, n
. I

 

 

;

ENE; “WEFY‘M“"11“!”V‘r‘

 
      

  
 
    
    
   
     

H “A it”! bu} 33‘ :3“. [1!" 1W2}. :Ei‘. ’X
;; E ~ E .; L

:.E%E

    
     
  

  

 

   
 

   
 
     

 

  
    

      
 

     
  

     
 

+ I . . ” 7 = ,
\L‘ in; l. I“: > 1. Il' gl C” #4:” I 13?:fi‘l " '
.mEéI ”EENE {WEN-1h 1H?) (u! ‘quv'. (i inf { HE ”E IE???” .; fir. g. 3;. ”I”! “1:11’3’ 1.1 .11.} ‘ era: 5%? gift” ;' _, ‘-
iwbfiEfifi ~ VEde2. h.m;,u 1 W" ‘”5 4‘? %¢;”L'w
EHQEE‘E”“1 Efim limflE "QREEFE;EPEI h.,. 3 EE VEE E ;
Efik)fiyfi,{§g m m.” ‘E W I L‘ ‘l-I‘E‘I‘ WE! IE ~- '3 . "1” WE ""L‘iiéfint Mprh MAW; r v .
”MWWEWEW EEWVWW%WMM UEE F 'VALMW fig. %m
:1: i'!‘ 3p“; ' LEM-1.213"; :- :1 3 lgifinu‘ ‘N‘Pl‘li'f‘jli‘ifiii ”I For in: “i“! ’ HR 1;. skid“ v '9 Egg {2; gs, ‘- Y ‘
£434}: M NW" EEE; "‘ "T ’ WM; :1 1;; MW 'Ei.” kiitu ref? m 3E; .a ,
E 4‘:- 1'»; 2‘. (daily-ii 1111!. rig?!) m} o “1.261 J}“ ‘55.“. L 1;}1“. t,‘ ‘23:) "it E1!:IE¢§S;L
EH? El ig; "“ER'E’E’E‘ “7 'LE’EE WEE :1

[fig

        
  

I
S

   
  

     
  

z ‘ ”ENE“; 13;; .1 q~ “:1: 1,3:
.:.’ ‘ECEE‘EEME :11: E5 (11 EWE'EEEEEE s E‘EEEE‘EE‘EQ‘ fiffsfflgyfig.
‘E%WQWEEEEWQ£;."EMEEE;EW

;il 24;;
., 1E;?}§;;“L‘J ilfwflfl
. EEEEEEEE¥.:, a V. E E
" EEEEEE;;E. LE E;E ; L =E'v~~‘ , EQEEE
3;; E “; ‘ WEE "4” E; a; ; .- raw

”‘ E'EEE E“EW i .,Jfa
It" 1 r' 1E; ; “1 U9“: BEE =
:. 1‘31}? 4% [#19: $51!:de 1v" {1: lLfih ’{Elgggdgfl

~—.._
w: W ,.
fi-

.. é:-
Dgi 1 . 35 _ :5 X 25 I:
. :9 I ag‘g’“ if 12 J
' l

 
 
  
 
  

5’
i .
"I

 

 

  
 

 
  

  
  

     
  
  

 
 

, E P.-

5%“ 11E?!" “4'4“;111511'3111mm]?
EEE W 2 a
.1 ”g, .4": LE -.

 
 

‘ z:. :E
l .9 .
"‘5 ' 9'7

'2 . ,I' _.
15,1. _ - a».
’33P; I; 3.72.}
m. y-
I. a
. 1 ‘

 
 
   
  
    
     
 
 
  

o.‘ “In“;

7? Jig!
E1!“ M “mun!
I « . 3.

  

I. w .
'....‘.,__-_;
1.

' J-X
7-7-2.

- l “
';..'.. _:_’.
, . ‘

. .egg? -
N‘Q-c—va _ ‘

#41
1.... ."

 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  

       

  
   

    

   
    
 

 

 

 
 
  

 

      

     
 
  
    
 
   
 
 
  
 

   
    
  

   
  

    
    
 

   
   
 

      
     
   
       
 
      
      

 
 

 
 
 
 

   
   

 
 

  
     
       

      
     

   

 

 
 

      
  

E} W -i“é

Er ‘ at: .:E.‘ " "E‘EfiEa"? ; .

a}! {NEW-1?" 9.3;};5 i. . i. EEEEEEE " ' 'Eix- E"

ing“ ‘ .EQHEWfl‘I ' ‘L I'Efri l “'1", 3‘ tifi’i‘géfl: V ME, '2??? "UR Ami! ;x' :
E'EEE, Ii; EE‘ "IEEE‘E' {EV-E .;-'“l.' E; {El LEE ‘ 1 :11‘1 Eing'dgs Eng £1: 't' 'l‘"' fig; E ”El"; 1i
EMEHEEE “' 'wnwhuri ; NEE E; , i.h. ;p~Em EE‘ E Mj ;
E‘E'E'E - writ; ; E? “E .EEE w E 3'; E?" E” *t‘ti: H23; mE' "“'
”LIME ;. WM, a ir EHE } EElEi'EEE WHEE" 0‘;-
=_;:;;;z:w;;‘E;g. »:,;E;: “W “‘ E; E§;2;:E;E w;
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIEEE'EEEM‘HE:I'EEE'E'EE‘EEE i; 1;! EE: '1; 1% Wm?» 1;; 1:? $15ng i’ E Eli-E
{EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Eat; ;E; E ._ “'x$;;3
9;; r2:§;;:;4:r;z.;na MERE“: E; "“5 2' Ma: :5; . ’ 11312;; 31% ,.;.
1255E;EE;;;;~;;;;EE E;;;§;Ef;;§.zi E EEE EE; ~=E 5;; EEE jb;1;:;;; ,;EE .5
IE5?E%EfiQE§4E&WQnIJVEfiE~W” m4,$5 s; , FE” JME%$E .”

1131;” .‘1,ll;;,;;;£: v_h‘;fi?;;; E113; ; :4? DP: 4].. i ,ngi A ‘ ‘ - F, 325611 ‘ .

H: ”E," S'th'EEE'r'HFEH" E' i; E E' [1.55 ‘l’ Jt-vgih ‘

:EEEEE‘ EEE’ :EEEEEEEEEEifE E ’ '3' E E E
‘Q.Mg-p41pm%wfifmghf ”Em 'IEE. I

; “WW: EEEEEE 31111191132, .g; I;

; .1 ‘ ' . i ;;“l-11 ‘: £285.. ' '

2E: EE‘EEE’EEEE" EM; 5;; 1. El

1;} j 1 Hi ‘19!“qu if, u q i;

E; 1’;ng: E'EEEEEIEEEEE {E *' 1 E

E ’E E ME; ; z!

; E z; E E; ; ;

EhLvEI...’ .EHEE. iEd" LE .EJduEun. ‘

J

"ms |UlHHl|HH||W|\Wliliilliili‘\illmiilllmi

:2 3 1293 02058

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Japanese Managers' Leadership in Overseas Subsidiaries:
Perception and Communication Differences between
Japanese Managers and Host Country Subordinates in
Malaysia and the Phiiippines
presented by

Reiko Nebashi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph . D . degree inCommunicati on

K» ) /
' Major p(ofessor a

Date 56¢“ [cc if]: [22’

MSUi: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University -

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 chiRC/DdoDm.pfi&p.14

 

 

 

JAPANESE MANAGERS’ LEADERSHIP IN OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARIES:
PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
JAPANESE MANAGERS AND HOST COUNTRY SUBORDINAT ES

IN MALAYSIA AND THE PHILIPPINES

By

Reiko Nebashi

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

1 999

ABSTRACT

JAPANESE MANAGERS’ LEADERSHIP IN OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARIES:
PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
JAPANESE MANAGERS AND HOST COUNTRY SUBORDINATES
IN MALAYSIA AND THE PHILIPPINES
By

Reiko Nebashi

This dissertation is a study of leadership in Japanese overseas subsidiaries and
the relationship between leadership and communication in such organizations. The
theoretical purpose of the study is to answer key questions and test hypothesized
relationships about leadership and communication style in these businesses by testing a
leader-subordinate communication model; an applied purpose is to find more effective
means of communicating between Japanese leaders and host country subordinates.

In the global market where competitiveness among multinational corporations is
accelerating, training capable host country successors and replacing employees from a
parent company with those of host countries are urgent matters. Japanese corporations
have not been especially successful at these tasks. Communication issues, it is argued
here, are critical for Japanese leaders to manage subordinates well and increase rates of
capable host country successors.

The present study focused on intercultural settings since such settings heighten
the potential for leadership and communication problems. The following questions (and
related hypotheses) were posed: (1) How is Japanese managerial leadership perceived by
host country subordinates? (2) How can leaders and subordinates communicate more

efficiently? And (3) What represents efl‘ective leadership and management

communication to Japanese leaders and host country subordinates?

There were 292 participants joined this study: 63 Malaysians, 162 Filipinos, and
67 Japanese. They were recruited from 7 Japanese companies located in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia and 10 in Makati City, the Philippines. A questionnaire was utilized for this
Study. The questions in the questionnaire were worded to ask about the leader’s
communication with subordinates or the subordinates’ communication with leaders.
Japanese participants completed one questionnaire for leaders and Malaysians and
Filipinos completed one for subordinates.

Results reveal that subordinates perceived that information was better shared
under Japanese managers who emphasized both performance and maintenance (PM) as
leadership fiinctions, and when messages were communicated eXplicitly. As PM
leadership theory suggests, PM style of leadership was most strongly related to
information sharing and satisfaction among employees, whereas pm style was least
strongly related to information sharing and satisfaction. However, the maintenance
fimction of Japanese managers seems more important to Malaysian and Filipino
employees than their Japanese managers. The findings of perceptional gaps about
leadership, communication style, information sharing, and satisfaction are discussed in
terms of the Leader-Subordinate Communication Model.

