Taking Credit

William J. Graham

•

William H. Cooper

Received: 17 August 2011 / Accepted: 10 July 2012

 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Taking credit is the process through which

organizational members claim responsibility for work

activities. We begin by describing a publically disputed

case of credit taking and then draw on psychological, sit-

uational, and personality constructs to provide a model that

may explain when and why organizational members are

likely to take credit. We identify testable propositions

about the credit-taking process, discuss ethical aspects of

credit taking and suggest areas for research on credit taking

in organizations.

Keywords Credit  Business ethics 

Organizational justice  Psychological ownership 

Fraud triangle  Narcissism

Good people do good work without meddling in the

distribution of rewards (Confucius, n.d., verse 4.14)

There are two classes of people, those who do and

those who take credit. My advice is to be a member

of the ﬁrst class; there is much less competition.

(Variously attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, Indira

Gandhi, Dwight Morrow, and Mark Twain)

It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not

care who gets the credit. (Harry Truman)

The person who appropriates credit redistributes it as

he chooses, bound essentially and only by a sensi-

tivity to public perceptions of his fairness. (Jackall

1988, p. 21)

Credit can be a valuable commodity in organizations.

Credits—deﬁned as having one’s efforts recognized by

others—can be exchanged for small privileges (e.g., a day

off), banked (e.g., used to enhance a reputation), pointed

to for tactical reasons (e.g., during a performance review),

accumulated for major rewards (e.g., a promotion),

redeemed (e.g., asking for a favor), and traded (e.g., for a

leadership opportunity); credit can also be dissipated (e.g.,

eroded by time and memory) and lost (e.g., by making a

major blunder). Because credits are valuable they can also

be challenged by aggrieved colleagues who feel the credit

belongs to them, either in whole or in part. These credits

might be based on perceived contributions to any part of a

work activity (project, idea, collaboration, assignment):

having the idea, proposing it to someone who matters,

reﬁning, and crystallizing the idea, providing support,

assigning appropriate resources, and structures for the

project, implementing the idea, assuming the risks associ-

ated with implementation, doing the hard work required to

ﬁnish the project, and framing the outcome so that it is seen

as worthwhile, both for the organization and for the framer.

The process of making a bid for credit can take many

forms, ranging from the most active (e.g., putting one’s

name on a document, arranging for a colleague to give you

credit in a public setting) and explicit (e.g., written or

verbal assertions) to the most passive (e.g., failing to cor-

rect the record when someone gives credit to a non-con-

tributor) and implicit (structuring a situation so that the

inference is drawn of one’s personal responsibility for an

effort). The process of bidding for and getting credit can be

W. J. Graham

Royal Military College, Kingston, ON, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

W. H. Cooper (&)

Queen’s School of Business, Kingston, ON, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1406-3

simple and quick, as when someone says ‘‘When I did this’’

and the audience agrees: the outcome is credit. But when

the claim is implicit it can take some time for an audience

to recognize that credit has been claimed and that credit has

been given though silence. Attentive audiences may readily

detect explicit claims but be less likely to notice more

implicit claims.

We argue that taking credit for a work activity is an

inherently ethical act that can have personal, organiza-

tional, and societal consequences. If the credit is justiﬁed

and defensible—the credit matches the contribution to the

work activity and is worthy of approbation by civil soci-

ety—then the credit taker is acting ethically. But when

unjustiﬁed credit is taken—the credit taken exceeds the

contribution to the work activity—then someone who is

entitled to that credit is diminished, devalued, and denied

that to which he or she is entitled. The individual who is

wrongfully denied credit may experience that denial as an

injustice, a theft, or at least as an undermining of their

workplace identity. We note that the ethical aspects of a

claim may not be salient for all: those who are bounded

ethically (i.e., who intend to be ethical but are psycho-

logically and cognitively limited in their ability to appre-

ciate the ethics of the act; see De Cremer et al. 2010)orfor

those for whom the ethical aspects of the decision have

faded (i.e., have receded in consciousness; see Tenbrunsel

and Messick 2004).

The ethics of credit taking in organizations can also

have a societal component: doing something that violates

widely accepted civil standards is indefensible, even if

it is seen as justiﬁed within the organization. The dis-

tinction between justiﬁed and defensible distinguishes

between what is deserved within an organization (the

credit matches the effort) and what is acceptable in

civil society (the effort warrants approbation). We use

‘‘defensible’’ to refer to the extent to which actions meet

the standards of civil society. ‘‘Justiﬁed’’ here means that

what is claimed (credit) matches what has been done

(contribution to a work effort). This use of justiﬁcation is

fundamental to many theories, from equity theory (the

equality of inputs and rewards; Adams 1965) and Marx’s

(1847) theory of value to Kant’s (1785) categorical

imperative and virtue ethics (Taylor 2002). Each of these

would recognize that acts such as taking credit for work

done by a subordinate (Donaldson 1996; McDonald and

Zepp 1988; Metha and Kau 1984) is unjustiﬁed because

it violates principles of equity, ownership, the ethical

rule, and character habits that are to be encouraged.

Later, we draw on just such an example of a speechwriter

who took sole credit for work done by a team of

speechwriters. We contrast this with one of the other

team members who takes justiﬁed credit for writing some

of the speeches.

Thus, taking credit for work efforts can range from

justiﬁed and defensible (taking appropriate credit for deeds

done within the organization that are socially approved of

outside the organization), justiﬁed and indefensible (taking

appropriate credit for actions that are condemned by civil

society), unjustiﬁed and defensible (taking more credit than

is due for deeds that are socially approved of), and unjus-

tiﬁed and indefensible (taking more credit than is due for

deeds that are condemned by civil society). The last raises

ethical issues both inside and outside the organization.

Some Expected Consequences of Taking Credit

We expect that taking credit has positive and negative

emotional, behavioral, and organizational consequences

within organizations. The likely positive emotional con-

sequences of taking justiﬁed credit include feelings of

empowerment and agency, particularly for those who have

a history of passivity in work settings. The positive

behavioral consequences of justiﬁed credit taking may

include an employee’s increased willingness to collaborate

and volunteer for future projects. For organizations, the fair

distribution of credit can provide a foundation for a healthy

organizational culture, enhanced employee perceptions of

justice and a strengthened sense of teamwork. Among the

likely negative emotional consequences of unjustiﬁed

credit taking are the bitterness felt by those whose contri-

butions are devalued, victims’ sense of betrayal by col-

leagues and a debilitating sense of cynicism. The negative

behavioral effects of unjustiﬁed credit taking may include a

reduced willingness to collaborate in the future, retribution

to settle a score, increased turnover and the lowered

commitment that comes from being undermined by col-

leagues and supervisors (cf. Duffy et al. 2002; Pozner

2007). For organizations, the unfair distribution of credit

can weaken norms of reciprocity and equity, reduce

transparency and destroy trust (Brown and Robinson 2011;

Fortin and Fellenz 2008; McFarlin and Sweeney 1992).

We use two constructs—social undermining (Duffy

et al. 2002) and psychological safety (Edmondson 1999)—

to highlight some of these consequences. Duffy et al.

(2002, p. 332) deﬁne social undermining as ‘‘behavior

intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and

maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work related

success, and favorable reputation.’’ The unjustiﬁed taking

of credit is one way in which social undermining can

happen in the workplace, particularly when it is successful

(i.e., when taking unjustiﬁed credit results in receiving

credit), as when corporate psychopaths bully by taking

credit for another’s work (Babiak and Hare 2006). The

unjustiﬁed taking of credit, when viewed as a type of social

undermining, may result in distributive, procedural, and

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

interactional injustice. The appropriate distribution of

credit may accomplish the opposite: taking justiﬁed credit

is likely to allow individuals to establish and maintain

positive interpersonal relationships, experience work-rela-

ted success, and develop a favorable reputation.

Edmondson (1999) introduced the construct of team

psychological safety and has shown that it facilitates team

learning. She deﬁnes team psychological safety as ‘‘a

shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk

taking’’ (p. 354). She characterizes the type of climate in

safe teams as one dominated by trust and mutual respect.

Taking unjustiﬁed credit can undermine team psychologi-

cal safety, reduce trust and poison an organization’s culture

by undermining norms of reciprocity and equity. Expected

consequences include decreased cooperation and organi-

zational citizenship behavior and increased turnover.

Although external stakeholders have not shown much

interest in how internal disputes about credit are resolved

(Jackson 2001), focusing instead on acts that breach trust

between organizations and those with whom organizations

are interdependent, insiders do care about unjustiﬁed credit

taking. Wronged parties complain to business advice col-

umnists (see, e.g., Pinker 2005) and cartoonists poke fun at

opportunistic credit takers (‘‘I made a few tweaks to your

idea. Now if it fails it was your idea and if it works I can

claim the credit’’; Adams 2011) and manager’s report that

they experience unjustiﬁed credit taking as stressful (van

Zyl and Lazenby 2002). Others have noted that claiming

unjustiﬁed credit is a source of eroded trust (Simon and

Eby 2003) and a form of bullying (Babiak and Hare 2006;

Clive 2011) that compromises business ethics and creates

threats to the integrity of organizational reward systems

(cf. Jackall 1988, p. 21).

While scholars have identiﬁed the taking of unjustiﬁed

credit as an unethical organizational behavior, and some

research has suggested ways to think about the process of

claiming credit (see, e.g., Bazerman 2006 on self-serving

biases; Bazerman’s work with colleagues on bounded

rationality (Banaji et al. 2003; Bazerman 2006) with col-

leagues on bounded ethicality; Jackall 1988 on the role of

power), we believe this is the ﬁrst systematic attempt to

understand the conditions that lead to and enable credit

taking. Following De Cremer et al.’s (2010, p. 2) sugges-

tion that ‘‘we need to understand the psychological

underpinnings of behavior relevant to ethics in greater

detail,’’ we examine the concept of credit and when and

why credit is taken. Our purpose is to call attention to a

construct of potential interest to the ﬁeld and some of the

ways in which it can be researched. We take the standpoint

of the credit taker in the interest of providing a focused and

systematic way of thinking about when and why individ-

uals take credit. We acknowledge the role of the audience

but focus on the roles of contribution, psychology,

situations and personality in the decision being made by

potential credit takers. We begin by providing a prototype

that we use to anchor our analysis of credit taking, after

which we deﬁne ‘‘credit’’ and ‘‘taking credit’’ and propose

a model that may help explain the phenomenon.

A Prototype

Most of the phenomena discussed in this article appear in a

public dispute over claims for speechwriting credit in the

George W. Bush White House. Former speechwriter Scully

(2007) provides a rich account of the rewards and costs that

become apparent when a speechwriter over-reaches and

violates the self-effacing norms of the profession. From

1999 to 2004, Scully, Michael Gerson, and John McCon-

nell served as senior speechwriters for President Bush.

Scully says (and subsequently conﬁrmed by Frum 2007)

that the major speeches, including those from shortly after

9/11, were jointly written by all three on McConnell’s

computer. But with time, Michael Gerson presented the

story as if he did all the writing. Gerson’s account became

particularly well known as he emerged as a media star.

Scully, commenting on a prepublication draft of a book

about those White House years written by Gerson (2007)—

made available to Scully by Gerson’s publisher—publicly

disputed Gerson’s claims to single authorship: ‘‘without

fear of contradiction—because it’s all in the presidential

records—I can report here that Michael Gerson never

wrote a single speech by himself for President Bush. From

beginning to end, every notable speech, and a huge pro-

portion of the rest, was written by a team of speechwriters,

working in the same ofﬁce and on the same computer. Few

lines of note were written by Mike, and none at all that

come to mind from the post-9/11 addresses—not even ‘axis

of evil’’’ (Scully 2007

, p. 79).

Given the public nature of the claims and the availability

of digital records, one might expect that this would be

enough to constrain claims, but ‘‘the only time Mike

appeared disturbed by the approach of public attention was

during the preparation of the New York Times Magazine

account of the making of the joint-session speech, when the

magazine’s fact-checkers started calling to conﬁrm such

details as who wrote what. Fact-checkers of tomorrow will

ﬁnd somewhere in the presidential archives a frantic e-mail

from Mike in which a colleague was ordered not to take

any further calls from Times fact-checks’’ (Scully 2007,

p. 84).

Whatever the facts, this dispute offers a clear illustration

of the costs and rewards of taking unjustiﬁed credit.

‘‘Maybe you have brushed up against such people in your

own workplace. If so, you know that it is a peculiar vice,

this kind of credit hounding. One is left almost disoriented

Taking Credit

123

by the gall of it. It was amazing that a friend could carry on

like this in full view and still act as if nothing were out of

order. The sheer pettiness of such conduct served to repel

corrective action, because who wants to be drawn into little

games of guile and manipulation’’ (Scully 2007, p. 85)?

