Rational Man Theory in American and Japanese Performance Control

  • Jeremiah J. Sullivan
  • Teruhiko Suzuki
  • Yasumasa Kondo


The essence of an organization is people working together to produce goods and services in order to attain the organization’s ends. Organizational science has focused on this process in a number of ways through several disciplines. Organizational behavior mostly examines the individual in terms of external influences on his or her thoughts and behavior in the workplace. Human resource management studies often center on the performance control process, which is made up of managers monitoring the actions of workers, attributing a level of responsibility to each worker for the performance output of the relevant work unit, and adjusting pay and bonuses accordingly. Some research questions that have emerged from these disciplinary studies are: How much monitoring do managers do? How well do managers make attributions? What is the relationship between monitoring, attributions, and rewards?


Performance Control Japanese Manager Social Model Person Performance Future Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. DeNisi, A., & Pritchard, R. D. (1978). Implicit theories of performance as artifacts in survey research: A replication and extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frieze, I. H., Bar-Tal, D., & Carroll, J. S. (1980). New approaches to social problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Harris, M. (1980). Cultural materialism. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  5. Harvey, J., Town, J., & Yarkin, K. (1981). How fundamental is the “fundamental attribution error”? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of casual attribution. American psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lebra, T. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  12. Mitchell, T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E. (1981). An attribution model of leadership and the poor performing subordinate: Development and validation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 197–234.Google Scholar
  13. Monson, T., & Snyder, M. (1977). Actors, observers, and the attribution process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakane, C. (1972). Japanese society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Ouchi, W. C. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to an unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  18. Rohlen, T. (1974). For harmony and strength: Japanese white collar organization in anthropological perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Shaw, M. E., & Iwawaki, S. (1972). Attribution of responsibility by Japanese and Americans as a function of age. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 3, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the ‘cases’ of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taylor, S. E. (1982). The availability bias in social perception. In K. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 190–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremiah J. Sullivan
    • 1
  • Teruhiko Suzuki
    • 2
  • Yasumasa Kondo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Marketing and International Business, Graduate School of Business AdministrationUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of CommerceDoshisha UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations