as the behavior of others.
One of the primary purposes for developing perceptual skills is to increase an indi-
vidual's consciousness of social cues and behaviors, and his or her attentiveness to
these cues (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1988). In particular, Triandis (1994) notes that
one of the major problems that people have in interacting with members of other
cultures is that they make different attributions for their behavior than the host
nationals make for their behavior. Thus, attribution training is one of the methods
used to develop the perceptual skills necessary to be successful in an expatriate
position (Albert, 1983; Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971; Landis & Brislin,
1983). Attribution training programs developed by multinational firms focus on
explanations of behavior from the point of view of the host country member (Black
& Mendenhall, 1991). Thus, this training is based, in part, upon the understanding
of how people in different cultures make attributions for their performance.
Social psychologists and communications scholars emphasize the importance
of the influence of culture on social perceptions (e.g., Brislin, Cushner, Cherrie, &
Yong, 1986; Campbell, 1975; Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971; Lee, 1994;
Pepitone, 1989). Triandis (1994) has noted that basic psychological processes such
as perception may have both universal and "emic" aspects. A basic premise of this
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

M. J. MARTINKO AND S.C.DOUGLAS 267
paper is that attributions (an etic and universal psychological process) are an
important component of social perceptions and that attributional processes are
affected by culture specific or "emic" aspects of the process of social perception.
Noting that numerous studies have documented differences in attributions between
cultures (e.g., Betancourt & Weiner, 1982; Cha & Nam, 1985; Chandler, Shama,
Wolf, & Planchard, 1981; Chen, Mezias, & Murphy, 1999; Inkeles, 1983; Kashima
& Triandis, 1986; Little, 1987; Miller, 1984; Morris & Peng, 1994; Smith &
Whitehead, 1984; White, 1977), we argue that by incorporating the effects of cul-
ture and its dimensions such as individualism and context, we can explain how and
why basic attributional biases such as the actor-observer and self-serving bias can
be both exacerbated and attenuated in interactions between leaders and members as
a function of culture.
In view of the above discussion and research, we have developed the general
model depicted in Figure 1 to guide our discussion and provide a visual represen-
tation of the relationships, which we discuss. As depicted in Figure 1, we propose
that the cultures of both the leaders and members, coupled with the tendencies of
individuals toward self-serving and actor-observer attributional biases, affect the
types of information leaders and members perceive and therefore affect their
causal attributions. As a result of the cultural and attributional biases that are
described, and the subsequent attributions that leaders and members make, incon-
gruent perceptions will sometimes result which, over time, may lead to undesirable
outcomes such as to decreased productivity, learned helplessness, and frustration,
which may ultimately contribute to expatriate failure. Thus, the purpose of the cur-
rent article is to demonstrate how an attributional perspective can help explain the
incongruencies in perceptions that sometimes occur when leaders and members
from different cultures interact.
Numerous articles have described and documented differences in self-serving
and actor-observer attributional biases between leaders and subordinates (e.g.,
Dobbins & Russell, 1986a, 1986b; Green & Mitchell, 1979; Martinko & Gardner,
1987). In this article we argue that while many of the dynamics of the differences
between the attributions of leaders and members are the same regardless of the
culture of the leaders and members, cultural differences exacerbate or attenuate the
probability of attributional biases and, at least in some cases, different dynamics
may occur because of differences in attributional processes between cultures. We
believe that understanding the basis of these differences can serve as the founda-
tion for developing expatriate interventions that ameliorate or at least lessen the
misunderstanding caused by attributional incongruence in expatriate leader—host
country member interactions. In addition, given that any new leader is, to some
degree, entering into a new culture, the general explanation and theoretical foun-
dation which we will provide should also prove helpful as a basis for understand-
ing and alleviating perceptual incongruencies when leaders are introduced into new
workgroups.

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

M. J. MARTINKO AND S.C. DOUGLAS 269
We begin with a brief review of the basic principles and assumptions of attri-
bution theory as a foundation for understanding the development of social percep-
tions that form the context for leader and member interactions and the model
depicted in Figure 1. This is followed with a brief discussion of culture and the
impact of culture on organizational members' behaviors. The issue of interactions
between leaders and members from different cultures is then considered within the
context of attribution theory. Specifically, we propose that differential access to
and differential weighting of information related to cultural differences are primary
sources of incongruent attributions. Next, attributional biases are discussed and
propositions are offered suggesting that culture may attenuate or accentuate the
impact of attributional biases which can lead to incongruent performance attribu-
tions between expatriate leaders and the host country members that they manage.
The article ends with a discussion of research directions, followed by suggestions
for reducing the adverse impact of both information sources and biases associated
with the incongruent attributions that sometimes occur between host country mem-
bers and their expatriate leaders.
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory is concerned with the perceived causes of events and the
consequences of those perceptions (Martinko, 1995). As described by Weiner
(1986, 1995) and Martinko (1995), attributions play a key role in the motivation
process. When a person experiences an important outcome, positive or negative, he
or she develops an attribution regarding the cause of the outcome. Research indi-
cates that attributional explanations often refer to ability, effort, the difficulty of
the task, and luck as the cause for an outcome (Martinko, 1995).
Attributional explanations can be categorized along attributional dimensions.
These dimensions are related to affect and expectancies. For example, most attri-
butional explanations can be characterized as internal or external and stable or
unstable. Stable attributions for failure are related to reduced expectancies that
effort leads to success. Internal attributions for failure are related to affective reac-
tions such as depression and self-recrimination (Martinko & Gardner, 1987).
Affect and expectancies, of course, are related to both the nature and frequency of
future behavior.
Kelley (1973) proposed that individuals use three primary sources of infor-
mation for developing causal attributions: consensus, consistency and distinctive-
ness. Consensus information is used to compare the behavior of an actor to that of
other actors in the same situation and addresses the issue of whether or not the
behavior of the actor is typical or unique to the behavior of others in the same situ-
ation. Low consensus information suggests that the behavior is unique (i.e., inter-
nal) to the actor, whereas high consensus information suggests that, because the
behavior is common, the cause is external to the actor (Martinko & Thomson,
1998). For example, a leader observes various members assembling computers.
One member takes two hours per assembly, while most of the other members take

one hour. The outcome produced by the slower member is low in consensus.
Therefore, the leader is likely to attribute the observed behavior to internal char-
acteristics of the slower member such as low ability or a lack of effort.
Consistency information is longitudinal and compares the behavior of an
individual over time within the same situational context. Utilizing the previous
example, assume that a leader observes the same person taking two hours per
assembly on multiple occasions. This behavior would be judged to be highly con-
sistent. Further, according to Martinko and Thomson (1998), more consistent
behavior is indicative of more stable causes (e.g., ability, task requirements),
whereas less consistent behavior is indicative of less stable causes such as insuffi-
cient effort and luck/chance.
Distinctiveness information compares the behavior of a member across con-
texts. For example, the leader may have knowledge regarding the activities of the
slower member outside of the context of assembling computers and observe that
the employee is also slow in other situations. Thus, the slow behavior is not dis-
tinctive to the workplace setting and would not be attributed to the characteristics
of this specific context.
Kelley postulates that the three dimensions of information covary with an
actor's performance and that the resultant covariation between the dimensions
results in the development of an attribution of causality. The application of Kel-
ley's theory to the context of leader-member relations was first described by Green
and Mitchell (1979) and was later elaborated upon by Martinko and Gardner
(1987). The Martinko and Thompson (1998) model maps Kelley's informational
cues onto attributional dimensions and provides specific examples of how particu-
lar combinations of information influence attributional dimensions and lead to spe-
cific attributional explanations. Thus, for example, the combination of information
which is high in consistency, high in distinctiveness, and low in consensus leads to
an attributional explanation which is internal, stable, and specific such as specific
ability. These combinations of the attributional dimensions and examples of the
attributional explanations to which they are related are illustrated in the middle part
of Figure 1.
Culture
Culture refers to the distinctive collective mental programming of values and
beliefs within each society (Hofestede, 1980). A cultural psychological perspective
(e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1998) implies that culture is an integral part of every
person and that becoming a person requires a culture specific understanding of
human behavior and sources of human behavior (e.g., internal and/or external
drivers). It is important to note that geopolitical similarities are not necessarily
synonymous with cultural similarities. However, they are often associated and
many authors identify cultures by referring to geopolitical boundaries. In order to
avoid confusion, we have tried to maintain characterizations of a culture made by