Implications of the present results are discussed for both scholars of intercultural

communication and leadership and for practitioners involved in international subsidiaries.

Copyright by
REIKO NEBASHI

l 999

To my parents, grandparents, and husband.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my family. My dad opened a
door to academic life and my mom has been my best consultant and supporter. My
sisters offered interesting viewpoints to understand intercultural communication through
their own living-abroad experiences. My grandparents provided me grateful financial
support so that I could concentrate on my study. VVIthout their encouragement and help,
I would not complete my PhD.

Several great people have provided me with significant contributions to my
graduate education. Most of all, 1 thank Dr. Jim Dearing, my advisor and chair, for
stimulating my academic interests, giving valuable feedback, and providing warm
support. Dr. Mary Bresnahan, my research team leader, has given me lots of interesting
research opportunities. I truly enjoyed working with her and learning fi'om her. Dr.
Kim \Vitte enabled me to see research topics more scientifically. Dr. Stan Kaplowitz
gave me his strong statistical support. I also specially thank Dr. Hiroko Nishida for
giving me an opportunity to join her project. This opportunity allowed me to collect
dissertation data and she has inspired me through discussions about fiIture intercultural
communication studies and research in Japan.

I thank my cohort and other students in our program, especially Rie, Ren, Shelly,
and Esther, for ofi‘ering kind and encouraging support. I also appreciate the cooperation
of the employees working for the companies I investigated, who were willing to tell me
their perspectives and ideas.

Finally but most importantly, I would like to acknowledge my loving husband,

Hiro, for his supportive encouragement and comments. He often asked me, “When will

vi

you become a doctor?” Away from school and the US, and with a daily heavy teaching
load, it has not been easy to make myself constantly return to work on the dissertation.
At his question I always braced myself up and replied, “I will finish my dissertation!”

\Mthout him, my PhD. would never have become a reality.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. xiii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... l
The Present Study ......................................................................... 4

CHAPTER I: JAPANESE OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARIES IN MALAYSIA AND THE

Malaysia .................................................................................... 6
Historical Influence on Current Society: Bumiputra Policy .............. 6
Economic Development ....................................................... 8
Features of Malaysian Employees .......................................... lO

Malays ............................................................... 11
Chinese ............................................................... 12
Indian ................................................................. 13

The Philippines ........................................................................... 13
Historical Influence on Current Society .................................... 13
Economic Development ...................................................... 15
Features of Filipino Employees ............................................. 18

CHAPTER 2: PROBLEMS IN JAPANESE OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARIES ............... 20

Problems in Intercultural Management ............................................... 21
Localization .................................................................... 21

Features of Japanese Organization .................................................... 23
The Concept of Job ............................................................ 23
Intemalization of the Labor Market ......................................... 24
Distribution of Resources .................................................... 28

Communication ........................................................................... 29
Perception and Communication Style ...................................... 30

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE ABOUT LEADERSHIP33

Leadership Styles ........................................................................ 35

Leadership and Management Communication ....................................... 38

Leadership and Management Communication in Intercultural Settings ......... 39

Working as an Intercultural Team ...................................................... 42

Hypotheses ................................................................................ 43
Hypotheses about Leadership ................................................ 43
Hypotheses about Perception Gaps ......................................... 46

Leadership Gaps .................................................... 46
Communication Style Gaps ....................................... 47
Information Sharing Gaps .......................................... 47
Satisfaction Gaps .................................................... 48

viii

CHAPTER 4: METHOD .......................................................................... 49

Overview ................................................................................. 49
Participants ............................................................................... 49
Procedure ................................................................................. 52
Measures .................................................................................. 53
Variables .................................................................................. 54
Leadership ..................................................................... 54
Communication Style ......................................................... 55
Information Sharing ........................................................... 55
Satisfaction ..................................................................... 56
Demographics .................................................................. 57
Analysis ................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS .......................................................................... 58
Profile of the Participants ............................................................... 58
Hypotheses about Leadership .......................................................... 63
Hypothesis 1 ......................................................... 63

Hypothesis 2 and 3 .................................................. 64

Hypothesis 4 ......................................................... 66

Hypothesis 5 and 6 .................................................. 67

Hypotheses about Perception Gaps .................................................. 70
Leadership Gaps ............................................................... 70
Research Question 1 ................................................ 70

Research Question 2 ................................................ 72

Research Question 3 ................................................ 74

Research Question 4 ................................................ 75

Communication Style Gaps .................................................. 77
Hypothesis 7 ......................................................... 77

Hypothesis 8 ......................................................... 77

Research Question 5 ................................................ 79

Information Sharing Gaps .................................................... 80
Research Question 6 ................................................ 80

Research Question 7 ................................................ 80

Satisfaction Gaps .............................................................. 81
Research Question 8 ................................................ 81

Research Question 9 ................................................ 82

Answers to Open-ended Questions .......................................... 82
Superiors and Subordinates ........................................ 82

The Organization ................................................... 84

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 87
Overview .................................................................................. 87
General Patterns of Findings ........................................................... 87
Hypotheses about Leadership ................................................ 87
Hypotheses about Perception Gaps ......................................... 89
Suggestions for Japanese Managers ................................................... 93
Suggestions for Management .......................................................... 96

ix

Suggestions for Malaysian/Filipino Subordinates ............................... 101

Implications for Future Research ..................................................... 102
Concluding Remarks .................................................................. 103
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 105
APPENDICES .................................................................................... 113

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 - Employment Distribution in Malaysia by Industry by Sex, 1970-1995 (%) .. 9
Table 1.2 - Proportion of Executive Employees in Malaysia by Ethnic Group (%) ...... 11

Table 1.3 - Employment Distribution in the Philippines by Industry, 1970-1990 (%). . .. 17

Table 1.4 - Employment Distribution by Industry by Sex in 1988 and 1995 (%) 17
Table 5.1 - Profile of the Participants ........................................................... 59
Table 5.2 - Profile of the Company .............................................................. 61
Table 5.3 - Descriptive Data about Variables ................................................... 62

Table 5.4 - Correlation Matrix of Performance, Maintenance, and Information Sharing .63

Table 5.5 - Multiple Regression of Performance, Maintenance,
and Information Sharing ............................................................ 64

Table 5.6 - Correlation Matrix of Performance, Maintenance, and Information Sharing .65
(Explicit Communication)

Table 5.7 - Correlation Matrix of Performance, Maintenance, and Information Sharing .66
(Implicit Communication)

Table 5.8 - Correlation between Information Sharing and Satisfaction ..................... 67
Table 5.9 - Groups of PM Style of Leadership ................................................ 68
Table 5.10 - Comparison of Four Groups on Information Sharing .......................... 69
Table 5.11 — Comparison of Four Groups on Satisfaction .................................. 70
Table 5.12 - Perception Difference about Leadership by Sex ................................ 72
Table 5.13 - Ranks on Efficient Leader by Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos ......... 73
Table 5.14 - Ranks on Difficulty by Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos ................. 75

Table 5.15 - Ranks on Motivate Behavior by Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos ...... 76

Table 5.16 - Comparison of Means of Leadership Functions Among Three Groups. . . 78

xi

Table 5.17 - Strategies in Response to Unclear Messages .................................... 79

Table 5.18 — Communication Problems by Country .......................................... 81
Table 5.19 - Suggestions for More Satisfied Communication with Superiors ............ 84
Table 5.20 - Suggestions for More Satisfied Communication in Organizations .......... 85
Table 6.1 - Number ofEmployees by Job Type, Country, and Sex 100

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 - Concept of Job ....................................................................... 23
Figure 2.2 - Intemalization of the Labor Market .............................................. 25
Figure 2.3 - Salary and Years of Service for Employees in Japanese Companies .......... 27
Figure 2.4 - Distribution of Resources .......................................................... 29
Figure 2.5 - Analogic and Digital Perception .................................................. 31
Figure 3.1 - PM Theory of Leadership ......................................................... 36
Figure 3.2 - Leader-Subordinate Communication Model ..................................... 40
Figure 3.3 - Research Variables .................................................................. 44
Figure 4.1 - The General Structure of Japanese Overseas Subsidiaries .................... 51

xiii

INTRODUCTION

With the dawn of a new century, global corporations from industrialized and newly
industrializing countries are seeking to enlarge their economic bases. Over the final two
decades of the twentieth century, one of the most recognizable additions to this global
corporate landscape has been the powerfirl presence of Japanese corporations.

From the 19505 until the mid-1960s, Japanese multinational corporations primarily
exported finished goods from Japan. Overseas investments were made mainly to purchase
raw materials such as coal and timber. In the 19605, the Japanese “economic miracle”
took off. Labor costs at home skyrocketed. Manufacturers and related industries were
forced to look overseas for cheaper labor to reduce costs so that they could sustain
product sales (Beechler & Taylor, 1994). Japanese corporations shifted from export-
oriented business to labor-intensive assembly operations in other countries, primarily
Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

In terms of the number of subsidiaries operating overseas, many Japanese
corporations are multinational corporations. However, there are characteristics of the
“Japanese multinational corporation” which differentiate them from Western multinational
corporations. For example, they are the number of employees fiom a parent company,
shortage of capable host country employees, and practicing on—the—job training.

Compared with Western multinationals, Japanese multinationals keep more employees

from a parent company, have less host country employees promoted to management

positions, and depend more on on-the-job training rather than book instructions
(Yoshihara, 1996).

Supported by technology and a strong economy from 19705 through 19805,
Japanese corporations steadily transferred the Japanese way of doing business into foreign
countries where Japanese multinationals located. Many Japanese parent companies
relocated Japanese managers to affect this transfer. However, relocation is no longer a
vital option. The wholesale transfer of Japanese business practices led to problems in host
country subsidiaries that now require a transformation into new business practices, not a
mere transfer of existing practices (Fujino, 1998).