Scully notes that there ‘‘are rewards for such behavior, and

in Mike’s case the Washington establishment has raised

him up as one of its own—a status complete with a col-

umnist’s perch at The Washington Post. There is a down-

side, too, measured in the lost esteem of friends and in the

tainting of real gifts and achievement’’ (Scully 2007,

p. 79). Further, ‘‘when we are given credit for things we

didn’t do, or feel tempted to grab at underserved acclaim,

we show what we are made of’’ (Scully 2007, p. 87). Scully

concludes his account by saying that ‘‘a modest round of

merited applause is worth far more than a standing ovation

undeserved’’ (Scully 2007, p. 88).

At the other end of the spectrum is the anomalous case

of who solved the Poincare Conjecture, a legendary prob-

lem in topology (Gessen 2009; Nasar and Gruber 2006). In

2002, Grigory Perelman, a Russian mathematician, posted

a compressed solution to the problem on the Internet. The

compressed posting allowed another mathematician, John

Yau, to elaborate the solution; Yau claimed that the gaps in

Perelman’s solution were important to ﬁll before the con-

jecture could be considered solved. The record shows that

Yau did contribute to the solution and hence felt a sense of

psychological ownership that underpins his claim. The

anomaly is that Perelman has since declined to defend a

claim for credit and has refused two highly prestigious

international awards for his work—the Fields Medal in

2006 and the Clay Millennium Prize in 2010.

Credits, Audiences, and Ethics

‘‘Credit’’ and ‘‘taking credit’’ are terms used in ordinary

language. They can be ambiguous and create misunder-

standings because they are non-technical terms. To reduce

misunderstandings, we begin by deﬁning our constructs.

Further, the dependence on audiences needs to be

acknowledged, as does the relationship between taking

credit and business ethics.

Credits

‘‘Credit’’ has been part of the ﬁeld’s lexicon at least since

its use by the social psychologist Hollander (1958). He

deﬁned credit as ‘‘an accumulation of positively-disposed

impressions residing in the perceptions of relevant others’’

(p. 120). According to Hollander, candidates for emergent

leadership positions are more likely to be recognized as

legitimate leaders if they have built credits by

demonstrating competence and conforming to group norms

(the latter now re-conceptualized as showing ﬁdelity to the

group; see Stone and Cooper 2009). In the interests of

conceptual clarity and consistency, we follow Hollander by

deﬁning ‘‘credit’’ as recognition for contributions to a work

effort that is acknowledged by others.

An individual who takes credit is making a conscious

bid for an audience’s recognition that he or she has made a

positive contribution to a work effort.

To receive credit

means that others have acknowledged that the credit is

deserved. We refer to these others as ‘‘the audience.’’ No

credit exists until the audience recognizes the claim as

deserved. Burt (2004, p. 388) presents an equivalent view

about ideas: ‘‘An idea is as valuable as an audience is

willing to credit it with being.’’ Thus, an individual whose

bid for credit is successful (i.e., has been acknowledged by

an audience) is said to have received credit for his or her

work effort.

Audiences

The process of taking credit is interactive with an audience.

Audiences vary in their awareness of efforts and in their

sensitivity to the ways in which bids are made, just as

claimants vary in their awareness of audiences. A claimant

who makes a bid has the onus of demonstrating to a target

audience that his or her effort is worthwhile.

Some

claimants may give little thought to the audience’s reaction

because he or she may have a strong sense of psychological

ownership of a work activity and feel ﬁrmly connected to

an effort (Pierce et al. 2001). In this case, the claimant may

not consider the audience’s reactions when making a bid,

perhaps taking his or her credit-worthiness for granted.

Conversely, someone who wishes to take credit when their

contribution is not well known (or when the contribution

has been nil-to-marginal) might be particularly concerned

While there may be cases where credit is awarded prior to a

conscious bid being made (e.g., not noticing that someone has

credited the individual with a contribution, perhaps during a meeting

the individual did not attend) these are not cases of taking credit until

the claimant becomes aware that credit has been awarded. If the

individual receiving the credit then acknowledges it, then we would

regard the individual as having taken credit. The claiming here is

passive (although letting the audience’s perceptions stand is a

conscious act). This means that no credit is taken when credit is

awarded and the individual remains unaware that credit has been

awarded. We expect these situations are uncommon; as a result, we

focus on the more common (and the more ethically interesting) cases

where an individual exaggerates their contribution or just makes it up.

In these cases we regard the credit taking as conscious (and, in some

instances, calculative).

While the individual’s contribution must be seen as favorable, the

outcome need not be: an unsuccessful effort might be recognized as

credit-worthy in a losing cause. For consistency we use ‘‘work effort’’

and ‘‘contribution’’ throughout, rather than ‘‘outcome.’’

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

with the audience’s evaluation of the bid. In these latter

cases, the claimant may devote efforts to stage managing.

This dependence on an audience complicates the process

of getting credit. Much of the complexity arises from four

factors: the success of the bid is uncertain, the process may

be managed, audiences may award credit on grounds other

than contribution, and there may be multiple audiences.

First, making a bid for credit carries risk because a bid may

fail, perhaps because the audience has not noticed the

contribution. Even well-motivated audiences that intend to

be rational may have limited knowledge of the events,

constrained attention and truncated processing ability (i.e.,

audiences operate under conditions of bounded rationality;

Simon 1957). As a consequence, some efforts that deserve

credit are not noticed and the claimant does not get the

credit deserved. At a minimum this can leave an individual

feeling underappreciated. Other bids may fail because an

attentive audience feels the effort is insufﬁcient to warrant

credit or does not think the effort is meritorious. In either

case the bid fails. Discrepancies between an individual’s

claim for credit and the audience’s assessment of that claim

can create disputes that are risky for a claimant to pursue.

As with Scully, much of the room for disputes is created by

differences between what is known by an audience and

what is felt by contributors.

A second consequence of the dependence on an audi-

ence is the possibility of managing the process. Because

audiences are boundedly rational, claimants may be able to

manage an audience’s understanding. Solo efforts that are

public pose few difﬁculties for audiences: audiences at golf

tournaments do not waver in deciding that a shot deserves

applause. But communal efforts in private settings can

make it hard for audiences to sort out who contributed

what. Unlike property that can be physically possessed or

publically represented to prove title (e.g., share certiﬁcates,

deeds), the communal efforts of many organizational par-

ticipants make it hard to adjudicate bids. Work efforts are

frequently joint and establishing sufﬁcient connectedness

to claim sole or major credit may be both difﬁcult and

risky; difﬁcult because efforts are multiparty and risky

because cooperation from wronged others may be needed

in the future. This provides an opening for the skillful use

of impression management, selective disclosure of infor-

mation, misrepresentation, and opportunistic behavior.

Third, audiences socially construct the criteria for

awarding credit, some of which may not be merit based.

When credit is awarded on criteria such as place in the

hierarchy, the resulting distribution of credit is unlikely to

be seen by all as equitable, particularly by those with less

power. When this happens—e.g., when a favored individ-

ual receives a promotion for a work effort with which he or

she had little connection—issues of ethics arise, even if the

promotion is justiﬁed by a widely acknowledged power-

based logic of the organization. In such cases, actors—

including senior executives—can proudly lay claim to the

work efforts of others, including subordinates and col-

leagues. This is a reminder that substantial differences can

exist between moral codes inside and outside the organi-

zation, one highlighted in Jackall’s (1988, p. 6, emphasis in

the original) quote from a former executive in a large ﬁrm:

‘‘what is right in the corporation is not what is right in a

man’s home or his church. What is right in the corporation

is what the guy above you wants from you. That’s what

morality is in the corporation.’’

Fourth, audiences can be multiple and heterogeneous,

allowing claims for credit to be evaluated using quite dif-

ferent criteria and weights. As a result, peer and subordi-

nate resentments can co-exist with superior-granted credit.

Peers and subordinates may know more than do superiors

about who did what. This provides ample room for feelings

of antipathy towards the recipient of credit and its grantors.

Peers may feel resentment because superiors have unfairly

favored the credit recipient and subordinates may come to

see the recipient as untrustworthy, someone to be avoided

and worked around.

Ethics

Taking credit for one’s work activity is ethically unprob-

lematic when the credit is justiﬁed (again, the credit taken

matches the contribution to the work activity) and defen-

sible (again, is acceptable to civil society). Much of our

analysis focuses on the ethically problematic situation of

credit being claimed when there is insufﬁcient entitlement.

It is important that individuals be able to claim credit for

their contributions within the workplace so that they can

establish a sense of competence and maintain a positive

workplace identity. Even here the claiming process can be

problematic for those who are entitled to credit, since

normative or political factors within the organization may

affect a claim for credit. For example, two individuals in a

team of ﬁve may have done the work but be compelled to

share credit with three laggards because of the organiza-

tion’s normative environment.

Our starting point of trying to understand why and when

credit is claimed is equally relevant for justiﬁed and

unjustiﬁed claims. Lesser ethical issues arise when those

who are entitled to credit are unable to take credit, either

because they are not motivated to do so, are uneasy with

the risk, uncomfortable with the self-promotion involved or

are prevented from doing so by structures and processes

within the organization. Ethical issues regarding credit

most often arise inside organizations when the credit taken

is unjustiﬁed—the claim is larger than what is warranted by

one’s contributions, as with Scully’s account of Gerson’s

credit taking. These unjustiﬁed claims are possible for a

Taking Credit

123

variety of reasons. Causality can be ambiguous because

multiple contributions (and contributors) make for imper-

fect judgments of which ones matter most. Audiences can

be naı

ve, only partially engaged, boundedly rational,

allowing a claimant to frame and stage manage. Egocentric

biases can be a thumb on the scale (Bazerman 2006;

Mezulis et al. 2004; Miller and Ross 1975), causing

potential claimant’s to overvalue their contribution. In

addition, the internal logic within organizations may value

and reward behaviors that are not ethical and lead to the

acceptance of claims that are based on power and position

(Jackall 1988).

In the following discussion, we draw on a number of

psychological processes that can play a role in the ethics of

claiming credit. The recognition of cognitive biases and

other similar psychological processes has led to the notion

that individuals are bounded ethically (De Cremer et al.

2010; Banaji et al. 2003; Chugh et al. 2005). Just as

boundedly rational individuals may intend to be rational

but operate under cognitive and attention constraints

(Simon 1957), so may individuals intend to be ethical but

be constrained—both psychologically and cognitively—in

their ability to make ethical decisions. As a result, the

decision to make a claim for credit may be evaluated by a

boundedly ethical individual predominantly on its proba-

bility of success, with less attention paid to the ethics of

making the claim. Ethically bounded individuals may then

see themselves as ethical but fail to recognize that they are

acting unethically. As a result, processes may allow those

who make unjustiﬁed claims to credit to reduce their eth-

ical awareness to the point that they see themselves as

behaving ethically (or at least ease any ethical discomfort

by facilitating rationalization through a process of self-

deception).

The latter possibility is consistent with Tenbrunsel and

Messick’s (2004, p. 204) notion that ‘‘psychological pro-

cesses fade the ‘‘ethics’’ from an ethical dilemma,’’ thereby

facilitating a reframing process that abets rationalization.

An individual for whom the ethical dimensions have faded

will have difﬁculty seeing the ethical aspects, while an

individual with a sense of moral license can acknowledge

the act as wrongful but (ironically) feel that he or she can

successfully withstand the negative consequences because

of his or her prior good behavior (cf. Shapiro et al. 2011).

This process is nicely captured by Bazerman et al. (1997,

p. 91): ‘‘When presented with identical information, indi-

vidual perceptions of a situation differ dramatically

depending on one’s role in the situation. People ﬁrst

determine their preference for a certain outcome on the

basis of self-interest and then justify this preference on the

basis of fairness by changing the importance of attributes

affecting what is fair.’’ Thus, a claimant for credit who is

boundedly ethical (or for whom the ethical dimension of

making a claim for credit has faded) understands that they

are making a claim for credit but the ethical dimensions of

making that claim have disappeared or diminished.

Research on moral licensing points to a more calculative

view of the process. The core idea is that actions in one’s

past allow one to do things that would normally be dis-

crediting, but because of past good behavior the trans-

gression is not discrediting (Miller and Effron 2010).

Miller and Effron suggest that one basis for avoiding dis-

credit is Hollander’s (1958) notion of idiosyncratic credits.

An individual holding these credits can subsequently

deviate from group norms without being discredited.

Merritt et al. (2010) have applied the notion to moral sit-

uations and Merritt et al. (2012) have shown that strate-

gically pursuing one’s moral credentials can allow an

individual to manage how their morally dubious behavior

is seen. Drawing on this view, an individual might make a

claim for credit—even though they are not entitled—when

they feel their past behavior will allow them to transgress

without harming their reputation. A claimant who is cal-

culating might reason that their unjustiﬁed claim will

succeed without challenge or, if challenged, the claimant’s

prior meritorious behavior will uphold their claim to credit.

The preceding discussion points to the ease with which

ethical issues can arise when claims for credit are made.

Unjustiﬁed claims for credit may be made by those who are

unethical and opportunistic, but other factors can contribute

to the process. Organizational cultures may allow powerful

individuals to appropriate credit, cognitive biases can tilt

cognitive processes towards the claimant, boundedly ethi-

cal thinking can constrain perspective, ethical aspects can

fade and moral licensing may allow actors to draw on

previous good deeds to permit present transgressions.

These are all troubling and can easily lead to over-claiming

credit.

Summary

We use ‘‘credit taking’’ to refer to an act in which an

individual makes a bid for credit. We use ‘‘credit giving’’

to refer to an audience’s acknowledgement that the credit

claimed is deserved. ‘‘Credit’’ means that an audience has

recognized a claim as deserved. An individual can make a

bid (take credit) but no credit exists until an audience has

given credit to the credit taker. Thus, credit exists when an

audience agrees with a claim (or when an audience gives

credit without being asked); there is no credit if an audi-

ence disagrees with a claim for credit. Alternatively put,

credit exists when there is convergence between what the

credit seeker justiﬁably claims and what the audience

acknowledges; when there is divergence there is no credit.

Because audiences operate under conditions of bounded

rationality, some bids are unfairly rejected (recognition is

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

deserved but withheld) while others are unfairly accepted

(recognition is undeserved but awarded). Ethical issues

arise when the credit taken exceeds what is justiﬁed by the

contribution and when the work efforts are not acceptable

to civil society.

A Model of the Credit-Taking Process

Recent surveys of US and Canadian employees report that

many organization members have had credit stolen from

them in the previous year (or had witnessed the taking of

unjustiﬁed credit). Percentages ranged from 23 of

employees of US organizations to 58 of Canadian

employees who saw others taking credit for their work

(McGinn 2009) and the 61 of Canadian human resource

managers who felt leaders in their organizations took too

much credit (Immen 2010). Unjustiﬁed credit taking is

apparently common enough in our own ﬁeld to have pro-

vided an adequate sample for a study of disputes about

credit among co-authors of articles published in our leading

journals (Floyd et al. 1994). The latter study points to the

competing roles of power, status, merit and collegiality in

determining the order of names.

The ethics of taking credit for work done by others has

received some attention from academic researchers, pri-

marily as an item in a list of unethical behaviors. For

example, Donaldson (1996, p. 53) noted that ‘‘stealing

credit from a subordinate is nearly an unpardonable sin,’’ a

statement supported in several cross-national studies (see,

e.g., McDonald and Zepp 1988; Metha and Kau 1984).

Taking credit for the work of peers has similarly been

viewed as unethical: in a study of Australian and South

African managers, Abratt et al. (1992) found that taking

credit for the work of peers was seen as highly unethical.

Taking credit for work done by others has also been

regarded as a tactic for self-promotion (Dyke 1990) and for

impression management (Higgins and Judge 2004;

Schlenker 1980).

While recognizing that taking credit has multiple uses,

we regard taking credit as an overlooked everyday phe-

nomenon that merits attention for its own sake. It has

antecedents—psychological, situational and personality—

and consequences—emotional, behavioral and organiza-

tional—that are of importance for understanding organi-

zational behavior. Recent work by Pierce et al. (2001)on

psychological ownership, Brown et al. (2005) on territori-

ality and Bazerman (2006) and others (e.g., Epley and

Caruso 2004; Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004) on decision

making provide constructs that may be useful for under-

standing credit taking, as does the application of the fraud

triangle in forensic accounting (Cressey 1953) and the

corrosive effects of narcissism in organizations (Chatterjee

and Hambrick 2007).

Our opening paragraphs point to the myriad ways in

which credit can be taken—from the active and explicit to

the passive and implicit. The routes travelled to take credit,

and the factors that affect the likelihood of credit taking,

are similarly varied. In the interest of coherence and trac-

tability, we focus on ﬁve constructs that we believe are

useful for understanding credit taking: psychological

ownership, motive, opportunity, the ability to rationalize

and narcissism. We expect the ﬁrst four produce main

effects and the ﬁfth acts as a moderator. Figure 1 represents

our understanding of the credit-taking process. It is a

heuristic device intended to organize the panoply of claims.

We draw on these constructs to explain four kinds of bids

that we believe are the routes most often travelled by those

Fig. 1 Four paths to claiming credit

Taking Credit

123

who take credit at work: the credit claimed matches the

contribution, the credit claimed exceeds the contribution,

the claim is justiﬁed and strategically made after some

delay and no contribution is made but credit is claimed. We

use the four paths (Justiﬁed, Unjustiﬁed, Strategic, and

Imagined) as exemplars of credit taking. They are not

exhaustive of the domain since many gradations exist

between them. They are presented as pure types meant to

help make sense of a rich domain.

The ﬁrst path, Path J (for Justiﬁed) represents the sim-

plest case: a contribution is made, feelings of territoriality

and psychological ownership are experienced and a justi-

ﬁed claim for credit is asserted (the claim equals the con-

tribution). Claims on this path are not calculative and are

driven by a sense of ownership of the work effort: we wrote

this manuscript, acknowledged the contributions of others

and submitted it with our names on it. Path J raises no

ethical issues (and is also the least interesting of the four

paths).

Claims that follow Path U (for Unjustiﬁed) are calcu-

lative and opportunistic: a contribution is made, psycho-

logical ownership of the work effort is experienced, and

then motive, opportunity, the ability to rationalize and

narcissism can each enable the making of an unjustiﬁed

claim (the claim exceeds the contribution). It is the one

taken by those who seek to exaggerate their contribution,

as in Michael Gerson’s claim to sole authorship. The eth-

ical issue is evident: the claimant is bidding for more than

is deserved, denying others their due.

Path S (for Strategic) is a variant on the justiﬁed path: a

contribution is made, feelings of territoriality and psycho-

logical ownership are experienced, a calculation is made

about opportunity—most often about whether something is

enough of a contribution and whether this is the right time

and setting to make a claim—and, after some delay, a

justiﬁed claim for credit is made (again, the claim equals

the contribution). What differentiates the Strategic from the

Justiﬁed path is that there is a calculative element to the

Strategic path: claimants are sensitive to situational factors

about thresholds, time, and place. A contributor to a work

effort may experience a strong sense of psychological

ownership of the effort yet not make a claim for credit;

similarly, the absence of a claim may be a response to the

claimant’s recognition that a normative threshold—what is

enough of a contribution to warrant making a claim, or

what is an appropriate time or place to do so—ﬁrst needs to

be reached. Further, someone who has done all the work on

a project may not explicitly claim credit because to do so

violates accepted anti-self-promotion norms of the occu-

pation or organization (Dyke 1990). Mathew Scully is an

example of someone who follows this route. He did not

make a claim for credit until Michael Gerson had done so,

perhaps because Scully was sensitive to the self-effacing

norms of the speechwriting profession. While these kinds

of claims, when made, are not ethically problematic, an

ethical issue does arise if a potential claimant, one who is

sensitive to normative constraints, is unable to claim credit

because an appropriate opportunity does not arise: the

potential claimant foregoes the right to credit that is

deserved.

Path I (for Imagined) is the route taken by those who

take egregiously unjustiﬁed credit: the credit taker has

made no contribution to the work effort yet claims credit

for it. It is the most ethically troubling path: it is a con-

scious act made without a conscience. Individuals on this

path may understand that, on the basis of effort, they are

not entitled to claim credit but, responding to motive,

opportunity, the ability to rationalize and narcissism, feel

that, given factors such as moral license, the overweening

sense of deservingness, an organization’s normative envi-

ronment that favors the powerful, an audience’s ignorance

or the claimant’s false memory, they can advance a claim

for credit.

The four paths are most readily distinguishable on two

factors: ﬁrst, the match between the contribution and the

claim; and two, the degree of attention to the environment.

With regard to the match, the four paths differ in the

relationship between claim and contribution: claim

= contribution (Paths J and S), claim [ contribution (Path

U) and claim but no contribution (Path I). Second, claim-

ants on the four paths differ in their attention to the envi-

ronment. Those who follow Path J are attentive to their

contribution but are insensitive to the environment.

Claimants on Path U take advantage of an environment that

may allow them to exaggerate their claim, perhaps because

the audience is inattentive or grants them moral license to

do so. Those on Path S are sensitive to environmental

norms about thresholds, time and place, while claimants on

Path I rely on an amoral environment or the audience’s

ignorance to make their claim.

Despite their conceptual distinctiveness, the four paths

may not be readily distinguishable by an audience,

particularly audiences that are inattentive. As a result,

audiences may accept or reject a claim without appre-

ciating the path the claimant has travelled in making a

claim. One result is that sometimes credit is granted

when it is not deserved. Asymmetric risks are apparent

on each of these paths. A claimant on Path J may

deserve credit but be thought of as grasping if the claim

was presented at the wrong time or in a heavy-handed

way. Claimants travelling Path U risk ridicule and denial

of credit. Those on Path S who miscalculate the

threshold, timing or place may be scorned, while those

on Path I risk being called on it by an incensed col-

league who knows that the claimant’s contribution was

non-existent.

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

Psychological Ownership

We begin our theoretical development by thinking of credit

taking as a deliberate act of territoriality that is rooted in

feelings of psychological ownership (although the two can

be difﬁcult to distinguish: see Avey et al. 2009). Pierce

et al. (2001, p. 299) note that ‘‘although ownership is

generally experienced toward an object, it can also be felt

toward non-physical identities, such as ideas, artistic cre-

ations and other people.’’ Some of the early work on the

concept of psychological ownership has focused on feel-

ings of ownership towards the organization and its impact

on members (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004; Avey et al.

2009). Our focus is on feelings of ownership of work

efforts that are based on an individual’s contribution. These

feelings of ownership are not arrived at in a vacuum;

rather, they are products of a sensemaking process (Weick

1995) in which an individual comes to understand that a

contribution is his or hers. In making a claim for credit, an

individual is implicitly asking an audience to recognize and

conﬁrm the legitimacy of his or her feelings of ownership.

Psychological ownership plays a role on Paths J, U, and S

of our model. On Path J, it is the major explanatory vari-

able in deciding whether or not to make a claim, while on

Paths U and S it forms part of the process; claims made on

Path I are not rooted in psychological ownership.

Pierce et al. (2001), tracing the idea that we own our

work effort (and its products) back to Locke (1690), argue

that psychological ownership fulﬁlls a need for efﬁcacy

and self-identity. In economic systems that deﬁne indi-

vidual worth in terms of the ability to create and trade work

product (Marx 1847), the inability to be associated with

one’s work effort is likely to be alienating and damaging to

an individual’s sense of self-esteem and workplace credi-

bility. Separating someone from his or her labor, including

its attendant recognition and rewards (both reputational and

economic) is socially undermining (Duffy et al. 2002),

interferes with the individual’s right to ownership of their

work and can leave the individual feeling diminished,

powerless, unjustly treated (and sometimes speechless).

Feelings of territoriality—either as part of psychological

ownership or as a result of it—may explain credit taking

when the claim is justiﬁed by the contribution (completely,

as on Path J, and partially, as on Path S). In highlighting the

behavioral aspects of territoriality in organizations, Brown

et al. (2005, p. 580) propose that ‘‘the stronger an indi-

vidual’s psychological ownership of an object, the greater

the likelihood he or she will engage in territorial behavior

towards the object.’’ More recently, Brown and Robinson

(2011) have suggested that territorial infringements reli-

ably lead to strong emotional and behavioral reactions,

such as anger and defensiveness. Further, Avey et al.

(2009) see territoriality as a central part of the feeling of

psychological ownership and include it in their deﬁnition

of psychological ownership. We see the claiming of credit

as one form of territorial behavior.

The sense of psychological ownership and feelings of

territoriality drive the claiming on Path J. It may not be a

conscious process in which all relevant factors are con-

sidered. Rather, a sense of ownership is experienced and a

claim is made. This is most likely to occur in situations

where the claimant is the sole or the most substantial

contributor to a work effort. Strong feelings of territoriality

are less likely when the claimant understands that the effort

is joint and only seeks to have their individual contribution

acknowledged.