the original authors of the papers we cite while remaining sensitive to the distinc-
tion between culture and geopolitical boundaries.
Cultural similarities facilitate acculturation (Wong-Rieger & Quintana, 1987).
The extent of cross-cultural differences often determines the quality, as well as the
quantity, of difficulty experienced by individuals engaged in cross-cultural inter-
actions (Furnham & Bochner, 1981). For example, in the U.S. people have been
indoctrinated to apprehend and experience the world as distinctive, bounded, and
separate individuals, whereas in Japan, people have been indoctrinated to see the
self as a relational part of the greater harmonious whole (Markus & Kitayama,
1998). Consequently, native Japanese people often become annoyed with the self-
oriented and assertive communication patterns exhibited by Americans, while
Americans often become annoyed with the endless formalities and tangential
response patterns exhibited by Japanese (Barnlund, 1989).
The individualism-collectivism dimension of culture has garnered much
attention (e.g., Earley, 1993; Hofestede, 1980; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis,
1989). This notion can be traced back to classical sociology (Wagner & Moch,
1986). Durkheim (1933) introduced the notions of mechanical versus organic soli-
darity. Mechanical solidarity was based on the collective satisfaction of shared
interests, while organic solidarity was based on the complimentary satisfaction of
different interests. Tonnies (1963) proposed two types of societies: geselschaft and
gemeinschaft. Geselschaft societies developed through complimentary self-inter-
ested exchange. Gemeinschaft societies developed through shared group kinship
and tradition. Classical sociologists argued that the relationship between individu-
als and social aggregates range from individualistic pursuits to collectivistic
attachment, resulting in a continuum of societies ranging from shifting networks of
self-interested exchange to tightly connected clusters of permanent sharing
(Wagner & Moch, 1986).
Collectivistic cultures are characterized by a set of values, commitments, and
identifications that are held in common (Hofestede, 1980). The prime value of
collectivistic culture is in-group harmony, in the workgoup as elsewhere (Smith &
Bond, 1993). Hence, members of collectivistic societies are socialized to be other
oriented and receptive (Diener & Diener, 1995). In individualistic cultures, these
factors are more variable, and group membership is more fluid (Smith, Petersen, &
Wang, 1996). According to Triandis and his colleagues (e.g., Hui & Triandis,
1986; Triandis, 1989), individualistic cultures are characterized as giving personal
goals priority over group goals, and emphasizing self-serving values that result in
making oneself feel good, distinguished, and independent.
The communications literature (e.g., Munter, 1993) often distinguishes
between high and low context cultures. Members of high context cultures (e.g.,
China, Japan, and Korea) desire to establish trustfirst,value personal relations, and
their negotiations tend to be slow andritualistic(Munter, 1993). In contrast, mem-
bers of low context cultures (e.g., Canada, Germany, and the United States) desire
to getrightdown to business, value performance and expertise, and strive to make
their negotiations as efficient as possible (Munter, 1993). According to this dis-
tinction, people from high context cultures rely extensively on situational cues
(e.g., status, body language, dress) when communicating, whereas people from low
context cultures rely extensively on the written or spoken word when communi-
cating. While people from low context cultures do use nonverbal cues, they often
check their assumptions verbally. However, this same behavior in high context
cultures is frowned upon (Reeder, 1987).
Members of collectivistic cultures and members of high context cultures are
well versed in reading nonverbal cues (Munter, 1993; Smith et al., 1996). Dis-
agreement is often not expressed overtly by members of these cultures, but is more
typically communicated by hints such as silence (Smith et al., 1996). In high indi-
vidualism and low context cultures such as Canada and the U.S., messages are
transmitted through direct communication between the leader and the member,
whereas in high collectivism-high context cultures such as Japan, messages are
embedded in the context of the communication requiring the parties to pick up cues
from the environmental context (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996).
Attributions Within an Intercultural Context
As Pfeffer (1997) has noted, there is "accumulating evidence that the attribu-
tion of causes of behavior is significantly affected by cultural norms" (p. 26).
Research has demonstrated that Chilean and Korean subjects tend to make attribu-
tions that are more external than subjects from the United States (Betancourt &
Weiner, 1982; Cha & Nam, 1985). Similarly, Inkeles (1983) and Miller (1984)
found that subjects from India tend to make more external attributions than sub-
jects from the U.S. Further, research has found that there are differences in the
attributions of Arabs versus Israelis (White, 1977). More recently, Morris and Peng
(1994) found that, as compared to American subjects, Chinese subjects made rela-
tively more situational attributions for behaviors while Americans made relatively
more dispositional attributions. They also found a predominance of dispositional
statements in American as compared to Chinese newspapers and a predominance
of situational accounts for behaviors in Chinese newspapers as compared to
American newspapers. Thus, there is evidence that there are cultural differences in
the likelihood that individuals will make dispositional (i.e., internal) as opposed to
situational (i.e., external) inferences for behaviors. The impact of these cultural dif-
ferences is represented by the box on the upper left-hand corner of Figure 1.
There has been relatively little discussion or analysis of the impact of culture
on attributional processes from the perspective of leader-member relations when
the leader and members are from differing cultures. It is our contention that differ-
ences in cultures contribute to the basic types of information (i.e., consensus, dis-
tinctiveness, and consistency) that are incorporated into attributional processes. We
believe that the differing sources and opportunities to access information from dif-
ferent cultures increase the probability that expatriate leaders and host country
members will develop incongruent attributions for host country members' suc-
cesses and failures. Further, we believe that culture influences which sources of
information the expatriate leader and the host country member utilize (or fail to