Corporate globalization has let to standardization. For instance, the ISO
(International Organization for Standardization) and the IAS (International Accounting
Standard) have been introduced all over the world. Standardized corporate software is
beginning to spread, too. Many western corporations developed leadership programs and
team management programs and are practicing such programs in host countries, leading to
global standardization of management practice. In this powerfirl movement, Japanese
corporations are far behind. Toyota began a department of global human resource
management only in 1998 (“Promoting global human resource management,” 1998;
“Barrier to globalization,” 1999). Japanese corporate leaders have long made light of
organizational globalization. Part of their long indifference has been a reluctance to
seriously consider cultural issues in their foreign subsidiaries.

From the 19805 through the early 19905, Japanese corporations established many
overseas subsidiaries. Now, many of these companies have retreated. Chung (1995)

investigated Japanese corporations in Korea and found that one of the most fi'equent

reasons of withdrawal of Japanese overseas subsidiaries was the aggravation of
relationships with Korean business partners. Chung emphasized the importance of
effective communication between business partners as a key to success.

It is now important for Japanese corporate leaders to learn more effective
communication skills and become intercultural business leaders. It has been said that
Japanese leaders don’t provide enough feedback about work performance to host country
subordinates, don’t explain procedures well enough, and too work-oriented (Kagono,
1997). Host country subordinates often feel that Japanese employees do not share
knowledge and information. They think that they are not trusted by their Japanese
superiors; thus employee turnover is rapid. Therefore, Japanese leaders have had little
success at identifying and nurturing successors from host country subordinates (Hayashi,
1994)

This kind of problem will eventually make Japanese corporations lose
competitiveness in the global market. Moreover, this problem is not limited to overseas
subsidiaries, but can affect any Japanese company in any field as more international
business alliances, mergers, and acquisitions take place.

The present study examines leadership in intercultural settings with regard to
communication, specifically leadership and management communication in Japanese
overseas subsidiaries. The following questions are posed: (1) How is leadership by
Japanese manager perceived by host country subordinates? (2) How can leaders and
subordinates communicate more efficiently? And (3) What is effective leader-subordinate

communication in such intercultural business settings? The unique aspect of this research

is that it approached the study of Japanese leadership in overseas subsidiaries from both a
Japanese point of view and a host employees’ standpoint.
The Present Study

In order to examine these questions, the next chapter (Chapter 1) reviews the
historical background of Japanese overseas subsidiaries in Malaysia and the Philippines.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature about problems in Japanese overseas subsidiaries.
Chapter 3 discusses issues concerning leadership, especially leadership of Japanese
managers in intercultural business settings. In addition, current problems between
Japanese superiors and their host country subordinates and the possible determinants of
these problems are examined. Based on the discussion of these issues, several hypotheses
are generated. Chapter 4 discusses the date-collection methods and analytical procedures
of this study. It details the participants, procedure, measures, and analysis.

Results are presented in Chapter 5, with their theoretical and practical import

discussed in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 1

JAPANESE OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARIES IN MALAYSIA AND

THE PHILIPPINES

Malaysia and the Philippines are popular sites of foreign investment. Japan has led
foreign investment for many years in both countries (Smith, 1993; Miranda, Jr., 1994).
There were 1,346 Japanese companies and joint ventures doing business in Malaysia
(JETRO: the Japan External Trade and Research Organization, 1996) and approximately
700 in the Philippines (Japanese Chamber of Commerce, personal communication,
February 12, 1997) in the mid-19905. Japanese are everywhere in these countries — having
opened sushi shops, restaurants, department stores, book stores, karaoke bars, etc.
Although some people are not pleased with this Japanese presence, the relationships
between these two countries and Japan have improved over the years. Malaysia started its
famous Look East Policy in the early 19805, which aimed to learn Japanese work ethics
such as patience, diligence, and loyalty and apply them in Malaysian workplaces (Kawatani
& Abdullah, 1996). The Philippines reestablished political stability under the Ramos
Administration in 1992 (JETRO, 1997), which was followed by the Estrada
Administration. The political stability allows two countries’ relationship stabilized.

Japanese-affiliated companies in these countries have made substantial
contributions in the form of job creation, technology transfer, and foreign exchange

earnings. However, these companies have been responsible for new fiictions as well. The

cause of friction may result from a lack of skills of how to manage people from different
cultures, misunderstanding their behaviors, and cultural insensitivity, or what is sometimes
seen as the arrogance of Japanese managers.

Efforts made by Japanese companies to overcome cultural barriers are not always
fully understood by host country people and communities. Much research has studied
this issue with respect to human resource management, economics, and technology
transfer. However, few studies have shed light on communication issues for better
understanding intercultural human behavior. In order to have better understanding of the
communication issues between Japanese and Malaysians and Japanese and Filipinos, this
chapter provides information about the historical background of Malaysia and the
Philippines in terms of economic development and their populations.

Malaysia
Historical Influence on Current Society: Bumiputra Policy

During the colonial era (from the 18005 to 19605), the British developed local
industries in Malaysia, particularly tin and rubber, and built infrastructure to support the
area’s burgeoning trade. In addition to the indigenous and diverse Malay population,
Malaya (the Peninsula) became home to a mix of ethnic and cultural groups, namely
Chinese and Indians. Their numbers, when combined, once exceeded the local Malay
population because the British imported labor fiom India due to a local labor shortage.
Indians were primarily from the southern part of Tamil, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (Dunung,
1995; Kaur & Metcalfe, 1999).

The Chinese population originally came fi'om the southern part of China as

laborers; quickly, however, they became merchants. The Chinese were split into two

groups: recent immigrants and straits-bom (Baba) Chinese. The straits-born Chinese had
been born in the Straits Settlement and regarded Malaya rather than China as their
homeland (Dunung, 1995).

Under the British controL “the Malays were encouraged to remain in the rural
subsistence sector, whereas the Chinese were allowed to concentrate their economic
involvement in the mining, commercial and the financial sectors” and this “segregation of
ethnic groups by economic functions was economically sound and politically safe for the
colonial regime. However, this led to a highly lop-sided economic development in which
the gap between the rural and the urban and between the Malays and the Chinese became
bigger and bigger” (Talib & Chee-Beng, 1995, p.387). Malaysia became an independent
country in 1963 and Singapore was separated from Malaysia in 1965. After
independence, ethnic tensions between Malays and Chinese heightened. After ethnically
motivated riots against the Chinese population in 1969, the government took steps to deal
with the grievances and fi'ustrations of the economically backward Malays by adopting the
Why (the so-called “Bumiputra” Policy). Bumiputra literally means “the
sons of the soil,” meaning the ethnic Malays. This policy intended to reduce, and then,
obliterate, poverty, and to restructure the society to correct economic imbalances between
Chinese and Malays and eliminate the identification of race with economic position.
Special privileges were extended to Malays to help them buy land, obtain business
licenses, receive better education, and secure more government positions. The Bumiputra
policy brought the Malays into the modern era, and expanded the economic and social
infrastructure for the rural poor. Historically, in Malaysia’s urban and commercial world,

Chinese and Indians dominated, while Malays were relegated to poor rural areas.

This New Economic Policy achieved its goal of correcting imbalances through
training and education of Malays in management, establishing percentages for employment
and ownership in the industrial sector, and giving special consideration to Malay business
people through advice, subsidies, and so forth (Mehden, 1987). The Chinese and Indian
communities have subsequently became somewhat resentfiil about the special treatment of
Malays (Dunung, 1995). However, despite reforms, the Chinese continue to exercise
control over business. There are more Chinese in managerial positions in Japanese
subsidiaries than Malays, for example (Fujiwara, 1997).

Economic Development

The spectacular performance of the Malaysian economy in the past two decades
(until the recent Asian economic recession) drew the attention of experts from all over the
world. There are five reasons for this economic growth: (1) Government policies and
efforts for promoting industrialization, (2) increase of foreign investment, particularly from
Japan and the NIEs (newly industrializing economics), (3) increase of export and
intraregional trade in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, (4)
decline in competitiveness among the newly industrializing countries, and (5) increased
regional political stability (Yamashita, 1991, p4). Since 1970, when the New Economic
Policy was declared, the economy has undergone significant structural changes, shifting
from an agricultural to a manufacturing-based economy (Arifi‘, 1991; Huq, 1994; Pillai,
1994). The employment distribution by industry shows that the proportion of both males
and females in the agricultural sector has been constantly declining, with corresponding

increases in the manufacturing and other service sectors (Peng, 1994, see Table 1.1).

$3: £25 3:33 as as? 35:8 .6 bag: 2: as 9.3: SE ”see @382

 

 

 

 

2: 02 2: 02 2: OS 2: OS was

8228 3:88am

SN 3: EN 3: 02 EN v.2 2: Eooeaeaeeou

8228 305333398

3 3 mm 3. f 3 - - 32303523055

2230638800

E 3 2 3 so ow We on $8ananst

355385—8333:

08 0.2 be 0.2 a: a: 3 o: Eacaaaaép

2 n: he 3 3 we no 3 88.588

do 0.0 3 ad _ .o 3 _ .o o. _ sagasemoceom

wow «.8 new a: MS a: S no manganese:

No no Ho be no I 6o 3 maéaaaaefi

0.2 0.5 gm 3N me. n: a? 92. beEQEBEE?
295m 032 225m 2“: 255m .032 225m 232

32 82 82 22 bags

 

as; 33.2.: .am 2 926.: E «ii: a. 8:353: Sagas”.— -E 03:.