Claims for credit that arise from feelings of psycho-

logical ownership can also travel along Paths U and S. Path

S is calculative in the sense that the claimant pays attention

to the threshold, location and timing aspects of the

opportunity. The claims made on Path S are more innocent

than those made on Path U since there is a match between

contribution and claim on Path S. Path U is the most cal-

culative path, with a wide range of factors being considered

before a claim is made. Feelings of psychological owner-

ship are warranted, since a contribution was made, but the

claimant exaggerates the contribution and overstates the

claim. The Gerson/Scully example can be seen as just such

a case of an exaggerated claim: Gerson said that he wrote

the President’s speeches because he did write some of

them. Psychological ownership (as well as motive, oppor-

tunity, the ability to rationalize and narcissism) may have

led Gerson to take more credit than was warranted by his

contribution. Adding to this may be psychological and

cognitive biases that invite the claimant to overweight the

value of their contribution. Bounded ethicality (Banaji

et al. 2003) or moral fading (Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004)

can aid the rationalization (to oneself) of the unjustiﬁed

claims.

The starting point for claimants on Paths U and S is an

assessment of their contribution to a work effort. As with

claims made on Path J, Strategic claims are unbiased, while

the assessments made on Path U may be biased. One’s own

contributions may be more readily available in memory

than are those of others, providing an easy entry for the

self-serving biases of unjustiﬁed claims (cf. Banaji et al.

2003; Bazerman 2006; Mezulis et al. 2004). A palpable

sense of one’s own effort, coupled with an incomplete

awareness of the contributions of others, may enhance

feelings of psychological ownership that then can be

elaborated upon to produce claims for credit beyond what

is warranted. A claimant may feel their claim is justiﬁed

but, given the presence of bias, their claim for credit

overreaches that which is justiﬁed by their actual contri-

bution. Caruso et al. (2006) offer a straightforward cogni-

tive availability explanation for how these biased claims

Taking Credit

123

may start: self-serving biases begin with cognitive errors

that lead to the over-taking of credit, even when the

assessor is trying to fairly distribute credit between self and

others. This suggests that the initial stage can be an inno-

cent (cognitive) foot in the door, with the credit taker

unaware that he or she has claimed an exaggerated role in

the process. Caruso et al. (2006) attribute such behavior to

individuals paying greater attention to their own contribu-

tions (as well as being motivated to see themselves in a

favorable light). Caruso et al. (2006) cite the historical case

of Nobel Prize winners Frederick Banting and John Ma-

cLeod, each of whom downplayed the other’s role in the

discovery of insulin to magnify his own role. Viewing

speechwriting through this cognitive lens, Gerson simply

may have been more aware of his own work than those of

Scully and McConnell.

Thus, when we remember our own contributions—fre-

quently with the pride that accompanies recollection of

hard work in the face of adversity—it can be easy to see the

input of others as lesser, worthy of only a cursory nod. As a

consequence, the sense of psychological ownership may be

visceral for the claimant. This sense of psychological

ownership can then grow through self-serving biases in

which contributors make internal attributions (e.g., hard

work) while making external attributions for the contribu-

tions of others (e.g., luck), particularly in situations in

which an actor feels a threat to his or her identity

(Campbell and Sedikides 1999). In examining when indi-

viduals avoid some of the pitfalls associated with self-

serving bias, Campbell and Sedikides (1999) note that

participants did not deny all responsibility for failure but

did seek to take a little more credit than was justiﬁed when

they were successful. The Campbell and Sedikides (1999)

ﬁnding also suggests that while the bias may fade, it does

not eliminate the moral dimension of credit taking.

Friend (2003) provides evidence from the movie

industry that supports the Bazerman (2006) and Campbell

and Sedikides (1999) accounts of self-serving biases. He

notes that screenwriters are prone to embellishing their

claims to credit for screenplays (our Path U) and view

themselves as the wronged major contributors—perhaps

one reason that a third of the ﬁlms produced annually in the

US go to the Screenwriter’s Guild for adjudication of

screenwriting credit. Those who lose in these credit con-

tests can feel an acute loss of what is due them when

arbitrators’ decisions about who wrote what separates them

from what they feel is their work.

Feelings of psychological ownership play no role on

Path I. It can be difﬁcult to understand the audacious

claims for credit made by individuals who contributed

nothing. A likely explanation on this path is that feelings

of ownership—based on effort and contribution—are

replaced by a sense of entitlement—based on a normative

environment—that redistributes credit. Jackall (1988)

provides an example of organizations distributing credit on

the basis of rank and power, rather than effort. Some

understanding of how a sense of ownership can arise in the

face of no contribution may be provided by research on

elaborated imagination and source monitoring (see, e.g.,

Garry et al. 1996; Thomas et al. 2003). Originally devel-

oped to explain false memory effects regarding sexual

abuse, recent work by Sharman and Calacouris (2010) has

shown that when individuals think about an achievement-

related activity they can come to believe that they actually

performed the activity. In this way, individuals may come

to feel that they have contributed to a work activity when

all they have done is thought about what they could do. An

equivalent idea has been attributed to author Farley Mowat:

‘‘I have no difﬁculty remembering what should have hap-

pened.’’ Such memories of past thoughts can endure and

lead individuals to think that they should be credited for

doing things they have only thought about doing.

Building on this work, we expect that the process of

psychological ownership will lead individuals to both

claim credit for their work, as in a claim by someone who

is responsible for a work effort (Path J), Gerson’s exag-

gerated claim (Path U), and defend against rival claims

asserted by others, as in Scully’s response to Gerson (Path

S), as well as those who have only imagined their contri-

bution (Path I). Perelman’s lack of motivation to assert a

claim (and to contest Yau’s claim) is an exception in search

of an explanation. One possibility is that individuals with a

stronger sense of identity are less interested in asserting

claims: being certain about whom you are and what you

have done may lessen the motivation to make a territorial

claim.

Proposition 1 The stronger an individual’s psychologi-

cal ownership of a work effort, the more likely the indi-

vidual will make and defend a claim for credit.

Some features of the work effort may increase the sense

of psychological ownership on all four paths. Here, we

brieﬂy identify three: the distinctiveness and size of the

contributions and the normative contexts in which such

feelings develop. Distinctive contributions may increase

psychological ownership because they represent strong

expressions of the self, the uniqueness of the individual.

Those behaviors that are unique to us are what differentiate

us from others, thus helping to create our distinctive

identity (Brewer

1991). Distinctive contributions need not

be large: a low level of effort can produce a contribution

that is a strong expression of self. A speech writer may

effortlessly coin a phrase that later takes on great signiﬁ-

cance (e.g., ‘‘Axis of evil’’). The speech writer may feel a

strong sense of psychological attachment to the words,

even though the size of the investment may have been

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

slight. Thus, Yau points out the unique ways in which he

contributed to solving the Poincaire Conjecture and

screenwriters point to the particularly clever dialogue they

inserted into the ﬁnal screenplay (Friend 2003).

Proposition 1a The more distinct an individual’s con-

tribution to a work effort, the stronger an individual’s

psychological ownership of a work effort.

A second factor that is likely to affect psychological

ownership is the size of the contribution. Larger contri-

butions are likely to increase an individual’s identiﬁcation

with a work effort, seeing the work activity as one’s own,

thereby increasing the sense of entitlement to recognition

from others. This is consistent with Pierce et al.’s (2001)

proposition that the greater the individual employee’s

investment in a target, the greater the ownership felt toward

the target. Size can have an effect that is independent of

distinctiveness simply because it is difﬁcult to abandon

something in which one is heavily invested. This is con-

sistent with the general ﬁnding that the more one invests (in

an effort, project, idea, cause) the more an individual

(team, organization, state) comes to identify with it (Staw

and Ross 1987). Concomitantly, small contributions may

temper an actor’s willingness to seek credit from an audi-

ence, since seeking credit for small efforts can bring scorn

or ridicule if the individual is seen as petty (McGinn 2009),

grasping and insufﬁciently team-oriented, as in Scully’s

view of Gerson.

Thus, efforts may need to reach a quantitative threshold

before credit is sought without sullying one’s reputation,

whether the claimant is following Path J, U, or S. Such

contributions can be large in either an absolute or relative

sense. Completing 90 % of a project makes that contribu-

tion large in an absolute sense whereas doing more than

others on a team makes the contribution large relative to

the contributions of others. The size of the contribution will

not always be determined by the time invested. Obtaining

the funding necessary for a project may not have taken the

most time but may have been the key to proceeding on the

project.

Proposition 1b The larger an individual’s contribution

to a work effort, the stronger an individual’s psychological

ownership of a work effort.

Feelings of psychological ownership may be strength-

ened when the normative context supports such feelings.

The normative environment will be supportive of feelings

of psychological ownership when it encourages individuals

to be associated with their work effort, accepts justiﬁed

claims to ownership, and rewards claimants for their

accomplishment. When the context is not supportive, cri-

teria other than effort and accomplishment may determine

who is associated with a contribution and the subsequent

rewards. In these circumstances, wronged parties have the

choice of voicing their displeasure (or waiting their turn

using whatever set of criteria the organization is using to

determine creditable contributions). The latter is nicely

captured by Jackall (1988, p. 21): ‘‘A subordinate whose

ideas are appropriated is expected to be a good sport about

the matter; not to balk at so being used is one attribute of

the good team player.’’

In considering entitlement to credit, feelings of psy-

chological ownership can be important but because credit

is socially constructed, feelings of psychological ownership

are likely to be strengthened when the normative context in

which they are nurtured supports these feelings (and con-

strained when the context is unsupportive). An individual

who feels a strong sense of psychological ownership and is

supported by a normative environment that provides psy-

chological safety (Edmondson 1999) may be more likely to

advance a claim for credit than would be true for an indi-

vidual who works in a normative environment where

power—rather than contribution—provides entitlement to

credit.

Proposition 1c The more supportive the normative con-

text, the stronger an individual’s psychological ownership

of a work effort.

The Fraud Triangle

While psychological ownership is the primary explanatory

variable for credit claims that follow Path J and plays an

important role on Path S, psychological ownership pro-

vides only a partial explanation for the claims that follow

Path U (and it provides no help in understanding

claims that follow Path I). We draw on the fraud triangle

(Cressey 1953; Murphy and Dacin 2011; Public Company

Accounting Oversight Board 2005) to help explain the

credit-taking behavior of those who make claims for credit

that follow Path U and the wholly fabricated claims made

on Path I. The fraud triangle was developed within forensic

accounting as a tool to help narrow the ﬁeld of suspects

who may have taken tangible assets in the workplace.

Tangible assets are clearly owned and can be identiﬁed

since there are paper trails, serial numbers and the like.

Investigators begin by looking for those who had the

motive and opportunity to commit fraud and a way of

explaining the act to themselves. In comparison with tan-

gible assets, the intangible and socially constructed nature

of credit can provide even more tempting possibilities for

those who want to claim responsibility for a work effort.

Former Enron executive Sherron Watkins has drawn on

the framework of the fraud triangle to help explain the

unethical behavior at Enron before the fall. Pressures to

enhance ﬁnancial results provided the motive to report that

Taking Credit

123

earning’s goals had been achieved, the plasticity of

accounting rules provided ample opportunity for burying

ﬁnancial details, and the recourse to technically correct

accounting practices provided the room to rationalize the

misrepresentation (Beenen and Pinto 2009). Watkins

asserts that together these encouraged corrupt behaviors

(and helped produce the demise of Enron).

Building on this perspective, we argue that motive,

opportunity, and the ability to rationalize may provide a

useful way of thinking about credit taking on Paths U and I.

The fraud triangle argues that all the three components

must be present for fraud to occur: the presence of one

factor alone would not be sufﬁcient to identify a suspect.

Translating literally, this argues for a three-way interaction

between motive, opportunity, and the ability to rationalize.

But unlike fraud, which does not rely on an audience for

possession, we regard each of the three sides of the triangle

as a potential foundation for claiming credit, with their

conjunction making claims even more likely.

Motive

One base of the fraud triangle is motive, where motive

refers to the incentives that exist for making a claim. For

forensic accountants, motive serves as a situational clue in

fraud investigations that may help identify who would

beneﬁt from misrepresentation or theft. For credit-seeking

behavior, the motives include the standard list of organi-

zational incentives: enhanced reputations, better perfor-

mance evaluations, larger bonus pay, faster promotions,

and future opportunities. Those who have more credits may

have a better chance to make a positive impression and are

given greater rewards (Crant and Bateman 1993). Accu-

mulating credits may also provide an individual with the

right to deviate from group norms (Hollander 1958)by

giving those with moral credits a sense of license or enti-

tlement that permits a transgression to be forgiven because

of past good deeds (Miller and Effron 2010). Further,

credits may allow greater risk taking, protection from

failure, and, as recently reported by Shapiro et al. (2011),

make it possible for leaders to violate organizational

norms, including taking credit for the accomplishments of

others.

Perelman offers an interesting example of someone who

was not motivated to take credit for his solution to the

Poincaire Conjecture. He may be thought of as a proto-

typical example of someone who could follow Path J, given

the longstanding challenge presented by the Poincaire

Conjecture to mathematicians, the originality of his solu-

tion and the concomitant sense of psychological ownership.