utilize). Finally, we believe that the culmination of these differences impacts the
expatriate leader's ability to succeed via their impact on the host country members'
workplace behaviors.
Discussions of Kelley's dimensions (e.g., Green & Mitchell, 1979; Martinko
& Thomson, 1998) appear to assume that each dimension is equally weighted and
that the actor (i.e., member) and the observer (i.e., leader) have equal access to the
same sources of information. Our contention is that both leaders and members are
unlikely to give equal weight to or have equal access to this information. Further,
we contend that this inequality is exacerbated in cross-cultural contexts. Thus, the
notion that information access differs depending upon whether a person is a leader
or member and on whether or not the person is an expatriate or from the host cul-
ture is represented by the bottom left-hand box in Figure 1.
More specifically, on the surface, consensus information, which compares a
member's behavior with the behavior of other members in the same situation,
appears to be the most accessible to leaders since it is readily available within the
work environment. Quattrone (1982) proposed that when observers make attribu-
tions, they usually start with dispositional inferences. Then, if the observer has
solid information regarding situational constraints for the member's behavior, the
observer will adjust or correct the dispositional inferences. Extending and lending
empirical support to Quattrone's suggestions, Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull (1988)
proposed a two-stage process for assigning social attributions. The first stage is
described as a relatively automatic process (i.e., making dispositional-intemal
inferences). The second stage is described as requiring increased cognitive effort
(i.e., changing or correcting dispositional-internal inferences). In other words,
Gilbert and his colleagues were able to show that observers (e.g., leaders) are more
likely to make dispositional inferences (i.e., internal attributions) regarding actor
(e.g., member) behavior when they lack solid situationally relevant information
and are too cognitively busy to process the information.
The evidence supporting Quattrone's theory was derived in high-individual-
ism and low-context cultures. It can be argued that the characteristics of members
from such cultures (e.g., independent and self-oriented) lends themselves to such
findings. In fact, Landrine and Klonoff (1992) argue that in western cultures
(typically high-individualism and low-context cultures), the final explanation for
behavior is the self. In contrast, the characteristics of members from high-collec-
tivism and high-context cultures lend themselves toward different conclusions.
Specifically, it can be argued that members from high context collectivistic cul-
tures anchor their attributions toward the situational end of the scale (i.e., high con-
sensus) since members of high-collectivism cultures downplay individual indepen-
dence and distinction. Members of high-context cultures are socialized to attend to
and emphasize the cues provided in the contextual environment. Studies indicate
that Asian cultures (typically high-collectivism and high-context cultures) view the
self as contextually dependent (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Further, people in
most non-western cultures find the western notion of a person having a dynamic
center, a unique configuration of attributes that constitute social reality, to be

peculiar (Geertz, 1975). In addition, several studies of Japanese culture suggest

that members of high-collectivism and high-context cultures are more likely to
anchor their attributions toward situational causes. For example, Japanese have
been noted to avoid inflating their own uniqueness (Matsumoto, 1994) and, when
referring to themselves, Japanese students refer to situational characteristics twice
as often as U.S. students do (Markus & Kityama, 1998). In addition, it has been
asserted that the entire concept of individual appraisal is often unacceptable in
Japanese firms (Gregersen et al., 1996).
In summary, based on both the attributional and cross-cultural literature
reviewed above, we propose the following culturally-based biases:
Proposition 1: Members of high-individualism cultures have an accentuated
tendency to anchor their attributions at the dispositional (i.e.,
internal, low-consensus) end of the scale.
Proposition 2: Members of low-context cultures have an accentuated ten-
dency to anchor their attributions at the dispositional (i.e.,
internal, low-consensus) end of the scale.
Proposition 3: Members of high-collectivism cultures have an accentuated
tendency to anchor their attributions at the situational (i.e.,
external, high consensus) end of the scale.
Proposition 4: Members of high-context cultures have an accentuated ten-
dency to anchor their attributions at the situational (i.e.,
external, high consensus) end of the scale.
Consistency information is readily available to both the leader and the mem-
ber. However, since all of the leader's attentions are not focused on their members,
members will have relatively more and better information about the consistency of
their performance than will leaders. Although we have no direct evidence that cul-
ture impacts this source of information, we speculate that, compared to similar
domestic managers, expatriate managers will have an additional disadvantage con-
cerning access to consistency information because of their relative unfamiliarity
with the host country members and common practices in the host country. More
specifically, Bern (1972) describes this situation as the difference between the
intimate and the stranger wherein the intimate has more information than the
stranger does. Thus expatriate leaders, who are strangers in a host country, will
often lack intimate knowledge concerning host country member performance and
consequently will have limited task performance information to develop their attri-
butions. On the other hand, both the host countries' leaders and members have
more knowledge of member performance and use this information to make attribu-
tions for performance. Thus we propose that:
Proposition 5: The host country member's performance attributions will be
more accurate than the expatriate leader's attributions for the
host country member's performance.
TheInternationalJournalof Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Proposition 6: The host country leader's attributions will be more accurate

than the expatriate leader's attributions for the host country
member's performance.
Since the sources for distinctiveness information result from observations
across different situations, distinctiveness information is not as readily available to
leaders as are consensus and consistency sources of information. Members obvi-
ously know about their performance in other situations. In addition, since this
source of information is concerned with behavior which is often displayed outside
of the organization, distinctiveness information is less accessible to leaders than
consensus and consistency information. Thus, in general, leaders are more likely to
rely upon consensus and consistency information as opposed to distinctiveness
information, at least in the initial stages of attribution formation.
The leader in an expatriate position may have even less access to distinctive-
ness information than the leader in a domestic position. Similar to domestic lead-
ers, at the beginning of a new assignments, expatriate leaders are unlikely to be
aware of distinctiveness information regarding particular host country members.
However, a variety of cultural characteristics may create additional constraints on
the expatriate leaders' abilities to access distinctiveness sources of information.
Psychological research suggests that cultural differences result in differences in
work related values and traditions (Feldman, Sam, McDonald, & Bechtel, 1980).
For example, members of some cultures are often taught to be punctual (e.g., U.S.),
whereas others (e.g., Latin-American) view time as more flexible (Moore, 1990).
Individuals from high context cultures (e.g., Latin-American, Asian) prefer to
stand closer to one another when communicating than individuals from low context
cultures (e.g., U.S.) prefer to stand when communicating (Hall 1966). Off the job,
Americans only get together several times a year and seldom ever socialize with
their superiors, whereas these social gatherings are far more common for the
Japanese, reflecting the Japanese value for developing strong social bonds that
extend horizontally and vertically (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). Such preferential
differences have been noted to result in leaders and members from differing cul-
tures developing negative impressions of one another (e.g., Stephens & Greer,
1995). Hence, differences between cultural preferences increase the probability
that expatriate leaders and host country members will become frustrated with one
another. We believe that these frustrations will negatively impact the expatriate
leaders' and the host country members' desire to get to know one another outside
the workplace.
In a cross-cultural context, communication is often more difficult and less
efficient than when people share a common language (Triandis, 1960; Triandis,
Hall, & Ewen, 1965). The resulting communications problems are likely to inten-
sify the difficulties of expatriate managers' jobs (Andersen, 1983), thereby placing
more constraints on expatriate managers' time to get to know their subordinates
outside the workplace. Consequently, it is reasonable to propose that expatriate
leaders and their host country members will have less access to distinctiveness

information concerning one another. Finally, field studies indicate that not being
able to communicate fluently in a common language often results in increased
frustration between expatriate leaders and the host country members that they
manage (e.g., Rao & Hashimoto, 1996). Thus we propose that:
Proposition 7: Expatriate leaders have less access to and possess less dis-
tinctiveness information than their domestic country counter-
parts.
Proposition 8: Because of less access to distinctiveness information, dis-
tinctiveness information has less effect on the development of
the expatriate leaders' attributions for the host country mem-
bers' performance than it does for domestic leaders' attribu-
tions for domestic members' performance.
Attributional Biases: Complicating the Picture