These changes have made through foreign investment. The Malaysian government
has offered various incentives to foreign businesses such as exemption from corporate
taxes and import duties. Malaysia has also attracted foreign investments by providing
low-tech, labor-intensive, assembly-type operations in free trade zones for foreign
investors. Foreign investors including Japan have, in turn, created exportable
manufactured goods and transferred production technologies to Malaysia. These
investments have provided thousands of jobs and helped overcome the previously high
unemployment among young people. As a result, in the 19905, job demand has outpaced
labor supply (Pillai, 1994). With a tight labor market and persistent reports of shortages
of skilled and unskilled workers, labor cost is rapidly going up (Ariffin, 1992). Labor cost
is increasing more rapidly (12%) than annual economic growth (8%) (Fujiwara, 1997).

This labor shortage and high labor cost challenge both Malaysian and foreign
investors. Malaysia no longer enjoys the kind of comparative advantage in labor costs that
it did a few years ago. Other countries such as Vietnam and China are now more
attractive locations for foreign investors for providing cheaper labor. Secondly, since
Malaysia has a smaller pool of low-cost labor, foreign companies have to compete for
hiring local staff with other companies. In addition, the labor shortage and high wages
have resulted in constant job-hopping (Krishnan, 1997).

Features of Malaysian Employees

Malaysia is a multiethnic society. The population of Malaysia is approximately 19
million and consists of three main ethnic groups. Malays are 60% of the entire population,
Chinese 30%, and Indians 9%, along with small indigenous tribes (Peng, 1994).

Characteristics of these three ethnic groups difi‘er (Abdullalr, 1992). Understanding and

10

managing this cultural diversity, as in the United Sates, is a major challenge for Japanese
managers who work with Malaysian employees.
Malays

The Malays historically have preferred agriculture as an occupation. They kept
their village lifestyles intact into this century. With industrial modernization and the
Bumiputra Policy, Malays have had political control of the country since independence.
The government has tried to elevate the status of the Malay population through economic
policies including scholarships, tax-exemptions, and stock ownership. The Bunriputra
Policy has contributed to elevate the Malays status. The percentage of the number of
Malay employees as a whole has rapidly increased due to this policy. However, Malays
are hired mainly as production line workers. Most higher executive positions are filled by

Chinese (see Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 - Proportion of Executive Employees in Malaysia by Ethnic Group (%)

 

 

Malay Chinese Indian Japanese
Director 8.5 17.4 0.7 73.5
GM 9.2 23.2 3.6 63.9
Manager 24.8 40.6 7.9 26.7
Supervisor 55.6 30.8 12.5 1.1

 

Adopted from: Fujiwara (1997)

ll

Work ethic partly explains Malaysian employment stratification. Malays put family
first in their daily lives. They think that hard work does not pay if family life is neglected
and that the spiritual health of an employee is equally as important as the company’s
economic well-being (Kawatani & Abdullah, 1996). This idea conflicts with the norm in
Japanese companies, where company and work supercede family life.

Another unique feature of the Malays is religion. Although Chinese and Indians
have their own religion, the Malays practice religion more strictly than other two groups.
Most Malays are Muslims. During work, they take time off to pray each day. Religious
requirements pose challenges for modern industrial production in a multi-ethnic context
(Smith, 1996).

Chinese

The Chinese who settled in Malaysia are economically and culturally very different
from the Malays. Most of them are Buddhist or Taoist and have educated their children at
Chinese schools in Chinese language or at English schools (Smith, 1996). This parochial
education and cultural practices such as the celebration of Chinese New Year and the
Moonle festival have led to the maintenance of Chinese cultural and ideological views
(Gomes, 1999).

The Chinese community has been most successful commercially and is loyal to its
business interests, and is often considered to have the strongest work ethic in Malaysia.
The notion that hard work brings success has spread among the Chinese in Malaysia
(Dunung, 1996). Despite the Bumiputra Policy that gives advantages to the Malays, the
Chinese has taken most of the managerial and the upper posts in foreign companies due to

their abilities and determination in professional areas such as accounting and engineering.

12

Indian

Indians are mostly Tamil speakers and Hindus, though there are considerable
numbers of Indians from other areas and practice different religions such as Muslim and
Sikh (Gomes, 1999).

Among Indians there are two classes, professionals and laborers. Some Indians
have been extremely successful as lawyers, physicians, and educators (McDaniel, 1994).
However, as a whole the Indian community in Malaysia has not thrived economically.
Only a few Indians hold government positions. There are not many Indians holding
executive positions in Japanese companies in Malaysia, either.

Although there are unique characteristics of each of these ethnic groups, there are
some common features among them, too. Because Malaysia was under British rule for a
long time, Malaysian ideas of work, in a sense, are more westemized than in Japan,
especially white -collar employees and those with higher education (Ishida, 1986; Aoki &
Umata, 1997). For example, Malaysians prefer books to on-the-job training to learn skills,
and clear job descriptions to vague job assignments (Kataoka & Mishima, 1997). Loyalty
to a company is not high, and strong leadership is desired of their superiors (Ishida, 1986).

The Philippines

Historical Influence on Current Society

The history of the Philippines is the history of colonial rule by other countries for
400 years. No one nation clearly ruled the Philippine islands before the Spanish came and
started its reign in 1565. Ironically, the Philippines push to establish its own identity as a
nation came at the same time as Spanish settlement. The Spanish named the country the

Philippines in honor of their king, Philip II. Spanish colonization lasted over 300 years,

13

until 1898. More than 100 of the governor-generals fi'om Spain exploited the indigenous
Filipinos, which impoverished the Filipinos. The center of plunder was the churches. The
Spanish rulers established churches and civilized indigenous Filipinos. However, the
churches, at the same time, constructed the system for controlling the Filipinos (Ikehata &
Ikuta, 1992).

Unlike the rule of Malaysia by Britain, Spain didn’t succeed in forming plantations
and making a profit from them. Rather than plantations, Spanish rulers were concerned
with trade. Trading with Mexico, another Spanish colony had brought Spain enormous
fortune. The heart of Philippine trading was Manila. In the 18305, Manila was
commercially developed due to trading and the educated class and the upper class were
formed. They invested their wealth on purchasing real estates and became land owners.
Filipino inherited from Spain a highly inequitable system of land tenure dominated by the
landowning class (Neher, 1999). This trend continues. Chinese are still in power of
distribution channels and owns real estates in this country (Ikehata & Ikuta, 1992) and
some elite Filipino families retain their power and wealth and many political leaders come
fiom these families (Dunung, 1995).

In 1896, a revolution broke out, led by a group of intelligentsia with the support of
the upper class. The Unites States intervened militarily for the sake of Filipino freedom
from Spanish oppression. Then, in 1902, the Unites States declared its control over the
Philippines. Since then, this country was under the rule of the Unites States, except a
short period of Japanese rule during World War H. The Philippines finally became an
independent country in 1946, though control by the Unites States continued until the

19605. In the 19505, against US. rule, anti-American nationalism raged all over the

14

country. Social unrest led to the despotic government of President Marcos and his cronies
in the 19605 through the 19805 (SarDesai, 1994).

Thus, since the colonial era, this country has been ruled by foreign powers.
Whenever a change of power took place, it caused social, political, and economic unrest,
which greatly influenced the economic development of this country and the population.
Economic Development

In an effort to stop a trend of declining economic growth in the 19605, the
Philippine government started to provide incentives for the establishment of export-
oriented industries, which facilitated the growth of manufacturing industries. However,
beginning in the late 19705 through the 19805, the Philippines was hit by internal and
external incidents. Due to worldwide oil shocks, the country experienced protectionism in
developed country trade as well as severe trade competition fi'om other developing
countries (Miranda, Jr., 1994). In addition, the country became politically insecure. This
insecurity caused the withdrawal of foreign firms and an outflow of capital. In 1983,
Nmoi Aquino was assassinated. In 1986, the Marcos Administration collapsed, followed
by a coup d’état in 1989. These crises hit industry very hard (Miranda, Jr., 1994). Under
the relative political stability of the Ramos Administration, the economy rose gradually
until the recent Asian economic recession.

Due to its long period of foreign control, this country is very sensitive to foreign
investment like other ASEAN countries including Malaysia and Singapore (Kimbara,
1991). The strong power of multinational corporations was regarded as a threat to them.
Thus, this country was inclined to resist the direct investment by multinational

corporations. However, without the introduction of technology and investment from

15

foreign countries, it seemed difficult for this country to attain successfirl economic
development. The President Ramos encouraged foreign investment and international
trades and privatized more public entities (Dunung, 1995). Beginning in 1987, the
government established new investment rules. From the mid-19805 through the 19905,
Asian multinationals became the most active investors in this country. Investment from
Japan increased considerably in this period. Especially in Export Processing Zones,
Japanese investment represented about half of total investment (JETRO, 1997). JETRO
(the Japan External Trade and Research Organization) analyzed the factors associated
with increased Japanese investment: (1) Government incentives, including exemption from
corporate taxes and import duties for export-oriented industries, (2) easy to hire well-
educated personnel, especially engineers, (3) proximity to Japan, and (4) increased
political stability (JETRO, 1997). After six years of compulsory education, many young
Filipinos continue to study at high school or vocational school and go on to university.
However, the Philippines’ unemployment rate is relatively high among ASEAN countries.
That implies that there is a constant over supply of labor. The labor surplus enables the
hiring of capable engineers who play important roles in Japanese-owned manufacturing
companies.