Despite this he did not follow Path J and make a claim, nor

did he press a claim along Path S even when there was

substantial opportunity to do so.

In contrast, those who make exaggerated claims along

Path U may do so because of the rewards that can ﬂow

from accumulating credits. On Path I, the possibility of

being rewarded may increase the desire to make a claim

and encourages the claimant to accept the risks that a claim

based on opportunism presents. Thus, our base proposition

is that those who have a stronger incentive to make a claim

may be more likely to make claims.

Proposition 2 The greater the motivation to make a

claim, the more likely the individual will make and defend

a claim for credit.

Four factors may increase the motivation to make a

claim: the valence of the outcome, the presence of indi-

vidual-based reward systems, deadlines for evaluation, and

spoiled reputations. Each represents temptations that some

organization members may ﬁnd difﬁcult to resist (cf. Dunn

and Schweitzer 2005). First, the motivation to make and

defend a claim for credit may be stronger when the claim is

expected to be successful and to lead to formal rewards that

are highly valued. Put differently, the motivation to take

credit may be lower when the rewards are less attractive.

This is consistent with the classic motivational effects of

more positively valenced rewards: the more attractive the

reward the more likely the behavior (Vroom 1964). Thus,

Gerson and Yau saw public recognition as something of

value for their reputations and asserted their claims.

Proposition 2a The more favorable the expected reward,

the greater the motive to take credit.

An organization’s formal reward system is likely to

inﬂuence an individual’s decision to take credit. Organi-

zations that operate career tournaments—such as Enron’s

‘‘rank and yank’’ evaluation system described by Watkins,

Beenen and Pinto (2009)—can put strong performance

pressures on individuals, thereby increasing the likelihood

that individuals will claim credit to advance (or survive).

Reputational enhancement, getting the attention of gate-

keepers, and the attraction of scarce rewards all create

pressures to be associated with valued organizational

efforts. Thus, screenwriters who compete in reputational

tournaments—in which accumulating (literal) screenwrit-

ing credits for successful movies increases the chances that

they will be asked to work on future projects (Bielby and

Bielby 1999)—are motivated to make claims or to chal-

lenge claims made by others.

Reward systems that are based on individual results may

be particularly likely to encourage aggressive credit

claiming. This is especially problematic when there is a

mismatch between the unit of the work activity and the

unit of rewards (e.g., when the work is team based and

the rewards are individual based; cf. Colquitt et al. 2001).

Tofﬂer (2003) provides an example of one such

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

dysfunctional reward system that was in place during the

waning days of Arthur Anderson. When she was working

there in ethical consulting, the reward system was based on

four components—people management, quality, thought

leadership and ﬁnancial performance—which she charac-

terized as ‘‘three pebbles and a bolder’’ (p. 105). She

quickly learned to ignore the ﬁrst three after she saw that

generating fees was the only one that was rewarded.

Proposition 2b The more the reward system emphasizes

individual results, the greater the motive to take credit.

There may be critical times in individual-based reward

systems when individuals choose to make claims, such as

just before important milestones. Borrowing from Bolino’s

(1999) analysis of citizenship behaviors that are timed for

impression management purposes, we expect that motiva-

tion to claim credit will be greater when critical evaluation

moments approach (e.g., performance reviews, promotion

decisions). Employees are likely to appreciate the potential

beneﬁts of emphasizing accomplishments that have hap-

pened recently and strategically time their efforts to create

favorable impressions. Performance reviews become part

of the individual’s career narrative and having one’s efforts

acknowledged in a formal review or a promotion

announcement can help crystallize a previously underde-

ﬁned reputation.

Proposition 2c The nearer the deadline for evaluation,

the greater the motive to take credit.

Finally, individuals whose reputations have suffered

may be especially likely to make claims for credit in an

attempt to rebuild their images. When past deeds have

eroded the way in which an individual is seen, the indi-

vidual (or allies) may be particularly motivated to repair

their reputation by associating the individual with merito-

rious efforts. Those who have been scapegoated or whose

self-esteem has been threatened by a recent failure may

be highly motivated to do things that will burnish their

reputations (cf. Bolino 1999; Boeker 1992; Cialdini et al.

1976).

Proposition 2d The higher the perceived need to restore

one’s reputation, the greater the motive to take credit.

Opportunity

Opportunity represents a second situational factor that

affects the likelihood that credit will be claimed and

defended. In ordinary language ‘‘opportunity’’ refers to

chance, occasion, circumstance, or opening to do some-

thing, a usage that is consistent with its use in the orga-

nizational literature (see, e.g., Barsness et al. 2005; Kanter

1977, Chap. 6; Stevenson and Greenberg 2000). This is the

sense of opportunity to which those following Path S are

sensitive: is this enough of a contribution, is the timing

right and should I make a claim now? But in the language

of the fraud triangle, particularly for ﬁnancial forensic

investigators, ‘‘opportunity’’ means access to assets in the

absence of control mechanisms such as regular audits,

proper oversight, dual signing authority or tight inventory

control. It is in this sense that opportunity forms a second

side of the fraud triangle, one that applies to Paths U and I.

Opportunity also plays a role on Path S, but on this path,

opportunity refers to the opening to make a claim that is

normatively appropriate.

A letter submitted to a business advice columnist (Pin-

ker 2005) provides an example of how opportunity can

arise in a work setting (and the adroit ways in which effort

can be framed). Janet, an elementary school teacher, sug-

gested to her principal that a Science Day be organized for

senior students. The principal was initially against the idea

but agreed to the proposal after being pressed by Janet.

Janet organized and supported student projects and arran-

ged for help from local industries and colleges. She kept

parents updated and actively promoted the event to them in

(unsigned) notes home. On the day of the Science Fair, the

principal welcomed the parents and spoke of how hard the

school had worked to put on the fair, her hopes of making

it an annual event, and her gratitude for the community

support. The principal neither mentioned Janet in her

speech nor did she give Janet the opportunity to address the

parents.

The day was highly successful. Several parents wrote

the school expressing their thanks for the day, noting how

much their children had gotten out of being involved in the

Science Day. The principal then put together a package of

these letters and forwarded them to her direct supervisor at

the board of education. The supervisor’s performance

review of the principal praised the principal for her inno-

vative approach to education and her willingness to do

more than what was required for the children in her school.

Later, the principal gave Janet a favorable performance

review, noting that Janet was supportive of the Science

Day. The principal saw the Science Day as an opportunity

to frame the day’s success as something for which she

could take credit.

The Cohen et al. (1972) garbage can model of organi-

zational decision-making provides an organizing frame-

work for thinking about how claimants can use

opportunities to attach themselves to efforts, particularly

when the arena for credit is unoccupied. Where Cohen

et al. (1972) see problems, solutions, and decision-makers

swirling about, connecting when decision-makers attach

favorite solutions to current problems, we see claimants

attaching themselves to efforts when the opportunity arises.

If we accept Scully’s portrayal of the situation in the White

Taking Credit

123

House, Gerson could be seen as exploiting just such a void

(on Path U). The norms of the profession—expecting

speech writers to remain in the background and to avoid the

public eye—allowed Gerson to ﬁll the void and claim sole

credit. While Scully had the opportunity to make a claim

for credit, the norms of the profession may have made it

unlikely that it would occur to Scully to do so, and he

would not be able to rationalize this type of claim to

himself for this and other reasons; that left Scully with the

options of making a claim on Path S or remaining silent.

Proposition 3 The greater the opportunity to take credit,

the more likely the individual will make and defend a claim

for credit.

Several aspects of situations contribute to the opportu-

nity to take credit. Below we identify ﬁve, each of which

can provide openings for unjustiﬁed claims to credit, and

all of which are present in the White House and the school

settings: access, complexity, information asymmetry,

power differences, and the absence of existing claims.

First, because organizational efforts are frequently joint,

several individuals can plausibly make claims. For exam-

ple, the teacher and the principal are both likely to feel a

sense of psychological ownership of the Science Day: the

teacher proposed the idea and did most of the work, while

the principal provided the resources and framed the results.

The principal, however, had a better opportunity to take

credit for the day because her position gave her easier

access to relevant audiences (parents and the district

supervisor), the situation was complex (there were many

contributors), information asymmetry abounded (the audi-

ence—parents and the school board supervisor—did not

know who did what), power differences were large (the

principal had more formal and informal power than the

teacher), and no one else had made a claim.

Privileged access to relevant audiences may increase

opportunity, whether on Path U or I, because entre

eto

those in a position to grant or withhold credit can provide a

greater chance to sustain claims. Access allows for the

construction of narratives, frequently in circumstances

where it is difﬁcult to challenge the claim. As noted long

ago by Mechanic (1962), access to persons, information,

and instrumentalities provide ways of getting what one

wants in organizations. Gerson had easier access to net-

works, both ﬁguratively and literally, and the principal had

easier access to the audience of parents on Science Day and

to her supervisor at the Board ofﬁce.

Proposition 3a The greater the access to relevant audi-

ences, the greater the opportunity to take credit.

Complexity—most often created by multiple contribu-

tors, multiple locations, and lengthy processes with multi-

ple iterations—may increase opportunities for claims.

Complexity can create uncertainty and confusion for actors

and audiences alike, enabling self-serving behavior (Dun-

ning et al. 1989; Sedikides and Strube 1997). This uncer-

tainty makes it more difﬁcult for audiences to disentangle

who did (and deserves) what. Indeed, the very complexity

of many situations has been identiﬁed as an important

origin of self-serving biases in ethical decision-making

(Rogerson et al. 2011). Complexity provides opportunities

for actors to construct credible narratives, as with Gerson

on Path U, and the complexity of coordinating large

numbers of individuals over months of work provided the

principal with the opportunity to take credit.

Proposition 3b The greater the complexity of the work

effort, the greater the opportunity to take credit.

Agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976) and trans-

action cost economics (Williamson 1975) both recognize

that information asymmetry provides an opportunity for

individuals to exploit their privileged knowledge for their

own beneﬁt. The degree of information asymmetry

between actors and audiences may be a third contributor

to opportunity. Audiences may not have the time, ability,

or inclination to assess the relative contribution of each

individual. When audiences know little about who did

what, astute actors can seize the opportunity to make

claims about their contributions. Boundedly rational audi-

ences may be willing to accept the story as recounted by

the claimant, thus providing an opportunity for individuals

to fashion the narrative in their own interest. Gerson and

the principal made contributions (to the speeches and the

Science Day, respectively) but may have overstated the

importance of their contributions (Path U), something that

members of the relevant audiences may be unable or

unwilling to sort out. In other cases, opportunists may

maintain their distance from a project to provide deniability

(in case the project fails), but lay claim to and embellish

their contribution once the project is a success (Path U, as

in the Dilbert cartoon about tweaking an idea quoted ear-

lier, Adams 2011).

Proposition 3c The greater the information asymmetry

between actor and audience, the greater the opportunity to

take credit.

Power differences may increase opportunity because it

improves the chances of sustaining a claim by those with

more power. Power’s contribution to opportunity is nicely

articulated in the opening quote from Jackall (1988), taken

from his ethnographic work in corporate settings. There he

showed that superiors felt entitled to take credit from their

subordinates (but not their superiors) because the organi-

zation’s norms and reward system gave them the license to

do so. In the three corporations that Jackall studied—and in

Eichenwald’s (

2005) account of Enron before the fall—it is

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

clear that the norms in these organizations justiﬁed the

taking of credit by those with more power; indeed, the

acceptance of this logic seemed necessary for individual

survival. Jackall (1988, p. 21) asserts that ‘‘credit ﬂows up

in this structure and is usually appropriated by the highest

ranking ofﬁcer involved in a successful decision or reso-

lution of a problem; … authority provides a license to steal

ideas, even in front of those who originated them.’’ Simi-

larly, the principal–teacher example illustrates the potential

that the power embedded in hierarchy has for taking

unjustiﬁed credit. Partnership tournaments (such as law and

consulting) allow seniors to take the credit and its con-

comitant rewards, while the juniors who do the backstage

work are left to struggle with the vicissitudes of the tour-

nament, perhaps hoping that their turn will come some day

(Galanter and Palay 1991).

Proposition 3d The greater the power difference between

potential claimants, the greater the opportunity for the more

powerful to take credit.

Finally, existing claims can be a barrier to potential

claimants; conversely, the absence of existing claims may

contribute to the opportunity to make a claim unencum-

bered by the claims of others. The ﬁrst claimant for a

successful effort might be more likely to receive the

credit, a kind of ﬁrst mover advantage: once asserted it can

be hard to dislodge an established narrative. Claims for

recognition may not be made immediately, sometimes

because of risk aversion—the outcome is not yet known—

and sometimes because of modesty—the potential claimant

may be (or want to be seen as) humble and modest. Delays

between efforts and outcomes can create an ownership

vacuum into which opportunists can slip. The Perelman–

Yau example illustrates a ﬁrst mover advantage, with Yau

stepping up with an assertion of credit. Perelman may have

felt that his work spoke for itself and his silence provided

the opportunity for Yau.

Proposition 3e The fewer the existing claims, the greater

the opportunity to take credit.

Ability to Rationalize

The ability to rationalize—the ease with which one can

explain an act to oneself—is a third base of the fraud tri-

angle. The ability to rationalize is not an issue for justiﬁed

claims to credit since they do not need to be explained

to oneself (Paths J and S). Rationalization can abet the

unjustiﬁed claims of Path U that are based on exaggerated

(or, on Path I, non-existent or imagined) contributions, as

well as a wide range of unethical activities, such as bribery,

corruption and kickbacks (Collins et al. 2009). Of course,

the ability to explain a claim to oneself does not necessarily

mean that the claim can be explained easily to others. This

is particularly likely to be true for the imagined contribu-

tions of Path I.

The ability to rationalize and the other two legs of the

fraud triangle can be related. This can be seen in the larger

literature on motivated reasoning (see, e.g., Cohen 2003;

Haidt 2012). In contrast to conventional accounts about

thinking and reasoning—information gathering, assessing

the merits of arguments, and then reaching a position on an

issue—the motivated reasoning account suggests that we

decide what we want and then marshal reasons for sup-

porting what we want. In the realm of credit taking, this

would mean that once we decide to take credit for some-

thing we then look for grounds that support the taking.

While the concept of the ability to rationalize is

underdeveloped in the forensic accounting literature, recent

work by Anand et al. (2004) and Murphy and Dacin (2011)

has helped illuminate the many ways in which individuals

can use their view of the situation to explain their actions

to themselves. These rationalizations range from appealing

to higher loyalties, necessity, and selective social com-

parisons, to euphemistic labeling, minimizing the conse-

quences of the act and denial of injury. It is also possible

that rationalization will be enabled when credit is incor-

rectly awarded by another or a claim for justiﬁed credit is

unreasonably enlarged by a naı

ve audience. In both

instances, the passive nature of the claim may facilitate

rationalization. Rationalizing the taking of unjustiﬁed

credit may be easier than rationalizing theft of goods

because the former is not illegal and what is being claimed

(credit) only exists when an audience recognizes it.

Rationalization also may operate at a more holistic

level, as in the case of moral licensing—where past good

behavior may be used as a basis for rationalizing the

commitment of a wrongful act (Miller and Effron 2010)or

in the case of accumulated idiosyncratic credits that are

used to rationalize deviations from acceptable organiza-

tional norms (Shapiro et al. 2011). Thus, our base propo-

sition is that individuals may be more likely to make a

claim for credit when a rationalization strategy is readily

available.

Proposition 4 The easier it is to rationalize a claim, the

more likely the individual will make and defend a claim to

credit.

Here, we brieﬂy identify three conditions that may affect

the ability to rationalize a claim for credit: norms that

promote rationalization, gaps between rewards and previ-

ous contributions and the salience of contributions. Ariely

(2008) points out that many workplaces mix economic and

social norms. It may be more difﬁcult to rationalize taking

unjustiﬁed credit (as on Paths U and I) when social norms

are strong: when the workplace is seen as collegial and

Taking Credit

123

psychologically safe, norms of reciprocity may limit a

claimant’s ability to take unjustiﬁed credit because social

norms reduce the ability to rationalize the taking. Con-

versely, an emphasis on economic norms (with their sur-

vival of the ﬁttest rationales) may facilitate rationalization.

The workplaces described by Jackall (1988), Tofﬂer

(2003), and Watkins (in Beenen and Pinto 2009) all

exemplify the predominance of economic norms over

social norms, a situation that can invite unjustiﬁed credit

taking.

It may be much easier to rationalize one’s claims to

credit when rationales of opportunistic claims are embed-

ded in organizational norms. These rationales may vary

from ‘‘everyone does it’’ to ‘‘you have to in order to survive

around here.’’ As Jackall notes, many of these logics tacitly

ﬂow down the hierarchy. Murphy and Dacin (2011) argue

that such logics allow an action to be viewed as acceptable.

Some of this may be benign, as in organizations that have

informal heuristics about how credit is assigned; these can

facilitate the automatic assignment of credit and its ratio-

nalization. For example, the chair of a committee might be

viewed as the customarily appropriate person to receive

credit for the committee’s accomplishments—and have the

report named for the chair—even though other members

may have made more substantial contributions. Other

ﬁelds, such as politics, exist on the (usually) unacknowl-

edged work of backstage players. Such heuristics can

provide ready ways to rationalize the taking of credit.

The basis for rationalization may be provided by norms

within the organization. In the organizations studied by

Jackall (1988), credit is claimed by those who are senior

and these claims can be seen as appropriate within the

norms of the organizations—at least to those in positions to

receive some credit for the work of others. Rationalization

implies an understanding that some larger norm or ethical

standard has been deviated from and that some grounds are

required to explain the bid to oneself. When the normative

environment accepts an action there is, in effect, no devi-

ance to rationalize. As the ethical dimension of taking

credit fades, the claimant’s need to rationalize is reduced.

This is the kind of ethical fading that can lead to a numbing

(Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004) that, over time, mitigates

and ﬁnally removes the need for rationalization: the

behavior becomes routine, taken for granted, acceptable

(Kelman and Hamilton 1989).

While our focus has been at the individual level,

unjustiﬁed credit can also be taken by collectivities, such as

organizations as a whole. Annual reports, press releases,

and other communications with external audiences can

portray organizations as agents of change, despite the

exogenous factors that can overwhelm agency (Bettman

and Weitz 1983; Staw et al. 1983). Although insiders may

understand that these claims for credit are overstated, they

can provide the imitative grounds for the organization’s

members to rationalize his or her own exaggerated claims,

as on Paths U and I (Anand et al. 2004): when institutions

enact norms of opportunistic credit taking, individual

members may be likely to follow suit.

Proposition 4a The stronger the organizational norm to

take unjustiﬁed credit, the greater the likelihood that

individuals will rationalize a claim for credit.

Equity theory (Adams 1965) may provide an (ironic)

rationalization for balancing the ledger between inputs and

rewards (Anand et al. 2004). Those who feel that their past

contributions have not been fairly recognized may feel

more entitled to take future credit, even when unjustiﬁed.

Just as employees who have been unfairly treated may use

their sense of inequitable treatment as the basis for theft

(Greenberg 1990), so too may those who feel neglected for

their past contributions take some unjustiﬁed credit as a

way of evening the score (perhaps followed by an act of

cleansing as contrition, Zhong and Liljenquist 2006).

Equity theory is primarily a motivational theory but it can

also provide the basis for justifying a claim for credit. We

also note that this close association between motivation and

rationalization will not always hold. A claimant might be

motivated to claim credit because of an upcoming perfor-

mance appraisal and then rely on an equity theory-based

rationalization to justify the claim to themselves.

Proposition 4b The greater the perceived gap between a

potential claimant’s past contributions and the credits

received, the greater the likelihood that individuals will

rationalize a claim for credit.

The differential salience of one’s own contributions may

abet the ability to rationalize. As noted earlier, it can be

easy to see one’s own work as especially important when

individuals think about their contributions. The rationali-

zation process may be further aided by psychological

processes such as the self-serving biases described by

Bazerman (2006

) that fade the ethical dimensions of the

decision (Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004).

Proposition 4c The greater the salience of an individ-

ual’s contributions to the claimant, the greater the likeli-

hood the individual will rationalize a claim for credit.

Narcissism

Several aspects of personality are likely to play moderating

roles in the credit-taking process. Three individual differ-

ences that are likely to affect the probability of credit

taking are dominance, conscientiousness, and narcissism.

Here, we use the construct of narcissism to illustrate ways

in which personality can moderate the effects of the

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

previously identiﬁed factors in the credit-taking process.

Narcissism can be seen as both a personality disorder

and a dimension of personality. As described by Ellis

(1898), narcissism includes tendencies toward excessive

self-admiration, seeing others as extensions of oneself and

approval seeking. Psychometrically, there are four com-

ponents of narcissism: entitlement, authority, arrogance,

and self-absorption (Emmons 1987). The entitlement

component of narcissism provides the most direct entry to

seeing why narcissistic individuals may be more prone to

taking credit than are others who are less narcissistic. Scale

items such as ‘‘I will never be satisﬁed until I get all that I

deserve’’ and ‘‘I insist upon getting the respect that is due

me’’ (Raskin and Hall 1979) point to likely connections

between narcissism and credit taking. While narcissists

may have an inﬂated sense of self, their self-image may be

quite fragile and in need of constant reinforcement, bol-

stering and validation by others (Morf and Rhodewalt

2001). This fragility may explain why narcissists also tend

to diminish the contributions of those who outperform

them (Morf and Rhodewalt 1993).

At the other end are those individuals who avoid taking

credit and actively seek opportunities for others to get the

credit. Meyerson (2001, 2003) describes quiet leaders who

make efforts to ensure that subordinates get and receive the

credit that would ordinarily go to themselves. While the

reputations of such quiet leaders can be enhanced—they

may be seen as excellent at developing future leaders—

their personal visibility may suffer, including receiving less

direct credit for their efforts.

A fragile ego and a tendency to underappreciate the con-

tributions of others, when coupled with the narcissist’s

increased tendency to workplace deviance (Judge et al. 2006),

suggests that narcissists may be chronic ﬁrst movers who

make claims for credit as a way of calling attention to them-

selves, even when the claims are non-existent (Path I) or

exaggerated (Path U). In the organization-level literature,

highly narcissistic CEOs (e.g., those who’s pictures and words

are prominent in annual reports and press releases) are more

likely to make bolder decisions, pursue more expensive and

moregrandiose strategies, make largerand riskier acquisitions

that produce more volatile performance, and are emboldened

by media praise (Chatterjee and Hambrick 2007, 2011).

Highly visible successes may help conﬁrm self-views of worth

and draw attention to the narcissist. Such behaviors are con-

sistent with the idea that narcissists seek settings in which

they can get attention for their bold efforts. While we view

personality as a moderator of the relationship between contri-

butions and claims, this suggests a main effect for narcissism.

Proposition 5 The more narcissistic the individual, the

more likely the individual will make and defend a claim for

credit.

Narcissism may also affect the level of contribution or

the threshold needed before an individual makes a claim

for credit. Organizational members may have very different

standards for deciding when a claim is warranted, some

seeing small accomplishments as deserving approbation,

while others await the end of a major project before making

a claim. We have noted that narcissists may have lower

thresholds for making claims. More modest individuals

may be less disposed to claim credit, preferring to be the

organizational equivalent of the anonymous donor (or in

Perelman’s case, not challenging a rival’s lesser claim).

Although this may be true along all four paths, we expect

that the moderating effect of narcissism may be most

pronounced on Paths U and I.

Proposition 5a Narcissism moderates the relationship

between contribution and unjustiﬁed claims, with more

narcissistic individuals making claims for smaller contri-

butions than may less narcissistic individuals.

Summary

We have presented the process of taking credit as one in

which individuals make a bid for an audience’s approba-

tion on the basis of their psychological state, situational

cues, and personality. We have argued that individuals may

be more likely to take and defend claims to credit when

some or all these are present. Psychological ownership may

be most useful in explaining why justiﬁed claims to credit

are made (Paths J and S), psychological ownership, and an

environmentally sensitive form of opportunity may be the

primary factors in explaining justiﬁed but delayed claims

(Path S), while motive, opportunity, the ability to ratio-

nalize and narcissism may be useful in explaining unjus-

tiﬁed claims to credit (Paths U and I). While the usefulness

of these lenses for explaining credit taking has not been

directly tested, each is supported by indirect evidence that

suggests that it may help explain and predict credit taking

in organizations.

The Ethics of Taking Credit

Jackall’s (1988, p. 6) stark distinction between ethics inside

and outside organizations and the four opening quotes

point to some very mixed views about the ethics of credit

taking. While all four suggest that credit taking can be a

problem, their advice is quite different: it is better to do the

work and not worry about getting the credit (Confucius,

Gandhi, Truman), versus just take the credit when you can

(Jackall). That taking credit continues to be a problem is

evident in a recent article in the business press about

organizational politics: Johnson (2012, p. 12) says that

Taking Credit

123

those seeking to run many large organizations ‘‘spend their

entire time backstabbing, stealing credit from rivals and

waging turf wars.’’ Given such competition for credit and

the conﬂicting advice about credit taking, it is not sur-

prising that individuals can be confused about the ethics of

taking credit. Workplace advice columns regularly feature

ethical issues that are concerned with when and how to

take credit. One column recently posed this question:

‘‘You’re asked by your boss to come up with a strategy for

launching a tough, new product. You seek the input of a

new junior who comes up with some brilliant tactics you

never would have thought of. Your report gets rave

reviews—and you get all the credit. You know that sharing

the accolades would help your subordinate—but might also

make you look not so smart after all. Do you give the junior

credit, or quietly enjoy your success?’’ (Globe and Mail

2006, C2)

All 16 printed responses said that the credit should be

shared right away, either publicly or with the advice see-

ker’s boss, arguing that it is the right thing to do, would set

a good example and raise the quality of team culture,

cooperation, motivation, and loyalty. Others pointed to a

more calculative side: it would enhance the advice seeker’s

reputation for generosity, fairness, skill in developing a

subordinate, and being a trustworthy team player, as well

as the attraction that others would have for working with

the advice seeker (and the possibility that the subordinate

may someday be the boss). Some did see the fair appor-

tionment of credit as an ethical issue, arguing that failing to

credit the subordinate was equivalent to theft, an under-

handedness that was likely to discourage future contribu-

tions, abet a bad culture or risk later exposure.