The notion that cultural biases and differential access to information influ-
ence the attributional process is further complicated when attributional biases and
the impact of culture on attributional biases are considered. As Martinko and
Gardner (1987) have noted, two well known biases, the self-serving and actor-ob-
server bias, interact to increase the probability that misunderstanding occurs be-
tween leaders and members, particularly under conditions of failure. More specifi-
cally, the self-serving bias is the notion that individuals tend to take credit for suc-
cess (internal attribution) and blame others for failure (external attribution). The
actor-observer bias suggests that, since the focus of attention of observers is on the
actor, observers have a tendency to explain both actors' successes and failures in
terms of dispositional characteristics (internal attributions). On the other hand,
since the actors' focus of attention is on the environment, actors tend to explain
their outcomes in terms of external factors. As a result of both of these two biases,
leaders are more likely to attribute members' failures to the internal characteristics
of the members, whereas members are more likely to attribute their failures to
external factors.
We believe that it is likely that the effects of these two biases can be even
more exacerbated when the leader is an expatriate from a highly individualistic and
low context culture. The rationale for this proposition is as follows. Studies con-
cerning the self-serving and actor-observer biases are rooted in western philosophy
and typically carried out in western cultures. As we noted previously, in western
cultures (high-individualism and low context) the self is the final explanation for
behavior (Landrine & Klonoff, 1992) and members of western cultures have a ten-
dency to emphasize values that are individualistic and self-serving (Triandis,
1989). These cultural characteristics support the notion that members of western
societies have a tendency to exhibit the self-serving bias and actor-observer bias.
In contrast, members of eastern cultures (high collectivism and high context) avoid
inflating their uniqueness (Matsumoto, 1994), and are socialized to attend to con-

M. J. MARTINKO AND S. C. DOUGLAS 277
textual cues (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996). Hence, because of these cultural tenden-
cies, the self (i.e., internal attribution) is less likely to be used as an explanation for
behavior, whereas contextual (i.e., external attribution) causes are more likely to be
used to explain behavior and performance. Thus, we would expect that evidence
for the self-serving and actor-observer biases may be culturally based and that
within cultures there will be less evidence of the self-serving and actor-observer
biases in highly collectivistic and high context versus low context and highly indi-
vidualistic cultures. Thus we propose that:
Proposition 9: Evidence for both the self-serving and actor-observer biases
will be stronger in highly individualistic and low context
cultures versus highly collectivistic and high context cultures.
The notion that cultural biases affect self-serving and actor-observer biases
generates several interesting cross-cultural expatriate leader-host country member
scenarios. Table 1 illustrates how each of the cultural, self-serving, and actor-ob-
server biases proposed above influence the internality-externality dimension of the
attributions of both leaders and members under conditions of both member success
and member failure. The interactive effects of cultural biases, the self-serving, and
ctor-observer biases are illustrated in Figure 2 and detailed in Table 2. Both Figure
2 and Table 2 show four different cultural combinations for expatriate leader-host
country member relations: high collectivism-high context leaders interacting with
high collectivism-high context members (Cell 1); high individualism-low context
leaders interacting with high collectivism-high context members (Cell 2); high
collectivism-high context leaders interacting with high individualism-low context
members (Cell 3); high individualism-low context leaders interacting with high
individualism-low context members (Cell 4).
As indicated in Figure 2, cultural biases can exacerbate or attenuate the
effects of the self-serving and actor-observer biases when leaders and members
interact. Referring back to the information in Table 1, it can be seen that the ten-
dency for leaders to make internal attributions for member failure which are
already accentuated by the self-serving and actor-observer biases is exacerbated by
the tendency of leaders from highly individualistic cultures to make internal attri-
butions. On the other hand, it can also be seen that leaders' tendencies toward
internal attributions for failure are attenuated by the tendency of leaders from col-
lectivistic, high context cultures to make external attributions. Thus the interactions
of these biases with each other can exacerbate or attenuate internal or external
attributions. The process becomes even more complex when the biases of mem-
bers, which undergo interactions similar to those of the leaders, interact with the
biases of the leaders. Thus, the interactive effects of the cultural, actor-observer,
and self-serving biases between and among leaders and members deserve addi-
tional comment.
As indicated in Figure 2 and Table 2, we speculate that the amount of incon-
gruence between leaders' and members' attributions for both success and failure is
moderate when both parties are from high collectivism, high context cultures (Cell

1, Figure 2; Condition I, Table 2). As indicated in Table 1, both leaders and mem-
bers of high collectivistic-high context cultures have a bias toward attributing both
success and failure to contextual (i.e., external) factors. In addition, as indicated in
Table 1 and suggested by Martinko and Gardner (1987), the self-serving and actor
observer biases cancel each other out for both leaders and members under condi-
tions of success. On the other hand, the self-serving and actor observer biases both
lead leaders toward internal attributions for subordinate failure, whereas they lead
members toward external attributions for failure. However, as suggested in Table
1, these biases towards internal leader attributions are attenuated by the external
bias of the high collectivistic, high context leaders. Thus, only moderate incongru-
ence is predicted for this pairing in Figure 2 and Table 2.
Table 1
The Effects of Attributional Biases on Leader
and Member Perceptions of Member Performance
Attributional Bias Member Member

Success Failure
Cultural Bias
High Collectivism-High Context
Leader External External
Member External External
Cultural Bias
High Individualism-Low Context
Leader Internal Internal
Member Internal Internal
Self-Serving Bias
Leader External Internal
Member Internal External
Actor-Observer Bias
Leader Internal Internal
Member External External
On the other hand, we speculate that when the expatriate leader is from a high
individualism-low context culture and the host country member is from high col-
lectivism-high context culture (Figure 2, Cell 2; Table 2, Condition II), the proba-
bility of incongruent attributions is very high. As indicated in Table 1, the actor-
observer, self-serving and cultural bias for highly individualistic, low context lead-
ers all predispose the leader to make internal attributions for subordinate failure.
Conversely, these same biases all predispose high context, high collectivistic indi-
viduals to make external attributions for failure. Thus, within Cell 2, attributional
biases for leaders and members are in direct contradiction when members fail.

M. J. MARTINKO AND S. C. DOUGLAS 279
Another interesting interaction is the interaction between high collectivism,

high context leaders and high individualism, low context members, illustrated in
Cell 3 of Figure 2 and Condition III, Table 2. As indicated in Table 1, highly indi-
vidualistic, low context members are biased toward internal attributions for suc-
cess, which exacerbates the self-serving bias, resulting in increasing the probability
that the highly individualistic, low context members will take credit for success.
On the other hand, the self-serving bias of leaders to take credit for members' suc-
cesses (i.e., make external attributions for members' successes) is further exacer-
bated by the bias of high context, high collectivistic leaders toward external attri-
butions. Thus, it appears to be highly likely that leaders in this cell will attribute
member successes to external factors, whereas members will take personal credit
for their successes attributing them to internal characteristics. Some of the recent
labor disputes between U.S. workers and expatriate Japanese managements appear
to verify the proposition that high collectivistic, high context managers will see
workers as relatively less directly responsible for organizational successes than
will highly individualistic, low context workers.
Using the combined directionality of the biases listed in Table 1, a tabular
representation of the rationale for each of the interactions predicted in Figure 2 can
be provided and is detailed in Table 2. While it is possible to generate multiple
propositions associated with each of the interactions predicted in Table 2, at this
initial stage of theory building and testing, it would be most appropriate to test the
following proposition:

280
Table 2
Predictions of Leader-Member Conflict as a Function of Cultural, Actor-Observer, and Self-Serving Biases
Conditions Member Success Member Failure Overall