The increase of foreign investment generated employment and raised incomes.
However, comparing to Malaysia, structural change has been modest. The employment
distribution has only slightly shifted from the agricultural sector to the service sector.
Agricultural employment dropped to less than 50 percent, from 51.4 in 1980, to 45.2 in
1990. Service employment climbed fi'om 36.5 to 44 percent in 10 years (see Table 1.3),

partly reflecting the emergence of female workers. Since 1987, the labor-force

l6

Table 1.3 - Employment Distribution in the Philippines by Industry, 1970-1990 (%)

 

 

 

Industry 1970 1980 1990

Agriculture 53.7 51.4 45.2

Industry 12.6 11.6 10.7

Manufacturing 11.9 10.6 9.7

Services 32.1 36.5 44.0
Adapted from Ofreneo (1995)

Table 1.4 - Employment Distribution by Industry by Sex in 1988 and 1995 (%)

 

 

 

Industry 1988 1995
Male Female Male Female
54.9 33.8 51.7 31.1
Agriculture
Mining/quarrying 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.1
Manufacturing 8.0 13.5 8.4 12.7
Construction 6.0 0.1 7.5 0.2
Distributive trade 7.4 25.1 7.9 26.1
Transport/storage 7.1 0.6 8.8 0. 7
Financefrnsurance/real 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3
estate
Other services 13.7 24.8 13.1 26.8
Total 100 100 100 100

 

Adopted from: Miranda, Jr. (1994)

I7

participation rate of female workers has gone beyond 50 percent. Women are
concentrated in labor-intensive industries as well as sales and other service and clerical
jobs (Ofreneo, 1995).

Features of Filipino Employees

Andres (1988) explains the characteristics of Filipino workers in somewhat
stereotypical, but understandable way, “A Filipino can be hardworking and industrious
because of his Chinese ancestry; he can be sensuous because of his Malay influences and
he can also be religious because the Spaniards taught him 50” (p.32).

Ethnically, Filipinos are rooted in Malay and Chinese. However, this fact does not
suflice to understand them. Due to the long colonial period, the Spanish transmitted
Christianity and social organization along westem lines to Filipinos. The main religion in
the country is still Roman Catholicism. The US. brought the concern for materialistic
values to Filipinos (Andres, 1988; Dunung, 1995), introduced a system of public
education along with incorporating English as the national language, and fostered the rise
of highly trained technocrats, bureaucrats, and entrepreneurs (N eher, 1999).

Three values highlight Filipino behaviors: personalism, authoritarianism, and
familism (Andres, 1988; Jocano, 1990). Personalism refers to the degree of emphasis
Filipinos put on interpersonal relations or to face-to-face encounters. Jocano (1990)
points out that successful leadership must have a trace of personal touch and
communication has difiiculty flowing through channels when personalized concern is not
intended. Amhon'tarianism refers to concern of power (Andres, 1988). People in a higher

status or position would be respected by followers and they act as responsible leaders

18

(Jocano, 1990). Eamilism refers to values of the family over the company or organization.
The focus of individual concern is on small group relations, especially the family.

Despite these features, however, Philippine laws and systems follow American
laws and systems. Many bureaucrats and top company managers have study abroad
experience in the United States (Kataoka & Mishima, 1997). They work as specialists and
change jobs fi‘equently (Takahashi, 1998). Therefore, as businesspeople, Filipino
employees are strongly influenced by US. work culture.

In the next chapter, features and problems of Japanese business organization are
described. By comparing Japanese with Malaysians and Filipinos in various aspects, the

causes of fiiction between these groups are then suggested.

19

CHAPTER 2

PROBLEMS IN JAPANESE OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARIES

The transformation of Japanese companies from Japan to overseas is in firll swing.
As overseas subsidiaries become larger, problems regarding human resource management
in overseas subsidiaries become more conspicuous. Many studies have documented the
problems of international human resource management that are unique to Japanese
companies (e.g., Bartlett & Yoshihara, 1988; Ishida, 1986; Kopp, 1994; Negandhi,
Eshghi, & Yuen, 1985). Some recent work examines Japanese corporate management of
international human resources (e.g., Iwauchi, Kadowaki, Abe, Jinnouchi, & Mori, 1992;
Shiraki, 1995; Yoshihara, 1996). This chapter points out two key problems regarding
Japanese organizations and then discusses these problems in relation to communication
issues: perception and communication styles.

Although the purpose of this dissertation is to examine Japanese managers’
leadership and communication in Japanese overseas subsidiaries, it is necessary to review
the context where Japanese managers’ leadership is taking place, that is, within Japanese
organizations. In many Japanese overseas subsidiaries, human resource management is
modified to fit the local environment. However, the fundamental organizational structure
arrives intact from Japan. Thus, the leadership and communication that Japanese
managers in overseas subsidiaries practice reflects the features of large Japanese

organizations.

20

Ishida (1985; 1986) compares organizational features of Japanese companies to
those of foreign organizations in terms of the concept of job, internalization of the labor
market, and distribution of resources. According to Ishida, Japanese organizations are
different from organizations in the US. and Europe regarding these dimensions, and even
with those in Southeast Asia, because many Asian corporations practice business in
western fashion (Ishida, 1986; Ofreneo, 1995).

Problems in Intercultural Management
Localization

The most prominent problem Japanese overseas subsidiaries face is localization.
Ieclmolggyjmnsfer has successfully progressed in many overseas subsidiaries.
Technology transfer refers to the transfer of production of new products and of more
eflicient production of existing products fiom a company to another company, more
specifically in the case of Japanese multinationals, from the parent firm to its subsidiary
(Das, 1987). However, the Japanese companies that have become true multinational
companies are facing management structure and policy difficulties (Bartlett & Yoshihara,
1988). Managemenflocalizatign indicates the degree to which the management of a
company is localized in a host country environment, as assessed by localization rate.
We reflects how many host country employees take management positions
and the degree of authority delegation from parent company employees to host country
employees (Shiraki, 1995). In companies at the early stages of management localization,
Japanese employees transferred from headquarters in Japan occupy top management

positions, while host country employees work as assistants. Promotion ceiling for host

21

country employees is viewed as ethnocentric staffing (Kopp, 1994; Negandhi, et al.,
1985)

According to Negandhi et al. (1985), Japanese companies are the most
ethnocentric among multinationals of the countries they investigated among the U. 8.,
Europe, and Japan. Kopp (1994) also concludes from his research that Japanese
companies, as a group, are shown to have more ethnocentric stafling practices and policies
and that they experience more international human resource management problems than
do American and European companies. In ethnocentric firms, home country employees
are strongly tied to people back in headquarters rather than to host country personnel.
This creates dual systems of human resource management in a company, and limits the
locus of power and key information sharing to only home country employees (Ishida &
Shiraki; 1990). In Japanese ethnocentric firms, Japanese and host country managers
pursue different career paths, have different levels of job security, and receive different
types of training and fiinge benefits. This problem is most serious in Japanese subsidiaries
based in developing countries (Negandhi et al., 1985). The issue of localization has been
discussed by many researchers and practitioners. It remains a big challenge for Japanese
overseas subsidiaries (Shiraki, 1995).

Unless such companies begin to change, they will remain culture-bound captives of
their ethnocentric biases. As long as ethnocentric staffing interferes with the hiring of
capable, “elite” host country employees, better employees won’t be attracted to such
companies where there are fewer promotion opportunities. Elite employees should

overtake the management positions now held by Japanese. Unless companies hire high-

22

caliber host country employees, they can not speed up rate of localization. Hiring capable
employees and promoting localization are interdependent.

The next section discusses structural challenges that can cause ethnocentric
stafling in Japanese overseas subsidiaries along with the three dimensions proposed by
Ishida (1985, 1986): (1) the concept of job, (2) internalization of the labor market, and (3)
distribution of resources.

Features of Japanese Organizations
The Concept of Job

Figure 2.1 differentiates between job responsibility in Japan and foreign
organizations. In Japanese organizations, the white spots indicate areas of individual
responsibility and the gray area represents mutual responsibility in which there are no
definite lines between individuals. Therefore, each job is not strictly described. A task is
often shared by several employees so that they can help each other to complete the task
across functional divisions. In other words, there are no definite boundaries where one’s

responsibilities ends (Ishida, 1986).

 

      
   

 

 

 

{0 "00‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Japanese organizations Foreign organizations

Figure 2.1 - Concept of Job

23

In Japanese organizations, implicit communication can play a vital role and
unstated rules can be easily exercised among individuals. Bosses and subordinates
reasonably depend on context in such organizations. Bosses do not need to provide
detailed explanations about jobs. They expect subordinates to act more independently.
However, when organizations become more multicultural, the style of communication,
unless modified, can cause problems. In foreign organizations, on the other hand, the
responsibility of each individual is clearly specified. In such organizations, conveying
messages explicitly is necessary. Bosses are to give clear instructions and evaluations
about work to subordinates and both bosses and subordinates do jobs only within their
area of responsibility.

The difference in these concepts of job may lead to conflict between Japanese and
host country employees. Host country employees may become confirsed by unclear job
boundaries. Japanese bosses may be perceived as invading employees’ areas of authority.
On the other hand, Japanese managers may feel that host country employees do only what
they are told and thus they lack initiative and flexibility. What Japanese overseas
subsidiaries need to do is to provide job descriptions that are as clear as possible and
establish a communication network among employees so that they can inquire and
exchange information more flexibly. This issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Intemalization of the Labor Market

Figure 2.2 shows the difference between Japanese and foreign organizations in
internalization of labor market and orientation of employees. In Japanese organizations,
new college graduates are often hired with no work experience. They start with at lowest

entry level and gradually climb the corporate ladder. In many foreign organizations, there

24

is less demarcation between the inside and the outside of the organization, which leads to
greater mobility of employees from one organization to another, while there is a clear

distinction between the ranks of management, white-collar, and blue-collar employees.