These responses point to the complex interplay of ethics

and self-interest, doing the right thing and seizing the

opportunity. Tournament, contest, or other survival of the

ﬁttest rationales tend to stress the opportunity dimension

and underplay the ethical dimension of organizational

dilemmas (cf. Ariely 2008; van Zyl and Lazenby 2002).

Individuals who see credit taking as instrumental to their

career progress may simply not see the ethical side of it, or

if they do, choose to ignore both. In contrast, those who are

removed from the situation read columns on business

ethics, reﬂect on the dilemmas posed by them, and take the

time to write in may be more likely to be sensitive to the

ethical dimension than those who are just trying to advance

in career tournaments (cf. Cooper et al. 1993). This con-

trast is consistent with the more general ﬁnding that

compared to action takers, advice givers are more psy-

chologically distant, more idealistic, place greater empha-

sis on ends, and are less pragmatic about the situation

(Danziger et al. 2012).

Thus far our main concern has been with the antecedents

of credit taking. We have used variants on ‘‘the justiﬁed

taking of credit’’ throughout this article; embedded in the

phrase is a judgment about fairness (and, as noted by one

reader of an earlier version of this manuscript, less concern

about the defensibility of the work effort outside the

workplace). Separating someone from the fruit of their

labor, including its attendant recognition and rewards, is a

situation loaded with moral difﬁculties. Some would see

the taking of credit as an ethical decision. For example,

virtue ethics (Taylor 2002) focuses on strategies that

individuals can use to develop desirable character traits

such as honesty and fairness; taking unjustiﬁed credit is

unlikely to develop these virtues. In Rawls’ (1971) theory

of distributive justice, it is likely that ethical individuals

would select a rule that entitled all to be associated with

their effort and accomplishments. Such a view would also

be central to entitlement theory (Nozick 1974), where the

ability to trade one’s labor and talents forms a legitimate

basis of exchange. Taking credit from another would be to

come by the credit and the attendant rewards other than by

fair exchange.

Two systematic ways of thinking about the ethics of

taking credit within the organization are teleological and

deontological perspectives (Cole et al. 2000). A teleologi-

cal approach would assess the appropriateness of the credit

taking by evaluating the outcome. It is likely that many

schemes for apportioning credit are decided on the basis

that the apportionment is for the greater good of the work

group, department or organization, even if this is not fair to

some individuals. A point-in-time analysis might justify

this type of conclusion but over the longer run individuals

who are not appropriately recognized may be more likely

to withdraw or exit, doing harm to the team, unit, or

organization. While teleological approaches can produce

ethical outcomes if all consequences are fully considered,

they can also support rationalizations that are used to jus-

tify outcomes that are unfair to some individuals.

Kant’s (1785, 1788) categorical and practical impera-

tives and their deontological derivatives (see, e.g., Broad

1930; Zuboff 2005) provide a second basis for the ethical

guidance sought by those with the conscience to wonder

about what to do about justiﬁably seeking credit: ‘‘Act only

according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time

will that it should become a universal law.’’ In our domain,

this means that taking credit in a given situation is to will

the act to be a universal law. From this perspective, an

ethical credit taker would not take more credit than is due

because to do so would be to will this to be a universal law.

Kant’s practical imperative, which requires that individuals

be treated as an end rather than as a means to an end,

perhaps captures the sentiment more directly. Using

someone by taking credit for his or her contributions to

access the associated rewards contravenes the practical

imperative. Those who consistently adopt a deontological

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

approach may be less likely to be accused by the aggrieved,

such as Scully, more likely to be admired by their col-

leagues, such as the quiet leaders described by Meyerson

(2001, 2003), and more likely to give credit to the teacher

and to the junior employee in the examples above (but

perhaps more likely to suffer in career tournaments that

reward short-term success in credit taking). Adopting a

deontological approach may be easier when organizational

cultures and norms encourage collegial behavior, promote

a sense of psychological safety and discourage the mono-

maniacal pursuit of self-interest (cf. Greve et al. 2010;

Kaptein 2010; Weber and Murnighan 2008).

The categorical imperative also addresses the defensible

aspect of ethical credit taking since it discourages acts that

are unethical in the world outside the organization. Acting

on the categorical imperative may help to reduce bound-

edly ethical decision-making because it asks an actor inside

the organization whether he or she would be able to defend

the act in civil society. Zuboff (2005, p. 91) translates the

categorical imperative into practical terms for a business

audience by suggesting that ‘‘the next time you’re poised to

participate in a wrong that’s cloaked as normal, ask your-

self how you’d explain this to your children’’ (or to viewers

if you were continuously broadcast). This translation is

meant to be a check on an actor’s temptation to do what-

ever is necessary to progress in a career tournament or do

whatever the person above wants (Jackall 1988, p. 6). As a

case in point, Gerson, McConnell and Scully might have

paused mid-speech writing and asked ‘‘is this something I

can defend outside the walls of the White House?’’

Ways Forward

We have examined some possible antecedents of credit

taking in the interest of beginning the process of system-

atically thinking about an everyday organizational phe-

nomenon. We have argued that taking credit is rooted in

feelings of psychological ownership, particularly when

justiﬁed credit is taken. We have also contended that taking

unjustiﬁed credit may stem from feelings of psychological

ownership, the presence of motive, opportunity, the ability

to rationalize and narcissism. We believe that these con-

structs may provide useful starting points for research on

when credit is taken.

A wide range of methods could be used to increase our

understanding of the credit-taking process, including

qualitative methods, archival and survey research, sce-

nario-based methodologies and experimental procedures.

Qualitative research may be particularly useful for under-

standing how more successful long-lived teams deal with

issues of credit that arise after theft or breach of trust (e.g.,

retaliation, forgiveness). The consequences of theft and

breach may be especially harmful in knowledge-based

enterprises where there are few tangible outputs. Because

teamwork depends on trust and psychological safety, an

individual who takes credit that belongs to the team can be

seen as failing to display the integrity that is part of being a

team member (Mayer et al. 1995). Comparing the process

of credit taking in successful long-lived teams and that of

less successful short-lived teams, may be one way of

examining how teams deal with the struggles of credit

taking. Thus, our ﬁrst suggestion is to use qualitative

methods that focus on knowledge-based teams and ask how

the ﬁve factors affect credit taking and the ways in which

teams that vary in success and longevity deal with issues

that arise from credit taking. The question to be asked is

how variance in success and longevity both causes and is

affected by the way team members’ deal with issues of

credit.

Archival research may be another attractive way to

examine whether and how our model accounts for credit

taking. We have used several examples to illustrate the

effects of the ﬁve factors in credit taking. The model

emerged from our attempts to make sense of these exam-

ples but it would be useful to draw on a wider range of

cases to assess whether our model exhausts the useful ways

of thinking about taking credit. Archival research may be

particularly helpful in ﬁnding counter-examples, ones

where the conditions for credit taking are present but

individuals do not claim credit, as in Perelman’s failure to

press his claim for credit (and in the Gandhi and others’

opening quote about those who do the work and those who

take the credit). A number of situations might exist (other

than when there is a secondary market for credit) where

individuals are willing to see others take credit for their

work, as when an individual no longer feels a need for the

rewards that credit may provide, such as those individuals

who have entered the generative phase of their career

(Levinson 1978). Identifying such cases may help pinpoint

the boundaries for the model of credit taking presented

above.

Survey methods and scenario-based research also could

be used to assess the contributions to credit taking of the

ﬁve factors we have identiﬁed, plus others uncovered by

qualitative and archival research. Such work may rely on

self- and other-reports about contributions and bids, with

all the cognitive biases this can entail (Bazerman 2006).

Better control over measurement issues can be gained

using experimental procedures to manipulate factors such

as size of contribution and reward, power differences and

past inequities, examine the moderating effect of narcis-

sism, and observe their separate and joint effects on whe-

ther, how, when, and in what portions credit is taken and

defended. Each of these approaches would be sensible to

pursue once qualitative and archival research has helped ﬁll

Taking Credit

123

out our understanding of the factors that inﬂuence the

taking of credit. While it would be tempting to quickly

enter the laboratory and manipulate or measure each factor,

we think it would be wiser to ﬁrst use qualitative and

archival procedures to assess the completeness of the

account we have presented (cf. Cialdini 1980).

While we have focused on the conditions that promote

credit taking, we noted at the outset that we expect that the

way in which credit is taken and given can have important

consequences for both individuals and organizations.

Before closing we would like to return to the issue of

consequences and the process questions that underlie them.

Unfair recognition of one individual may diminish other

individuals’ feeling of worth and identity, negatively

impact organizational justice systems, undermine inter-

personal relationships, erode feelings of psychological

safety and break-down trust. How credit is given is a par-

ticularly critical practical issue, especially in collective

situations. Sometimes violations of fairness can be healthy

for team well-being. For example, when one team member

is in a better position to redeem credit, perhaps because of

privileged access to gatekeepers, then the whole team may

beneﬁt when one individual takes the credit. Similarly,

heuristics such as ‘‘the chair of the committee gets the

credit’’ might be viewed as fair if the heuristic is under-

stood beforehand and consistently followed. But negative

consequences are likely when one member of a work group

gets credit that is neither distributed nor accepted by the

rest of the team. The research question here is to under-

stand how the process of taking credit affects individuals,

groups, and organizations.

Secondary markets for credit can ameliorate some

feelings of unfairness. Speechwriters, key aids, and back-

room operatives all understand that they will not receive

public credit for their work. Similarly, mentors may allow

prote

s to take full credit for a shared accomplishment

because they understand that they will receive credit in a

secondary market that acknowledges employee develop-

ment (as well as the simple pleasures that ﬂow from seeing

a prote

ﬂourish). The functioning of these secondary

markets and their impact on individuals represent another

research area that contains interesting process questions at

the individual, group, and organizational levels.

A ﬁnal process issue of interest is how disputes over

credit can be resolved when they arise. While Scully found

a national platform from which to correct the record, the

teacher’s main recourse was to write an anonymous letter

to a business advice columnist. We suspect that most

aggrieved parties just sit with their silent rage. Recognizing

the problem, a variety of institutions such as universities,

professional associations (e.g., the American Psychological

Association 2002) and publishers of professional journals

have developed formal procedures that are intended to

resolve disputes about credit. We noted earlier that the

Screenwriter’s Guild of America has a formal process for

dealing with conﬂicting claims for screenwriting (Friend

2003). When a movie is ﬁnished a studio submits a tenta-

tive apportionment of writing credit to the Guild, after

which screenwriters can formally dispute the apportion-

ment of credit. An arbitration hearing is held if one or more

persons challenge the apportionment (and is automatic if

someone in a position of power—producer or director—

claims screenwriting credit). Friend (2003) points out that

the arbitration process often pits members against each

other, gives rise to prolonged underground discussions

about who really wrote what, and has not resulted in much

satisfaction with the process. Others, such as the Journal of

the American Medical Association, have detailed docu-

ments that are intended to guide authors through authorship

disputes, and formulas have been suggested for deciding on

the order of authorship for publications (Winston 1985;

Fine and Kurdek 1993). The existence of guidelines has not

eliminated the discontent (Sandler and Russell 2005) and

what remains unknown is whether any of these procedures,

guidelines, and formulas is useful in reducing or resolving

disputes over credit.

Throughout we have noted that the taking of credit is a

process that can be inﬂuenced by cognitive and psycho-

logical processes that allow unjustiﬁed claims to credit to

be viewed as appropriate by the claimant (Banaji et al.

2003; Chugh et al. 2005; De Cremer et al. 2010). These

processes may allow those who make unjustiﬁed claims to

see themselves as behaving ethically and to fade the ethical

dimension of their decision (Tenbrunsel and Messick

2004), thereby facilitating rationalization. Self-serving bias

and false memory effects are psychological processes that

can affect how individuals view their contribution to an

effort and entitlement to credit. Since credit requires

audience recognition, we expect that psychological process

will play an important role in understanding the process. In

closing, we simply note that it seems likely that other

cognitive and psychological processes will be found that

play roles in contributing to making unjustiﬁed claims

seem ethical to claimants.

Conclusion

The process of taking credit can have signiﬁcant emotional,

motivational, and ethical consequences for individuals,

groups, organizations, and civil society. We have suggested

ways of thinking about credit taking in organizations that

draw on psychological, situational, and personality con-

structs. Our interest is in making a start in understanding

some of the dynamics of the process. While credit taking in

organizations has not received much research attention, we

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

think an understanding of the process can help illuminate

an everyday aspect of organizational behavior that matters

to organization members.

Acknowledgments We thank Robert Jackall for setting the hook,

Monica Luthra for her early interest, Peter Dacin for his withering

critique, Pam Murphy for her candidacy, Colette Hoption for her

research assistance, Blake Ashforth and Susan Pinker for their

encouragement, the reviewers and Siva Jayaprakash for their help,

Edmund Byrne for his patience, and Perry Bamji, Peter Dunnett, Dave

Ramsden and Alan Whitehorn for sharing their many experiences.

Finally, a special thanks to the many path-takers whose behavior we

have known, some exemplary, some not.

References

Abratt, R. D., Nel, D., & Higgs, N. S. (1992). An examination of the

ethical beliefs of managers using selected scenarios in a cross-

cultural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 29–35.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2,

pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Adams, S. (2011). September 19, Dilbert.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of

psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57,

1060–1073.

Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual:

The acceptance and perpetuations of corruption in organizations.

Academy of Management Executive, 18, 39–53.

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that

shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009).

Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions measurement,

and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 30, 173–191.

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go

to work. New York: Harper Collins.

Banaji, M., Bazerman, M., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical Are

You? Harvard Business Review, 81, 56–64.

Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. D. L. (2005).

Motivation and opportunity: The role of remote work, demo-

graphic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression

management. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 401–419.

Bazerman, M. (2006). Judgment in managerial decision making.

New York: Wiley.

Bazerman, M. H., Morgan, K. P., & Lowenstein, G. F. (1997). The

impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management

Review, 38(4), 89–94.

Beenen, G., & Pinto, J. (2009). Resisting organizational-level

corruption: An interview with Sherron Watkins. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 8, 275–289.

Bettman, J. R., & Weitz, B. A. (1983). Attributions in the board room:

Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 28, 165–183.

Bielby, W. T., & Bielby, D. D. (1999). Organizational mediation of

project-based labor markets: Talent agencies and the careers of

screenwriters. American Sociological Review, 64, 64–85.

Boeker, W. (1992). Power and managerial dismissal: Scapegoating at

the top. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 400–421.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good

soldiers or bad actors? Academy of Management Review, 26,

82–98.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and

different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Broad, C. D. (1930). Five types of ethical theory. New York: Harcourt

Brace.

Brown, G., Lawrence, T., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 577–594.

Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2011). Reactions to territorial

infringement. Organization Science, 22, 210–224.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal

of Sociology, 110, 349–399.

Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magniﬁes the

self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General

Psychology, 3, 23–43.

Caruso, E. M., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. (2006). The costs and

beneﬁts of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in

groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,

857–871.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me:

Narcissistic chief executive ofﬁcers and their effects on company

strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52,

351–386.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive personality,

capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to

their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly,

56, 202–237.

Chugh, D., Banaji, M., & Bazerman, M. (2005). Bounded ethicality

as a psychological barrier to recognizing conﬂicts of interest. In

D. Moore, M. Cain, G. Lowenstein, & M. Bazerman (Eds.),

Conﬂicts of interest: Problems and solutions from law, medicine,

and organizational settings. London: Cambridge University

Press.

Cialdini, R. B. (1980). Full cycle social psychology. In L. Bickman

(Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 1, pp. 21–47).

Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S.,

& Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reﬂected glory: Three

(football) ﬁeld studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 34, 366–375.

Clive, R. B. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Bullying and unfair

supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100,

367–379.

Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of

group inﬂuence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.

Cohen, M. D., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of

organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,

1–25.

Cole, D., Sirgy, M. J., & Bird, M. M. (2000). How do managers make

teleological evaluations in ethical dilemmas? Testing part of and

extending the Hunt–Vitell model. Journal of Business Ethics, 26,

259–269.

Collins, J. D., Uhlenbruck, K., & Rodriguez, P. (2009). Why ﬁrms

engage in corruption: A top management perspective. Journal of

Business Ethics, 87, 89–108.

Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., Conlon, D., & Ng, K.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25

years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Confucius. no date, The Lun Yu

Cooper, W. H., Graham, W. J., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). Tournament

players. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Manage-

ment, 11, 83–132.

Crant, M. J., & Bateman, T. S. (1993). Assignment of credit and

blame for performance outcomes. Academy of Management

Journal, 36, 7–27.

Taking Credit

123

Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Danziger, S., Montal, R., & Barkan, R. (2012). Idealistic advice and

pragmatic choice: A psychological distance account. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1105–1117.

De Cremer, D., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & van Dijke, M. (2010).

Regulating ethical failures: Insights from psychology. Journal

of Business Ethics, 95, 1–6.

Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in Tension. Harvard Business Review,

74, 48–62.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social

undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 45, 331–351.

Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Why good employees make

unethical decisions: The role of reward systems, organizational

culture, and managerial oversight. In R. E. Kidwell Jr. &

C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp.

39–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dunning, D. J., Meyerowitz, A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989).

Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait

deﬁnitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1082–1090.

Dyke, L. S. (1990). Self-promotion in organizations, Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Kingston: Queen’s University.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in

work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

Eichenwald, K. (2005). Conspiracy of fools. New York: Broadway

Books.

Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-erotism: A psychological study. Alienist and

Neurologist, 19, 260–299.

Emmons, R. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11–17.

Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2004). Egocentric ethics. Social Justice

Research, 17, 171–188.

Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reﬂections on determining

authorship credit and authorship order on faculty–student

collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147.

Floyd, W. W., Schroeder, D. M., & Finn, D. M. (1994). Only if I am

ﬁrst author: Conﬂict over credit in management scholarship.

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 734–747.

Fortin, M., & Fellenz, M. R. (2008). Hypocrisies of fairness: Towards

a more reﬂexive ethical base in organizational justice research

and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 415–433.

Friend, T. (2003, October 20). Credit Grab, The New Yorker, 161–

169.

Frum. D. J. (2007, November). David Frum’s diary. National Review

(online).

Galanter, M., & Palay, T. (1991). Tournament of lawyers: Transfor-

mation of the big law ﬁrm. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996).

Imagination inﬂation: Imagining a childhood event inﬂates

conﬁdence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3,

208–214.

Gerson, M. J. (2007). Heroic conservatism: Why republicans need to

embrace America’s ideals (and why they deserve to fail if they

don’t). New York: HarperOne.

Gessen, M. (2009). Perfect rigor: A genius and the mathematical

breakthrough of the century. New York: Houghton Mifﬂin

Harcourt.

Globe and Mail. (2006, October 1). Workplace ethics, C2, Toronto,

Canada.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment

inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75, 561–568.

Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. (2010). Organizations gone

wild. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 53–107.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind why good people are divided by

politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.

Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant

inﬂuence tactics on recruiter perceptions of ﬁt and hiring

recommendations: A ﬁeld study. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89, 622–632.

Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit.

Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.

Immen, W. (2010, March 5). When leaders become glory hounds.

Globe and Mail, B15–16.

Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, T. (2001). Cultural values and management ethics: A

10-nation study. Human Relations, 54, 1267–1302.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the ﬁrm:

Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.

Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

Johnson, L. (2012). The lunatics have taken over the boardroom.

Financial Times, March 7.

Judge, T., LePine, J., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly:

relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other percep-

tions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776.

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals, various

editions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. (1788). Critique of practical reason, various editions.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:

Basic Books.

Kaptein, M. (2010). The ethics of organizations: A longitudinal study

of the US working population. Journal of Business Ethics, 92,

601–618.

Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York:

Ballantine.

Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises on government. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Marx, K. (1847). Wage, labour and capital, various editions.

Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative

model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,

20, 709–734.

McDonald, G. M., & Zepp, R. (1988). Ethical perceptions of Hong

Kong Chinese business managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 7,

835–845.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and

procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal

and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,

35, 626–637.

McGinn, D. (2009, November 17) Brilliant Idea! I’ll Steal It. Globe

and Mail, L1–2.

Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power for lower participants in

complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7

349–364.

Merritt, A. C., Effron, D., Fein, S., Savitsky, K., Tuller, D., & Monin,

B. (2012). The strategic pursuit of moral credentials. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 774–777.

Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-

licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and

Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357.

Metha, S., & Kau, S. (1984). Marketing executives’ perceptions of

unethical practices. Singapore Management Review, 6, 25–35.

Meyerson, D. E. (2001) Radical change, the quiet way, Harvard

Business Review, 92–100.

W. J. Graham, W. H. Cooper

123

Meyerson, D. E. (2003). Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders

inspire changes at work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mezulis, A., Abramson, L., Hyde, J., & Hankin, B. (2004). Is there a

universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review

of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-

serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711–747.

Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it

is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 43, 115–155.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving bias in the attribution of

causality: Fact or ﬁction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.

Morf, C., & Rhodewalt, F. (1993). Narcissism and self-evaluation

maintenance. Explorations in Object Relations. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 668–676.

Morf, C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of

narcissism. A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psy-

chological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.

Murphy, P. R., & Dacin, M. T. (2011). Psychological pathways to

fraud: Understanding and preventing fraud in organizations.

Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 601–618.

Nasar, S., & Gruber, D. (2006, August 28). Manifold destiny, The

New Yorker, 44–57.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic

Books.

Pierce, J., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of

psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 26, 298–310.

Pinker, S. (2005, May 25). Problem Solving, The Globe and Mail, C5.

Pozner, J. E. (2007). Stigma and settling up: An integrated approach

to the consequences of organizational misconduct for organiza-

tional elites. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 141–150.

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2005). Consideration

of fraud in a ﬁnancial statement audit, AU Section 316. www.

pcaobus.org.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). Narcissistic personality

inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Rogerson, M. D., Gottlieb, M. C., Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., &

Younggren, J. (2011). Nonrarional processes in ethical decision

making. American Psychologist, 66, 614–623.

Sandler, J., & Russell, B. (2005). Faculty–student collaboration:

Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics and Behav-

iour, 15, 65–80.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept,

social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Scully, M. (2007). Present at the creation. The Atlantic, 300, 77–88.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own

self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true,

and to thine own self be better. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209–269). New

York: Academic Press.

Shapiro, D. L., Boss, A. D., Salas, S., Tangirala, S., & Von Glinow,

M. A. (2011). When are transgressing leaders punitively judged?

An Empirical Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 412–422.

Sharman, S. J., & Calacouris, D. S. (2010). Do people’s motives

inﬂuence their susceptibility to imagination inﬂation? Experi-

mental Psychology, 57, 77–82.

Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.

Simon, S. A., & Eby, L. T. (2003). A typology of negative mentoring

experiences: A multidimensional scaling study. Human Rela-

tions, 56, 1083–1106.

Staw, B. M., McKechnie, P. I., & Pfuffer, S. M. (1983). The

justiﬁcation of organizational performance. Administrative Sci-

ence Quarterly, 28, 582–600.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1987). Behavior in escalation situations:

Antecedents, prototypes and solutions. Research in Organiza-

tional Behavior, 9, 39–78.

Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social

networks: Strategies of action in a social structure of position,

opposition, and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly,

45, 651–678.

Stone, T. H., & Cooper, W. H. (2009). Emerging credits. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20, 785–798.

Taylor, R. (2002). An introduction to virtue ethics. Amherst, MA:

Prometheus Books.

Tenbrunsel, A., & Messick, D. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of

self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17,

223–236.

Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Exploring the

role of repetition and sensory elaboration in the imagination

inﬂation effect. Memory and Cognition, 31, 630–640.

Tofﬂer, B. L. (2003). Final accounting: Ambition, greed, and the fall

of Arthur Andersen. New York: Broadway Books.

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and

feelings of possession: Three ﬁeld studies predicting employee

attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 25, 439–459.

van Zyl, E., & Lazenby, K. (2002). The relation between ethical

behaviour and workstress amongst a group of managers working

in afﬁrmative action positions. Journal of Business Ethics, 40,

111–119.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Weber, J. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Dilemmas. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1340–1353.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and

antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

Winston, R. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of

authorship in research publications. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 63, 515–518.

Zhong, C.-B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins:

Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313,

1451–1452.

Zuboff, S. (2005, January). A starter kit for business ethics. Fast

Company, 91.

Taking Credit

123