We are pleased to announce that Professor Michael Morris of Columbia University has won the 2025 IACMR Distinguished Scholarly Contribution Award. Let’s extend our warm congratulations to Professor Morris!

Michael Morris is a management professor and cultural psychologist who has taught at Stanford and Columbia Universities, with frequent visits to universities in China Mainland, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Morris received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Michigan after undergraduate degrees in Cognitive Science and in English Literature at Brown University. His research uncovers the tacit cultural frameworks that channel cognitions and decisions, giving rise to differing worldviews, ways of life, and workplace patterns.

Many of his research contributions have informed Chinese psychology and management.  In his dissertation, Morris started a program of research on cultural differences in social judgment biases, proposing that the “Fundamental Attribution Error” reflects cultural individualism and, hence, is reduced in Chinese societies. Working Kaiping Peng, he conducted comparative studies with novel tests of the bias, such as perceiving causality in cartoons. American and Chinese participants had parallel perceptions of mechanical causality but diverging impressions of social causality. An individual who swims ahead of others was perceived by American participants as leading the others; it was judged by Chinese participants as chased by the others. Subsequent research with Tanya Menon found that a reversal in the case of collective actors such as organizations–Chinese participants more likely to attribute to traits. Later studies with Xi Zou and Zhi Liu (Note: Associate Professor at Guanghua School of Management, Peking University) documented that these differing styles of social judgment are carried by differing norms about agency and implicit beliefs about individual versus group agency.

His next topic was culture and conflict. In studies with Kwok Leung, he asked why do Americans take disputes to court whereas Chinese negotiated them? One reason is the negative person attributions Americans draw during the conflict, which discourage them from approaches requiring cooperation. A coworker conflicts conducted with Kathy Phillips and many others found that Americans favor the confrontational “competing” style (associated with individualistic values) whereas Chinese favor the harmony-preserving “avoiding” style (associated with collectivist values). Research with Shi Liu found that standard conflict models fail to capture a common approach in collectivist cultures: avoiding confrontation but competing covertly. Consistent with this picture of harm in harmony, people are more vigilant in monitoring ingroup peers in China than in the US. 

To avoid rigid depictions of culture, Morris’s lab began asking not just how, but when, do they differ. What situational cues or inner needs bring cultural frameworks to the fore? Eastern traditions valorize moderation and the middle path, but when does this affect East Asians’ decisions? With Donnel Briley, Morris observed a bias in consumer decisions toward compromise when the choice required a reason but not otherwise. Later studies found that Hongkongers favored compromise when questioned in Chinese (vs. English) and their audience was Chinese (vs. American). An influential research program with Ying-yi Hong and Chi-yue Chiu explored the role of culture-related images as cues. Hongkongers who exposed to American imagery (football players in their helmets) generated more individualistic attributions than those exposed to Chinese imagery (kung fu students in their robes) and made more internal attributions to individual bribe payers while more external attributions to group bribe payers. Moreover, inner needs and personalities also amplify cultural influences. When under time pressure, Americans become more individualistic and Chinese more collectivistic in their biases. Individuals with certainty-seeking temperaments gravitate to the typical responses of their culture.

This dynamic paradigm enabled new insights about how individuals manage multiple cultural identities, worldviews, and repertoires. Rather stuck in between two cultures, bicultural individuals can “frame switch” effortlessly in response to situational cues. Studies led by Verònica Benet-Martínez found that their identity integration affects their frame-switching dynamics: those who experience their two sides as compatible tend to follow to cultural cues whereas those experience them as conflicting tend to react against them. Studies with Aurelia Mok and Zaijia Liu confirmed that this defensive reaction arises from fear of non-cued identities being left out.  In recent years he has examined acculturation issues affecting Asian Americans in the workplace. Studies with Jackson Lu identified the scope and mechanism of the bamboo ceiling limiting leadership attainment. Studies with Xin “Lucy” Liu have explored gender differences therein.

His 2024 book “Tribal: How the Cultural Instincts that Divide Us Can Help Bring Us Together” translates these insights for managers and other nonacademic readers.

Click Professor Michael Morris website to get more information.