 

 

 

 

 

Japanese organizations Foreign organizations

Figure 2.2 - Intemalization of the Labor Market

This difference may result in the complaint of Japanese bosses saying that host
country employees are not loyal to the company. Because host country employees tend
not to stay in an organization for a long time, Japanese bosses may not think it is worth
investing money and energy on training or developing the host country employees’ skills.
They are also likely to be afi'aid of “leaking” important information about the company and
its environment given the mobility of host country employees. Such Japanese employees’
behaviors may end up with host country employees’ feeling that Japanese bosses do not
trust them.

Furthermore, Japanese companies want to establish an independent internal labor

market in each host country. That is, they want host country employees to stay in the

25

company for a long time. But overseas subsidiaries are not a part of the entire internal
labor market of the company. They don’t include host country employees in the labor
market of their headquarter. This is also discouraging capable host country employees for
staying in the company for a long time.

However, the Japanese internalization of the labor market system in subsidiaries is
changing. This change is not only for host country employees, but also for the
organization themselves. The Japanese system was established based on an affluent labor
market in Japan after World War II. Companies could hire a large number of young
employees at a low salary. In such companies, except for the first few years, young
people receive low salaries regarding their high performance, while older employees
receive relatively high salaries even though they may contribute less to the company (see
Figure 2.3). However, young employees could reliably expect more returns when they
became older, which provide ample incentive for them to stay in the company. To the
company, the arrangement was beneficial because they could hire young talented
employees at lower cost and did not have to worry about job-hopping. This arrangement
required a context of constant economic growth (Shimada, 1994). After World War H,
Japanese companies prospered with this “seniority-based pay system” and “lifetime
employment.” These two arrangements are deeply interrelated as discussed above
(Fukuda, 1988). The seniority-based pay system supports the lifetime employment system
because it rewards employees based on the length of services in the company; the lifetime
employment system supports the seniority-based pay system because it regulates the

hierarchical order and helps maintain group harmony among employees. Since they keep

26

Salary

 

 

........

 

 

»
Years of Service

 

 

Salary

 

Performance/contribution to company

 

 

 

Figure 2.3 - Salary and Years of Service for Employees in Japanese Companies

27

employees for a long period, companies are able to invest in on—the-job training and
education without fearing that the employee will leave to join a competing firm (Johnson,
1988). Steady employment makes it possible that employees will learn a greater variety of
skills and be more flexible to work in different positions.

Under a slow or decreasing economy and aging society with a smaller number of
young people like Japan, however, these systems cannot work. Companies can no longer
hire fresh graduates and spend a long time and a large amount of money training them.
Moreover, not only in overseas subsidiaries, but due to more international business
alliances, mergers, and acquisitions, Japanese companies will have more opportunities (and
necessity) to hire non-Japanese employees in the near future, who have different values
towards work.

Distribution of Resources

Figure 2.4 illustrates the difference between Japanese and foreign organizations in
terms of organization and human resources allocated at each level in organization. The
darker the shades, the higher authority and the more information people at the rank can
obtain. In Japanese organizations, authority increases with rank, as does information
available to person at each rank. However, the gap between the top-ranked and the
bottom-ranked is not so large, while there is a large and clear gap between the ranks in
foreign organizations. It is noteworthy that this style of Japanese human resource
management tends to be well accepted by blue-collar workers and to be perceived
oppressive by white-collar employees who are accustomed to Western style (Ishida,

1986). The smaller gap between ranks in Japanese organizations may be less attractive to

28

high-caliber employees of host countries. They will go to Western companies where they

can immediately receive more benefits.

 

 

 

Japanese organizations Foreign organizations

 

Figure 2.4 - Distribution of Resources

Although the gap between the ranks regarding authority in Japanese organizations
is small, the gap of information available between the ranks in overseas subsidiaries is
sometimes quite large, due to language barriers. Information sent fi'om headquarters in
Japan is usually transmitted in the Japanese language. There is a reasonable chance that
information is kept among Japanese employees. Host country employees feel that
information is not shared with them even when it is actually shared. Yoshihara (1996)
reports that host country employees feel less informed compared to Japanese employees in
overseas subsidiaries.

Communication

Based on the structural differences between Japanese organizations and foreign

organizations, the previous section discussed the problems of Japanese overseas

subsidiaries’ international human resource management. Several communication issues

29

were raised. Now we turn to a more fundamental difference underlying the three problem
areas discussed above: perception and communication style.
Perception and Communication Style

Communicating with host country employees is one of the most difiicult issues
most Japanese employees deal with in overseas subsidiaries (Haraoka & Wakabayashi,
1993). Many of them think how they communicate with host country employees is a key
to make international management successful (Ishida, 1985).

When leading and working with people fiom a different cultural background, being
an effective communicator is not an easy task. PeOple speak different languages and have
difl’erent cultural assumptions, thus have difficulties communicating with each other
(Moran, Harris, & Stripp, 1993). After extensive interviews more than a decade, Hayashi
(1994) raised the question: Why aren’t Japanese good at communication in intercultural
settings? He states that the sources of difficulties of working as an intercultural team are
located in differences of perception and communication styles between cultural groups.

Man is the process by which people become aware of the stimuli bombarding
their senses and it includes their selection, organization, and interpreting-evaluating
information about the stimuli (Devito, 1996). It includes analog perception and digital
perception. Aualogmpfiuu doesn’t draw boundary lines between objects (see Figure
2.5). It relies on one’s intuition and sense and perceives objects as a total image, not as
distinct items. Digitalmmmigu is the opposite. It draws boundary lines between
objects. For example, if X is on one side of the line, then X is not on the other side (see

Figure 2.5).

30

boundary line

 

Digital perception Analog perception

Figure 2.5 - Analogic and Digital Perception

Communication styles include the concept of high context and low context
communication. Highmutext communication depends on internal information among
people in the context. People are expected to know how to behave because they share an
understanding of contextual cues. Thus, information is not explicitly communicated. L91!
context communication, on the other hand, doesn’t depend on context so much.
Information is abundant, procedures are explicitly explained, and expectations are
discussed frequently (Dodd, 1989).

Japanese are often said to be high context and hold analog perceptions (Barley &
Erez, 1997; Funakawa, 1998; Hayashi, 1994). When working with Westerners who are
low context and perceive digitally, these differences cause a lot of difficulties for Japanese
and Westerners working together. For instance, (1) Westerners think Japanese don’t give
enough explanation; (2) they think Japanese don’t want to share ideas with them; and (3)
they think Japanese don’t trust them. Most Japanese are not even aware of their co-

workers’ views. They don’t know why their counterparts complain because they believe

31

that they do communicate information and share ideas readily. When these difficulties
happen in overseas subsidiaries, they are not just complaints of host country subordinates,
but may lead to even more serious problems for Japanese employees and companies
themselves because: (1) Most employees are from the host country; (2) capable host
country employees will leave the company; (3) thus it is impossible to create strategic
management to host country employees; and (4) thus the company may lose international
competitiveness (Hayashi, 1994).

These problems occur not only between Japan and Western countries, but between
Japan and some Asian countries, since business is practiced in the Western manner in some
Asian countries, including Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines (Ofreneo, 1995).
Communication styles of these Asian countries are different from those of other Asian
countries such as Thailand and Japan (Aoki & Umata, 1997). In addition to using English
as the language of international business and the medium of instruction in education, these
countries consist of several different ethnic groups, thus expressing one’s opinion and
oneself clearly (i.e., acting low context) is essential, particularly in business settings.
Being quiet or modest, a virtue in Japan, can be perceived very negatively in these
countries. Irnada and Sonoda (1995) report that the high context style of Japanese
communication was viewed positively as communication increased in Thailand, and
negatively in Malaysia.

The next chapter discusses communication with reference to leadership and what

style of leadership might be most effective when working as an intercultural team.

32

CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE ABOUT LEADERSHIP

There has been much research about leadership and many definitions of it. A
common thread among definitions of many leadership is a process of interpersonal
influence; a person responds because another person is considered influential (Hunt,
1991). More specifically, a person leads another person to establish goals and achieve
organizational goals (Karimata, 1989; Shockley-Zalabak, 1995). Leadership in this
dissertation is defined as an influential action between those who lead and those who
follow in order to handle organizational events and problems and achieve organizational
goals.

When studying leadership, at least three issues need to be discussed. One is the
level of leadership. This study attempts to examine direct communication between
Japanese leaders and host country subordinates. This is lower-level leadership, which
indicates face-to-face or direct influence. Higher level leadership includes the indirect
impact of leaders on what occurs at the bottom of an organization (Hunt, 1991).

The second issue is the extent to which leadership is seen as similar to or different
from management. Some researchers do not differentiate leaders and managers clearly.
Some researchers sharply differentiate between the leadership firnction and the managerial
function (Hunt, 1991). According to Shockley-Zalabak (1995), leaders communicate

about needed change, translate intentions into reality, propose new strategies, and help

33

sustain action to support decisions whereas managers are given legitimate power to affect
the behavior of subordinates and are charged with obtaining routine compliance with the
operating procedures and expectations of the organization.

In the present study, Japanese employees at Japanese overseas subsidiaries are in a
high organizational position. They are in the role of manager in the organizational
hierarchy and are expected to provide leadership for inspiring subordinates to excellent
performance. Thus, they are leaders as well as managers in this particular study.

The third issue concerning leadership is how to view leaders; in other words,
which leadership firnction and skill is studied. Researchers have viewed functions of
leadership in various ways (Morgan, 1986) and classified its skills (e. g., Clement & Ayers,
1976; Yukl, 1989). Hunt (1991) categorizes various kinds of leadership skills into three
groups: technical (e.g., knowledge about methods, processes, and techniques for
conducting a specialized activity), human relations or interpersonal (e.g., knowledge about
human behavior and interpersonal processes), and conceptual (e.g., general analytical
ability). The present study puts an emphasis on human relations, represented by
knowledge about interpersonal processes, the ability to communicate clearly and
effectively, and the ability to establish cooperative and effective relationships. In addition,
the premise about the leadership function in this study is that leadership is an information
process between leaders and subordinates.

In sum, this study attempts to investigate direct communication between Japanese
leaders and host country subordinates, particularly the ability of leaders to communicate
clearly and effectively as information processors and establish cooperative relationships

with subordinates.

34

Leadership Styles

A behavioral approach to studying leadership styles categorizes leader behaviors
along two unrelated dimensions: production orientation and person orientation. A series
of experiments were carried out by researchers at Ohio State University and the University
of Michigan independently from the 1950s through 19705. In these studies, a leader with
production-oriented behaviors gives explicit instructions, solves problems, evaluates
subordinates, and emphasizes production. A leader with person-oriented behaviors is
friendly, supportive, consultative, and establishes two-way communication. Western
studies have revealed that the most desirable leader is someone high on both dimensions
(Hui, 1990).

Inspired by American researchers such as Lewin (i.e., Lewin, Lippitt, & White,
1936) and Cartwright (i.e., Cartwright & Zander, 1968), Misumi developed a theory of
so—called PM leadership (Misumi, 1984, 1985; Misumi & Peterson, 1985). The PM
theory focuses on two main firnctions of effective leadership: task performance (P) and the
maintenance (M) of group relations. Four distinct leadership styles are obtained by
treating these two firnctions as axes with two levels each. They are PM (high P, high M),
Pm (high P, low M), pM (low P, high M), and pm (low P, low M) (see Figure 3.1).
Misumi suggests that Pm style be occasionally considered as an efficient leadership style at
the beginning of the organizational development, but that Prn style results in a negative
evaluation in the long run. He indicates that the most effective leader is the one who

successfully achieves both group performance and maintenance; thus, PM.

35

“high

Pm PM

 

low vhigh
pm pM.

 

low

Figure 3.1 - PM Theory of Leadership

Typical P-type leadership gives emphasis to high quality and cost efficiently and
enforces rules and regulations. Typical M-type leadership emphasizes a comfortable and
fiiendly workplace and shows concern for subordinates’ personal and work-related
problems. The PM style of leadership involves an above-average concern with both task
performance and the maintenance of group relations. The Pm (or P) style of leadership
rates above average in its emphasis on performance and below average on the emphasis on
group relations. The pM (or M) style of leadership rates above average in its emphasis on
the maintenance of group relations and below average on the emphasis on performance.
The pm style of leadership involves a below-average emphasis on both performance and
the maintenance of group relations. Misumi has conducted numerous studies in diverse
organizational settings in Japan and found that PM style leadership is consistently the most
effective among the four styles, whereas pm style leadership is consistently the least

effective. Similar conclusions were found in studies of other countries including India

36

(Sinha, 1981), Iran (Ayman & Chemers, 1983), China (Hui, 1990; Xu, 1989), and
Australia (Casimir & Keats, 1996).

The generalizability of the theory of PM leadership remained a question because
the concepts of performance and maintenance derived from American research. Smith,
Misumi, Tayeb, Peterson, and Bond (1989) then conducted a cross—cultural study on the
validity of the measurement (also refer to Misumi, 1992). They organized a study in
Britain, the United States, Japan, and Hong Kong. They performed factor analyses and
found that items loading varied across countries, which may reflect different cultural
values. However, the factors of performance and maintenance were consistent across all
four countries.

PM style leadership suggests that the most effective leaders are those who are
effective communicators as well as efficient. They create good interpersonal relationships
with subordinates (group maintenance) and give clear instruction, proper feedback and
evaluation to subordinates for efficient task performance.

This PM style of leadership approach is useful in cross-cultural comparisons
because it recognizes that the two main functions of effective leadership are general
functions that may be exercised in a specific manner depending on the setting (Hunt,
1991). However, this approach only focuses on one aspect of leadership, that is, how
subordinates perceive their leaders’ leadership style (Karimata, 1989). Since it only
exanrines subordinates’ rating of their leaders, it doesn’t reveal how leaders and
subordinates may perceive leadership style differently. Leadership styles need to be

investigated fi'om both the point of view of leaders and of subordinates.

37

Leadership and Management Communication

Some researchers in the field of organizational science have theorized about the
importance of communication in organizations (Barnard, 1938; Bavelas & Barnett, 1951;
Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schein, 1985). They consider an organization to be a communication
system. Communication is the center of organizational and human activities. Leadership
and management are enacted through communication. This suggests that communication
is the key to studying leadership. Leaders communicate their thoughts and attitudes with
subordinates. They lead their subordinates to corroborative work through communication
in order to achieve organizational goals. Leaders are required to be effective
communicators. Effective communicators build bridges to other people in an organization
(Hanis & Moran, 1993).

Hayashi (1994) suggests that Japanese managers verbalize objective examples and
a clear vision with subordinates. Japanese as leaders in organizations can be more
efficient communicators by being more explicit. At the same time, they need to make
themselves and organization policies understood to host country employees.

What Hayashi (1994) suggests is important. However, communication is not a
one-way process from a leader to a subordinate. It cannot be assumed that a subordinate
will perceive and understand messages as the leader intends. The subordinate may
perceive the message differently from the leader’s intention and will give meaning to the
message according to his/her own values. The leader may believe that s/he communicates
explicitly, but the subordinate may not believe so. Hence, how messages are perceived
differently between leaders and subordinates needs to be investigated to really understand

the leadership process.

38

Leadership and Management Communication in Intercultural Settings

Leadershrmommumcangu is a process of influence by leaders who attempt to

convince followers to attain specific goals or broad organizational outcomes.
Mauagerueutmmmuuieafiuu is direction of employees to work assignments, work
evaluation, needed changes, and all other aspects of directing organizational action for
goal achievement (Shoekley—Zalabak, 1995). Japanese managerial communication in
overseas subsidiaries should be a combination of these two definitions. The role of
Japanese managers is to have subordinates perform tasks and to maintain group relations
in order to attain organizational goals as leaders (Misumi, 1984). Thus, the content of the
message from a leader to subordinates may contain both task-related information and
relationship-related information such as providing instructions and praising another’s
work.

Figure 3.2 shows a leader-subordinate communication model based on this
literature review. This model has a somewhat limited objective. It does not attempt to
explain the fill] range of communication processes that occur in the work environment. It
rather focuses on interpersonal communication between a Japanese leader and a host
country subordinate although there are similar processes going on simultaneously among
different individuals. In addition, this model does not attempt to define culture, but tries
to identify processes of information sharing by which culture influences the

communication between leaders and host country subordinates.

39

 

Subordinates’
Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

Information Sharing

Explicit
3‘.»- . :l‘
3;" Implrcrt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      
 

Perception

  
 

Perception

 

  

Subordinate

-—-—---------
w-v—————-—vvi

 

 

 

Z

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.2 - Leader-Subordinate Communication Model

Cgmmuuigatigu in this model is an iterative process of information exchange that
begins with a source of information, a person (e.g., a leader) who decides which message
to send, and in what manner to send the message. The message is given in implicit form
or explicit form to a receiver (e.g., a subordinate). The message can be transformed
between implicit and explicit by the leader. The process of changing implicit information
to explicit information is called extemalization. The process of changing explicit
information to implicit information is called internalizatinu. When the message is verbally
transformed, it goes through the extemalization process.

in the case of Japanese leaders, the process of extemalization is especially essential
when working with people with a low context culture because the articulated message is
easier for them to understand. After receiving a message, the subordinate decodes the
message, interprets it with his/her own understanding, and acts accordingly. At this point,
there may be a gap between what the leader transmits and what the subordinate
understands due to perceptual difl‘erences. The message is transformed and then
transmitted back to the leader through the same process explained above. How well a
message is understood depends on the extent to which both the sender and receiver
recognize perceptual differences between them and messages are transmitted. Through
this process, information is shared between leader and subordinate, particularly when the
messages about both performance and maintenance are explicitly communicated. When
leaders and subordinates share more information, they will be more satisfied with each

other.

41

Working as an Intercultural Team

Working as an intercultural team has great potential though it carries the risk of
intercultural conflict and inefficiency (Moran et al., 1993). Yano (1998) studied the
relationship between the diversity and the originality of R & D (Research and
Development) teams. He found that the group, which manages diversity of group
members well, does more creative work as an R & D team. Adler (1986) introduced a
study in her book about the relationship between diversity and productivity of work teams.
The productivity of multicultural teams was polarized, that is, either very high or very low,
whereas mono-cultural teams’ productivity was average. Adler analyzed this result and
concluded that whether the group was multicultural or mono-cultural did not determine
productivity, rather, how diversity was managed was the main determinant of productivity.
Synergy cannot be generated without any effort of employees. If diversity were well
managed between Japanese and host country employees, great outcomes are possible.
However, if management is poor, the resulting productivity would be poor.

Many Japanese managers are transferred to overseas subsidiaries without any
training or experience as a leader. They are automatically promoted when transferred.
For instance, a section manager at headquarters could be a general manager at an overseas
subsidiary. Because the manager has little or no experience of working as a part of
management, it is unlikely that he/she can fully initiate his/her leadership. Moreover, as
discussed previously, Japanese managers most often use a high-context communication
style. When Japanese managers cannot communicate with host country employees very
well, they are likely to fail to convey the differences in management style to subordinates,

which leads to uncomfortable or distrustful relationship with host country employees.

42

That Japanese managers are not open and clear exacerbates host country employees’
fi'ustration towards the relationship with Japanese. This will create misgivings between
Japanese and host country employees, thus discouraging communication between them.