Cultural A-0 SS Conflict Cultural A-0 SS Conflict Conflict
Potential
ATTRIBUTIONS AND EXPATRIATE FAILURE

I. 1. Leader (Hi Coll-Hi Con) EXT INT EXT Weak EXT INT INT Strong Moderate
2. Member (Hi Coll-Hi Con) EXT EXT INT Weak EXT EXT EXT Strong Moderate
II. 3. Leader (Hi Ind-Low Con) INT INT EXT Moderate INT INT INT Very Strong Strong
4. Member (Hi Coll-Hi Con) EXT EXT INT Moderate EXT EXT EXT Very Strong Strong
III. 5. Leader (Hi Coll-Hi Con) EXT INT EXT Moderate EXT INT INT Moderate Moderate
6. Member (Hi Ind-Low Con) INT EXT INT Moderate INT EXT EXT Moderate Moderate
IV. 7. Leader (Hi Ind-Low Con) INT INT EXT Weak INT INT INT Strong Moderate
8. Member (Hi Ind-Hi Con) INT EXT INT Weak INT EXT EXT Strong Moderate
Note: Hi Coll = High Collectivism, Hi Con = High Context, Hi Ind = High Indivudalism, Low Con = Low Context, INT =
Internal, EXT = External, Cultural = Cultural Bias, A-O = Actor-Observer Bias, SS = Self-Serving Bias
Proposition 10: Incongruences between leaders and members regarding

attributions for member failure will be relatively greater for
highly individualistic and low context leaders interacting
with highly collectivistic and high context members versus
high collectivistic, high context leaders interacting with high
individualism and low context members.
Since this is the strongest contrast that can be predicted from the interactions
described in Figure 2 and Table 2, the need to verify this proposition is critical to
the validity of the theoretical relationships we are proposing. If this proposition is
verified, additional research designed to test each of the other predicted interac-
tions would be warranted.
Consequences of Attributional Incongruency

Although we realize that the propositions suggested above need to be veri-
fied, if the propositions prove to be valid, it important to discuss their implications.
As described earlier, there already is evidence that self-serving and actor observer
biases permeate the leader-member relationship (Dobbins & Russell, 1986a &
1986b; Martinko & Gardner, 1987), resulting in inaccurate and negative feedback
by leaders to members. Moreover, there is also convincing evidence that repeated
negative feedback can result in a condition of learned helplessness (LH)
(Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Martinko & Gardner, 1982) wherein
members attribute their failures to their own internal and stable inadequacies
resulting in both motivational deficits (i.e., performance deficits) and dysfunctional
affective reactions (e.g., depression and frustration). Thus, from what we know so
far, negative feedback by leaders exacerbated by their attributional biases can lead
to poor member performance and debilitating affective reactions as depicted on the
right-hand side of Figure 1.
In addition to the consequences for members, it is obvious that poor member
performance would reflect badly on the leader. However, it also appears likely that
leaders may experience learned helplessness in their interactions with members.
One can easily imagine a repetitive and circular real world scenario in which the
leader increasingly blames members for production problems and members refuse
to take responsibility, citing external barriers to performance. We believe that it is
this type of repetitive cycle coupled with perceived poor work unit performance
that often frustrates expatriate managers, resulting in voluntary as well as involun-
tary failures to complete their assignments. This process and the outcomes are rep-
resented in Figure 1.
Research Directions
While this paper argues that there appears to be ample theoretical support for
the propositions and model which have been suggested above, some researchers

have expressed doubts regarding the utility of attributions in predicting behaviors

(e.g., Mitchell, 1982; Read, 1987). Because of these reservations and the limited
amount of cross-cultural attributional research, the propositions which we have
offered must be considered tentative and need to be tested thoroughly. In addition,
findings from cultural research suggest that the incongruencies described above
may not always be as pronounced as we have suggested. Smith, Petersen, and
Wang (1996) and Smith and Bond (1993) found that individuals from highly col-
lective cultures are not as expressive and may purposefully avoid conflict as com-
pared to individuals from highly individualistic and low context cultures. This
unwillingness to express disagreement and engage in conflict may be particularly
pronounced in Japanese culture where Rao and Hashimoto (1996) have found that
the Japanese tend to avoid direct confrontation to maintain harmony and consider
individual appraisal of performance to be inappropriate (Gregersen et al., 1996).
Thus, it is possible that the proposed incongruencies may not be outwardly mani-
fested in some cultures and that the assumption that attributional processes are uni-
versal (etic) phenomena is open to challenge (Redding, Norman, & Schlander,
1994). More specifically, throughout this paper there has been the implicit (and
perhaps culturally biased) assumption that the actor-observer and self-serving
biases are a universal (i.e., etic) phenomena. While Lana (1991) has argued that
causal reasoning is a universal human process, it is certainly possible that there are
emic differences in this process related to culture, and many of the propositions
suggested above recognize this possibility. Nevertheless, if the results of hypothe-
ses testing indicate that there are not biases by leaders as compared to members
toward internal attributions for member failures in collectivistic and high context
cultures, the etic notion of the universality of the self-serving and actor-observer
bias would need to be reevaluated. It could be, for example, that both the actor-
observer and the self-serving biases are universal, but that they are attenuated by
some cultures because of impression management, making them more difficult to
detect. It is also possible that these biases are simply not manifested in some cul-
tures and that, for example, both leaders and members, to the same degree, are
biased towards external explanations for members' failure in highly collectivistic
and high context cultures. At this point, we are unaware of any data that would
allow us to draw conclusions in this area with the exception of a recent paper by
Chen et al. (1999), which suggested that at least a portion (but not all) of the vari-
ance in differences between cultures in their attributions for success and failure can
be attributed to the collectivism dimension, suggesting that there are both emic and
etic components to the attribution process. Studies such as the Chen et al. (1999)
study, as well as others that provide systematic testing of the propositions sug-
gested above, would begin to provide the information we need to more fully under-
stand the nature and extent to which attributional biases are a universal phenom-
ena, how they are influenced by culture, the extent to which these biases affect
leader and member interactions, and ultimately, the success or failure of expatriate
leaders.

There is and always has been controversy regarding both the epistemological
assumptions and methodology for verifying theoretical propositions (Behling,
1980; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lee, 1991; Morey & Luthans, 1984; Morgan & Smir-
cich, 1980). We recognize that differences in epistemological and methodological
assumptions are particularly salient in the context of cross-cultural research. More-
over, in the context of attribution theory, which is a theory of causal reasoning (i.e.,
epistemology), it is clear that objectivity is relative because the researchers will
invariably take an emic or etic perspective (Morey & Luthans, 1984), but will
almost never have the experience and sensitivity to simultaneously represent both
perspectives equally. The suggestions for research that follow represent both per-
spectives, recognizing that a multiparadigmatic approach (Gioia & Pitre, 1990) is
probably the most reasonable way to advance our understanding of the complex
interactions we are addressing.
Several of the above propositions could be documented by comparing biases
in the appraisals of foreign members by expatriate versus host country leaders.
Controlling for organizational performance, we would expect that expatriate lead-
ers from highly individualistic, low context cultures are more likely to hold host
country members responsible for poor performance than host country leaders from
highly collectivistic, high context cultures. This information could be gathered
from data that already exist in many organizations.
The initial propositions regarding the priority of consensus, consistency, and
distinctiveness information also need verification. One would expect that, in a lab-
oratory setting, if leaders were given equal access to consensus, consistency, and
distinctiveness information, these three aspects would be weighted equally in
making attributions for member outcomes. On the other hand, because of the rela-
tive inaccessibility in natural environments, it would seem that in field settings,
consistent with the propositions presented above, distinctiveness information
would not play as important a role in attributional processes. Retrospective inter-
views following performance appraisals would be one method for obtaining these
types of data. Also, direct observation and protocol analyses of interview processes
such as those described in the attribution study by Campbell and Martinko (1998)
would also be appropriate strategies.
If the above relationships are identified, the nature, role, and function of attri-
butional biases in these processes can be further investigated using some of the
standard questionnaires that have been developed to investigate attributional pro-
cesses. Thus, for example, Kent and Martinko (1995) and Thomson and Martinko
(1998) have developed attribution style questionnaires which examine self and
observer attributions, respectively. These types of data would help identify attribu-
tional biases. First, a comparison of host country versus expatriate managers on
these questionnaires would help to identify the nature and extent to which leaders
exhibited cultural, actor observer, and self-serving biases. Second, comparing the
attributions of expatriate leaders versus those of their members on these question-
naires would also be informative. An even more effective design would compare

the differences between the responses of expatriate leaders and host country mem-
bers with the differences between host country leaders and host country members.
Since, as suggested above, the actor-observer and self-serving biases are believed
to be an inherent part of the attribution process, we would expect that all leaders
would be more internal than their subordinates in accounting for members' failures.
However, the differences in the extent of the internality between the host and
expatriate leaders would help to identify the extent to which culture contributes to
and exacerbates the effects of the other attributional biases. Failure to find an
internal bias by leaders as compared to members in some cultures would suggest a
re-evaluation of the universality of the actor-observer and self-serving biases.
Another strategy for exploring the propositions suggested would be an in-
depth qualitative and exploratory study. Within a typical nomothetic quantitative
questionnaire research design, it would be very difficult to explain how each of the
biases described above is manifested and how the biases interact. On the other
hand, a qualitative interview and observational procedure such as the one described
in the attributional study by Campbell and Martinko (1998) may be better able to
provide information regarding the relative importance of each of the above biases
in contributing to causal attributions. Moreover, such a research strategy would
also provide more information regarding the nature and development of these
biases and be particularly beneficial in mapping out new areas for investigation.
It is important to note that our discussion has focused on the extremes of
continua (e.g., individualistic vs. collectivistic and high vs. low context). For the
most part, this approach seems appropriate for developing testable propositions in
that extreme conditions increase the power of research designs to detect significant
differences (Kerlinger, 1986). Nevertheless, it is recognized that these continua are
theoretical and may or may not accurately represent differences between cultures.
As empirical testing is done, the validity and utility of such continua will be better
understood and modifications can be made where they are appropriate.
Finally, as noted in the introductory comments, it is important not to assume
that culture and geopolitical boundaries are synonymous. As Roberts and Boyacig-
iller (1984) have noted, such assumptions have been a chronic deficiency of cross-
cultural research. With respect to the specific domain considered in this paper, it is
possible that, within the same geopolitical boundaries, one might find both indi-
vidualistic and collectivistic subcultures. Obviously, if members of both subcul-
tures are combined in the same sample, the robustness of the attributional biases
described in this paper could be obfuscated. Thus, as with any research design
using culture as an independent variable, it is critical to make sure that each level
of culture sampled is representative of the cultural dimensions that they are
intended to portray.
Interventions
At this point, we are hesitant to offer suggestions for interventions because,
as we have noted above, many of the propositions we have offered have not been

tested directly. Nevertheless, as we described in the introduction, attribution train-

ing interventions have already been implemented and are being used as a strategy
to reduce perceptual incongruencies between leaders and members (Albert, 1983;
Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971; Landis & Brislin, 1983), even though Triandis
(1994) notes that we still need much more research regarding the efficacy of these
types of interventions. Because interventions are already being used and because
the nature and impact of the above biases has been well documented in other con-
texts (Weiner, 1995; Martinko, 1995), we believe that some speculation regarding
effective intervention strategies is appropriate. Therefore, assuming that the rela-
tionships described above between and among sources of information, attributional
biases, and expatriate member attributions are valid, the following interventions
appear to be reasonable for averting inappropriate and unfair attributions for mem-
bet performance, thus reducing the potential for perceptual incongruencies
between expatriate leaders and members.
Decreasing Psychological Distance
Research has demonstrated that biases in attributions are reduced when
observers are more knowledgeable and share experiences with the actors (Jones &
Nisbett, 1972). Therefore, it would seem that decreasing the amount of psycho-
logical distance between expatriate leaders and their members would be a viable
strategy for decreasing each of the three biases suggested above (i.e., self-serving,
actor-observer, and cultural). Some ways of decreasing psychological distance
would include prior experience in the foreign country and increased cultural expe-
riences in the foreign country such as attendance at local sporting events and holi-
day festivities. On the other hand, it would seem that special housing arrangements
that isolate expatriates from their foreign members would be counterproductive.
Importantly, increased interaction with foreign members outside of the work con-
text would also provide expatriate leaders with distinctiveness information which
would otherwise not be available.
Attributional Training
The process of attributional training has been described by Albert (1983),
Fiedler et al. (1971), and Martinko and Gardner (1982). Essentially it involves
making individuals aware of their biases and examining how these biases effect
their interpersonal relationships. Fiedler et al. (1971) describe a step-by-step pro-
cess in which content is selected, critical incidents are developed, and participant
responses are validated by comparing them to answers from members of the host
culture. In addition, such training could incorporate attributional style measures
(e.g., Kent & Martinko, 1995) to facilitate awareness of expatriate leaders' biases
and exercises designed to elicit the examination of performance attributions.
Team Management and Multiple Raters
Another strategy for reducing the effects of attributional biases by expatriate
leaders is to use a team management concept which includes multiple raters when
TheInternationalandJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

members' performances are evaluated, both formally and informally. Thus, for
example, particularly in the earliest stages of expatriate leader adaption, pairing an
expatriate leader with a host country leader may help the expatriate develop more
realistic attributions for members' performances. Also, when more formal evalua-
tions are conducted, multiple raters will enable expatriate managers to compare
their ratings with other managers and to correct attributional errors.
Immunization
Another strategy, initially suggested by Martinko and Gardner (1982), is
immunization. In this case, immunization would consist of initially assigning par-
ticularly competent foreign members to expatriate leaders so that internal attribu-
tions for member successes would be likely. Later, when evaluating failures, expa-
triate leaders would probably be more likely to make external attributions given
that they would have already judged the host country foreign members to be com-
petent.
Discrimination Training
Discrimination training entails differentiating a prior environment from the
present one. Unfair attributions may often occur because an expatriate leader may
assume that the environment for a host country member is the same as the prior
environment that the expatriate experienced. Training and education programs
designed to emphasize differences in the host and expatriate countries' environ-
ments may be helpful. Thus, for example, knowing that both the educational level
and resources available to members may be substantially less than those typically
available in the expatriate's home country may help to attenuate internal attribu-
tions for members' poor performances.
Attributional Cueing
Lee, Hallahan, and Herzog (1996) have demonstrated that attributional biases
are attenuated when individuals are confronted with high levels of cognitive com-
plexity and effort. Their findings suggest that biases can be reduced by increasing
both effort and accountability for success and failure attributions. Thus, formaliz-
ing evaluation processes and requiring evaluators to both share and be accountable
for their evaluations may be an effective strategy for reducing biases by evaluators.
Similarly, formalized performance appraisal processes requiring appraises to
develop self-evaluations may increase the effort that appraises expend in thinking
about their performance and may also significantly reduce bias in self-attributions.
Conclusions
As Triandis (1994) and Tannenbaum (1980) have indicated, one of the major
tasks of cross-cultural psychology is to distinguish the universal and cultural-spe-
cific aspects of organizational behavior. Peterson et al. (1995) echo this same
argument with regard to leadership behavior. We believe that the leader-member

M. J. MARTINKO AND S. C. D O U G L A S 287
attributional process is an important example of a perceptual process that has both

universal (etic) and culture-specific (emic) aspects. More specifically, in this paper
we examined and discussed how attributional biases such as the actor-observer and
self-serving biases, which at this point are assumed to be universal processes, can
lead to incongruent perceptions between leaders and members. We have also
reviewed literature and empirical results which indicate that there are differences
in attributions for success and failure that may be culture-specific but might also be
explained by differential access to information. At this point, we do not know what
proportion of the variance in attributions for success and failure is attributable to
cultural differences, but it is a critical question to address in that it suggests what
may be both possible and inevitable in addressing incongruent perceptions between
leaders and members. Clearly, the variance that may be attributable to culture sug-
gests the degree to which attributional processes are malleable and able to be
shaped by culture, the environment, and interventions. Because of both the emic
and etic dimensions of the attributional process, it is important to note that
although our discussion has centered on the challenges of expatriate leaders, at
least to some degree, all leaders, host or expatriate leaders, face similar (etic) attri-
butional issues. Moreover, in that all new leaders are entering into a new culture
when they are assigned to lead a new workgroup, all new leaders will also be faced
with the unique perceptual challenges (emic) prompted by the culture of their
workgoup. Thus we believe that the detailed explanation of how culture, dimen-
sions of information, and attributional biases affect leaders' and subordinates' attri-
butional processes can also be useful to domestic as well as expatriate leaders,
enabling them to reduce the negative effects of incongruent perceptions.
In conclusion, as indicated in the introduction, incongruencies in perceptions
between members and leaders are often cited as the reason why many expatriate
leaders, as well as leaders in general, fail to find success in their assignments. We
believe that there is enough support in the current psychological and organizational
research to make the case that the sources of information, attributional biases, and
cultural biases described in this paper are a major contributor to the perceptual
incongruencies that have been found to be so problematic between expatriate lead-
ers and their members. Hopefully, the theory and research findings presented in
this paper will stimulate both researchers and practitioners to more fully under-
stand both the universal and culture-specific aspects of these processes. Such
understandings would enable research and interventions that can facilitate a reduc-
tion in the perceptual incongruencies between leaders and members which have
been found to be so detrimental.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in

humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74.

Albert, R. (1983). The intercultural sensitizer or cultural assimilaton A cognitive approach.

In D. Landis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. 2, pp.
186-217). New York: Pergamon.
Andersen, L. R. (1983). Management of the mixed-cultural work group. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 303-330.
Arvey, R. D., Bhagat, R. S., & Salas, E. (1991). Cross-cultural and cross national issues in
personnel and human resources management: Where do we go from here? In G. R. Fer-
ris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management
(pp. 367-407). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ashamalla, M., & Crocitto, M. (1997). Easing entry and beyond: Preparing expatriates and
patriates for foreign assignment success. International Journal of Commerce and Man-
agement, 7, 106-114.
Barnlund, D. C. (1989, March-April). Public and private self in communicating with Japan.
Business Horizons, p. 38.
Behling, O. (1980). The case for the natural science model of research in organization
behavior and organization theory. Academy ofManagement Review, 5, 483-490.
Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
Betancourt, H., & Weiner, B. (1982). Attributions for achievement-related events,
expectancy, and sentiments: A study of success and failure in Chile and the United
States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 362-374.
Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in
Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 277-294.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a
theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15,
113-136.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1991). A practical but theoretical framework for selecting
cross-cultural training methods. In M. Mendenhall & G. Oddou (Eds.), International
human resource management (pp. 177-204). Boston: PWS Kent.
Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. (1989). The influence of the spouse on American expatriate
adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Manage-
ment, 15, 529-544.
Brislin, R. W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C , & Yong, M. (1986). Intercultural interactions: A
practical guide. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Campbell, C., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An integrative attributional perspective of empow-
erment and learned helplessness: A multimethod field study. Journal of Management,
24, 173-200.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and
between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103-1126.
Cha, J. H., & Nam, K. D. (1985). A test of Kelley's cube theory of attribution. A cross-cul-
tural replication of McArthur's study. Korean Social Science Journal, 12, 151-180.
Chandler, C. A., Shama, D. D., Wolf, F. M., & Planchard, S. K. (1981). Multiartributional
causality for social affiliation across five cross-national samples. Journal of Psychology,
107, 219-229.
Chen, Y., Mezias, S., & Murphy, P. (1999, August). Toward an explanation of cultural dif-
ferences in attribution processes for success and failure: Evidence from an American
multinational bank in thirteen cultures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Chicago.
TheInternationalJounalofOrganizationalAnalysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

M. J. MART1NKO AND S.C.DOUGLAS 289
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-
esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-666.
Dobbins, G. H., & Russell, J. M. (1986a). Self-serving biases in leadership: A laboratory
experiment. Journal of Management, 12, 475-183.
Dobbins, G. H., & Russell, J. M. (1986b). The biasing effects of subordinate likableness on
leaders' responses to poor performers: A laboratory and a field study. Personnel Psy-
chology, 39, 759-777.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
Early, C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and
individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319-348.
Feldman, J. M., Sam, I. A., McDonald, W. F., & Bechtel, G. G. (1980). Work outcome pref-
erence and evaluation: A study of three ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 11, 444-468.
Fiedler, F., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. (1971). The cultural assimilaton An approach to
cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95-102.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1981). Social difficulties in a foreign culture: The difficulties
reported by foreign students in everyday social situations in England. In M. Argyle, A.
Furnham, & J. A. Graham (Eds.), Social situations (pp. 344-351). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological understanding. American Scientist, 63,
47-53.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. D. (1988). On cognitive business: When person
perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
733-740.
Gioia, D., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of
Management Review, 15, 584-602.
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member
interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.
Gregersen, H. B., Hite, J. M., & Black, J. S. (1996). Expatriate performance appraisal in
U.S. multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 4, 711-738.
Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. (1994). Employer influence on the expatriate
experience: Limits and implications for retention in overseas assignments. In J. B. Shaw,
P. S. Kirkbride, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource
management (pp. 323-338). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Harvey, M. G. (1985, Spring). The executive family: An overlooked variable in international
assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, pp. 84-93.
Hofestede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural
researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.
Inkeles, A. (1983). The third century. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of
the causes of behavior. In E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelley, R. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B.
Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Press.
Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). The self-serving bias in attributions as a coping
strategy: A cross cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(1), 83-97.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28,

107-128.
Kent, R., & Martinko, M. J. (1995). The development and evaluation of a scale to measure
organizational attribution style. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organi-
zational perspective (pp. 53-75). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and
Winston.
Lana, R. E. (1991). Assumptions of social psychology: A reexamination. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Landis, D., & Brislin, R. (1983). Handbook on intercultural training (Vol. 1). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1992). Culture and health-related schemas: A review pro-
posal for interdisciplinary integration. Health Psychology, 11, 267-276.
Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational
research. Organization Science, 2, 342-365.
Lee, C. (1983). Cross-cultural training: Don't leave home without it. Training, 20 (7), 20-25.
Lee, Y. T. (1994). Why does American psychology have cultural limitations. American Psy-
chologist, 49, 524.
Lee, F., Hallahan, M., & Herzog, T. (1996). Explaining real-life events: How culture and
domain shape attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 732-741.
Lincoln, J. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work
organization and work attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Little, A. (1987). Attributions in a cross-cultural context. Genetic, Social, and General Psy-
chology Monographs, 113, 61-79.
Lublin, J. S. (1992, August 4). Companies use cross-cultural training to help their employees
adjust abroad. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6.
March, R. M. (1991, January). Western manager: Japanese boss. Intersect, pp. 11-16.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 (1), 63-87.
Martinko, M. J. (Ed.). (1995). Attribution theory: An organizational perspective. Delray
Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation
for performance deficits. Academy ofManagement Review, 7, 195-204.
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader member attribution process. Academy
ofManagement Review, 12, 235-249.
Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. (1998). A synthesis of the Weiner and Kelley attribution
models. Basic and Applied Psychology, 20, 271-284.
Matsumoto, D. (1994). People: Psychology from a cultural perspective. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks-Cole.
Mendenhall, M. G., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A
review. Academy of Management Review, 10, 39-47.
Mendenhall, M. G., & Oddou, G. (1987). Expatriate selection, training and career-pathing:
A review and critique. Human Resource Management, 26, 331-345.
Mendenhall, M. G., & Oddou, G. (1988, September-October). The overseas assignment: A
practical look. Business Horizons, pp. 78-84.

Mendenhall, M. G., & Oddou, G. (1990). Cross cultural training effectiveness: A review and
a framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15, 113-136.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Attributions and actions: A note of caution. Journal of Management,
8, 65-74.
Moore, R. W. (1990). Time, culture, and comparative management: A review and future
direction. In S. B. Prasad (Ed.), Advances in international comparative management
(Vol. 5, pp. 7-8). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Morey, N. C., & Luthans, F. (1984). An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for
organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 9, 27-36.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 5, 491-500.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions
for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7,
949-971.
Munter, M. (1993, May-June). Cross-cultural communication for managers. Business Hori-
zons, pp. 69-78.
Naumann, E. (1992). A conceptual model of expatriate turnover. Journal of International
Business Studies, 3, 499-531.
Nicholson, J. D., Stepina, L. P., & Hochwater, W. (1990). Psychological aspects of expatri-
ate effectiveness. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 2,
127-145.
Pepitone, A. (1989). Toward a cultural psychology. Psychology and Developing Society, 1,
5-19.
Peterson, M., Smith, P., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N.,
Jesuino, J., D'Amorim, M., Francois, P., Hofmann, K., Koopmasn, P., Leung, K., Lim,
T., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J., Radford, M., Ropo, R., Savage, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, T.,
Sorenson, R., & Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429-452.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Over attribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the
person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593-607.
Rao, A , & Hashimoto, K. (1996). Intercultural influence: A study of Japanese expatriate
managers in Canada. Journal of International Business Studies, 3, 443-466.
Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal
reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288-302.
Redding, S., Norman, A., & Schlander, A. (1994). The nature of individual attachment to the
organization: A review of East Asian variations. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L.
M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol.
4, pp. 647-688). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Reeder, J. A. (1987, January-February). When West meets East: Cultural aspects of doing
business in Asia. Business Horizons, pp. 69-74.
Roberts, K., & Boyacigiller, N. (1984). Cross national organizational research: The grasp of
the blind man. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 6, pp. 423-475). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and per-
spectives. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, P. B., Petersen, M. F., & Wang, Z. M. (1996). The manager as mediator of alterna-
tive meanings: A pilot study from China, the U.S., & U.K. Journal of International
Business Studies, 1, 115-137.
Smith, S., & Whitehead, G. I., III, (1984). Attributions for promotion and demotion in the
United States and India, Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 27-34.
Stephens, G. K., & Greer, C. R. (1995, Summer). Doing business in Mexico: Understanding
cultural differences. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 39-55.
Tannenbaurn, A. (1980). Organizational psychology. In H. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.),
Handbook of cross cultural psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 281-334), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Thomson, N., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). Observer attributional style: An empirical analysis
of the cross-situational stability of observer attributions. In S. Barr (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Southern Management Association (pp. 86-89). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State
Universiy.
Tonnies, F. (1963). Community and society. New York: Harper & Row.
Triandis, H. C. (1960). Cognitive similarity and communications in a dyad. Human Rela-
tions, 13, 175-183.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In Triandis,
H. C , Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 103-172). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. Paper
presented at the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln, NE.
Triandis, H. C., Hall, E. R., & Ewen, R. B. (1965). Member heterogeneity and dyadic cre-
ativity. Human Relations, 18, 33-55.
Tung, R. (1981). Selecting and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia
Journal of World Business, 16, 68-78.
Tung, R. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure.
Academy of Management Executive, 2, 117-126.
Tung, R. (1988). The new expatriate. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism: Concept and Measure.
Group and Organization Studies, 11 280-303.
Wong-Rieger, D., & Quintana, D. (1987). Comparative acculturation of Southeast Asian and
Hispanic immigrants and sojourners. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18,
345-362.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility. New York: Guilford Press.
White, R. K. (1977). Misperception in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 33,
190-221.
Yun, C. (1973). Role conflicts of expatriate managers: A construct. Management Interna-
tional Review, 13 (6), 105-113.
Zeira, Y., & Banai, M. (1985). Selection of expatriate managers in MNCs: The host-envi-
ronment point view. International Studies of Management and Organization, 15 (1),
33-51.

Culture and Expatriate Failure - An Attibutotonal Explication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Culture and Expatriate Failure - An Attibutotonal Explication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis

1999, Vol. 7, No. 3 (July), pp. 265-293

CULTURE AND EXPATRIATE FAILURE: AN

the coordination and control of multinational corporations (Gregersen, Hite, &

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

peculiar (Geertz, 1975). In addition, several studies of Japanese culture suggest

TheInternationalJournalof Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Proposition 6: The host country leader's attributions will be more accurate

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Attributional Biases: Complicating the Picture

TheInternationalJournalof Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Attributional Bias Member Member

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Another interesting interaction is the interaction between high collectivism,

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Conditions Member Success Member Failure Overall

ATTRIBUTIONS AND EXPATRIATE FAILURE

Proposition 10: Incongruences between leaders and members regarding

Consequences of Attributional Incongruency

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

have expressed doubts regarding the utility of attributions in predicting behaviors

TheInternationalJournalof Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

tested directly. Nevertheless, as we described in the introduction, attribution train-

TheInternationalandJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

attributional process is an important example of a perceptual process that has both

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Albert, R. (1983). The intercultural sensitizer or cultural assimilaton A cognitive approach.

TheInternationalJounalofOrganizationalAnalysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

TheInternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28,

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

TheInternationalJournalof Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1999

You might also like