The present research examines leadership of Japanese managers in overseas
subsidiaries in two Asian countries: Malaysia and the Philippines. These countries were
chosen for the following reasons. First, they have received a lot of investment from
Japanese corporations. For both countries, Japan is a major investor. Second, they are
English-speaking countries. This is also one of the reasons that Japanese companies go
into these countries (Kataoka & Mishima, 1997). Since English is the language of
international business there, and since Japanese employees speak at least some English,
they don’t have to learn yet another language, like they do in Thailand and Indonesia.

Japanese still have communication problems even if they speak English well. The
problems are rooted in how a message is conveyed. The way a message is communicated
by a leader needs to be examined, as well as the way the message is perceived by a
subordinate. By investigating English-speaking countries like Malaysia and the
Philippines, we can overlook language issues themselves and hope to get to the core of the
communication issues in leadership and find out how to foster more effective
communication.

Hypotheses

Hypotheses about Leadership

As discussed previously, the firnction of a manager is to communicate information
regarding task-performance and group maintenance to a subordinate in order to achieve

organizational goals (Misumi, 1984; Schein, 1985). Through the process in which

43

information is transmitted between a manager and a subordinate, information will be
shared that will firrther contribute to creating organizational knowledge. Information can
be delivered either explicitly or implicitly. When working with people from various
cultures, explicit delivery of information is most efficient for information sharing (Hayashi,
1994). Therefore, when messages are explicitly communicated, information will be shared
better and subordinates may feel more satisfied toward the leaders who communicate in a
more explicit fashion. Figure 3.3 is a simplified model of Figure 3.2 to illustrate the above

descriptions to Show research hypotheses clearer.

@

Performance Information
+ ~——J

Maintenance Sharing

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.3 — Research Variables

The following hypotheses will be tested accordingly:

H1: Exercising the performance function (P) and the maintenance function (M) of
leadership both make independent contributions to how well managers share
information.

H2: When messages are explicitly communicated, both the performance firnction
and the maintenance function of leadership each make independent contributions to

how well managers share information.

44

H3: When messages are not explicitly communicated, neither the performance
firnction nor the maintenance firnction of leadership make independent
contributions to how well managers share information.

If information about task performance and group maintenance is clearly given to
subordinates and shared between leaders and subordinates, satisfaction about
communication with their leader or subordinates and with their organization will increase.
Thus,

H4: Increased information sharing leads to greater satisfaction of both Japanese

leaders and Malaysian and Filipino subordinates.

On the basis of the previous discussion and other research (e.g., Casimir & Keats,
1996; Misumi, 1984), it is suggested that the most efiicient leadership style emphasizes
both work performance and relationship maintenance. In order to test this suggestion,
leaders will be grouped into four different types according to performance and
maintenance: high performance, high maintenance (PM), high performance, low
maintenance (Pm), low performance, high maintenance (pM), and low performance, low
maintenance (pm). These four groups will be examined in terms of information sharing
and satisfaction.

H5: The PM style of leadership is most positively correlated to information sharing

and subordinates satisfaction.

H6: The pm style of leadership is least positively correlated to information sharing

and subordinates satisfaction.

45

Hypotheses about Perception Gaps
One of the major purposes of this study is to answer the question, “How is
leadership by Japanese managers perceived by host country subordinates?” The following
sections hypothesize about perception gaps of four variables: leadership, communication
style, information sharing, and satisfaction.
Was
Because previous studies examined leadership style as a set of functions, PM, Pm,
pM, or pm, they didn’t investigate which firnction, if any, was particularly required of an
efficient leader. The present study will define the characteristics of an efficient leader and
compare them among three groups. Moreover, the aspects of leadership styles with which
subordinates find difficulties and the aspects that motivate subordinates will be examined.
RQl: To what degree is Japanese leadership perceived differently by Japanese
managers, and Malaysian and Filipino employees?
RQ2: To what extent do the characteristics of efficient leaders vary across
Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos?
RQ3: To what degree are leaders’ behaviors with which subordinates have
problems difi’erent from the behaviors with which leaders have problems to
exercise to subordinates?
RQ4: To what extent are the leaders’ behaviors by which subordinates feel
motivated different from the behaviors which leaders believe motivate their

subordinates?

C . . S l G

Kagono (1997) points out that Japanese managers tend not to give firll
explanations and instructions about work to subordinates. Hayashi (1994) suggests that
information is perceived differently when it is explicitly stated or implicitly given. There is
often a divergence between superiors’ views of their actions and subordinates’ views of
those same actions (Smith & Tayeb, 1988). Under the influence of Western business
customs, Malaysians and Filipinos prefer clear instructions. Although Japanese leaders
may think that their instructions are enough or clearly stated, their Malaysian and Filipino
subordinates may think it is not.

H7: Malaysians and Filipinos think their Japanese leaders communicate more

implicitly than Japanese leaders themselves think they do.

H8: Malaysians and Filipinos want Japanese leaders to exercise leadership more

explicitly than Japanese leaders want to do.

RQS: When messages are unclear, are the strategies used to clarify messages

different among Japanese, Malaysians and Filipinos?
I E . Sl . G

In Japanese overseas subsidiaries, Japanese think that host country managers are

as well informed as other Japanese managers. However, host country managers
sometimes think that they are less informed comparing to their Japanese counterparts
(Y oshihara, 1996). Therefore, the following research questions will be examined:

RQ6: To what degree does perceived information sharing vary across Japanese,

Malaysians and Filipinos?

47

RQ7: To what degree do perceived problems of communication vary across

Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos?
Saflsfaetienfiaps

Satisfaction may also vary across leaders and subordinates. There may be great
differences between leaders satisfaction with subordinates and subordinate satisfaction
with leaders. In addition, there may be also differences between leader satisfaction with
the organization and subordinate satisfaction with the organization.

RQ8: To what degree is satisfaction with leaders by subordinates different from

satisfaction with subordinates by leaders?

RQ9: To what degree do satisfaction with organization vary between leaders and

subordinates?

Chapter 4 will discuss the method for investigating the above hypotheses and

research questions.

48

CHAPTER 4

METHOD

Overview

The present study was firnded by an Overseas Science Research Foundation,
through Japan’s Ministry of Education, for three years from April 1996 to March 1999,
for the purpose of studying intercultural communication issues between Japanese and
Malaysians/Filipinos (Dr. Hiroko Nishida of the University of Shizuoka, Japan, is the
project principal investigator).

As one of the several studies involved with this project, this study attempted to
investigate leadership and communication between Japanese and Malaysians/Filipinos
working for Japanese companies in Malaysia and the Philippines. Seventeen Japanese
companies in Malaysia and the Philippines joined this research, companies in which
Japanese and Malaysians or Japanese and Filipinos work together. A questionnaire was
utilized. First, a questionnaire was piloted by non-Japanese who work with Japanese
superiors in Japan. Second, the questionnaire items were revised based on analysis of the
pilot test and distributed to the companies that cooperated with this study.

Participants

Participants were recruited from 7 Japanese companies located in Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia and 10 in Makati City, the Philippines. Industry type of these 17 companies

included trading (10 companies), construction (3), food (2), pharmaceutical (1), and retail

49

(1). There were 63 Malaysians (33 females, 26 males and 4 unknown), 162 Filipinos (79
females, 69 males and 14 unknown), 22 Japanese in Malaysia (2 females, 17 males and 3
unknown), and 45 Japanese in the Philippines (2 females and 43 males). In total, 292
participants joined this study.

Because this research focused on leadership and communication in Japanese
companies in Malaysia and the Philippines, it examined Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos
who were in the relationship of leader-subordinate with their counterparts and had
frequent communication with them. Although there are many Malaysians and Filipinos
working for Japanese companies, not all of them have a direct, face to face, interpersonal,
leader-subordinate relationship with Japanese employees unless they are supervisors or the
upper positions since most Japanese employees are high-level executives such as
department managers and general managers. Therefore, Malaysians and Filipinos who
were white-collar and had frequent communication with Japanese managers were chosen
to answer a questionnaire. Most host country participants had an executive title such as
assistant manager and supervisor. Execmiyes, in the current research, indicates those who
supervise others (see Figure 4.1). Some executives have an administrative position such
as managers and assistant managers and some have no administrative position such as
supervisors and officers. There were some general staff included in this study, such as
clerk and secretary, but all participants had frequent communication with Japanese and

directly report to Japanese bosses.

50

 

 

 

Managing Director

 

 

 

 

 

General Manager

 

Executives

 

 

 

Manager/Assistant Manager

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisor

 

 

 

 

 

General Staff

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 - The General Organization Structure of
Japanese Overseas Subsidiaries

51

Procedure

As stated earlier, this study is a part of a larger project. The larger project in
which Dr. Nishida already conducted surveys and interviews included only manufacturing
companies. The present study examined only non-manufacturing companies, such as
trading, construction, and retail firms. First, a directory published by the Japanese
Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines was checked in terms of the type of industry
represented and the number of Japanese included. About 30 companies were listed
(Membership directory, 1998). Second, I started contacting these companies.

For the previous research with Dr. Nishida, I accompanied her to help with
interviews and met several Japanese business people. From relationships with people, I
contacted 5 companies. Three out of 5 agreed to cooperate with this study. Among the
30 companies listed, there were several where my friends or acquaintances were working
for the headquarters. Through this connection, 4 other companies joined the study. It
was extremely difficult to recruit more companies. I consulted with a stafi’ member at
JETRO (the Japanese External Trade and Research Organization) in Manila over the
phone. He called several companies in the list and asked for their cooperation. Three
more companies joined. In total, 10 companies in the Philippines agreed to join this study.

Because I wanted to compare the same companies in the Philippines and in
Malaysia, recruiting companies in Malaysia began with the 10 Philippine firms 1 made an
appointment. Several companies did not operate subsidiaries in Malaysia. Others were
not willing to join the study. Five companies accepted and 2 more companies were

recruited fi'om previous research contacts.

52

Due to the time short period to collect data, the author visited all sites in both
countries to distribute and collect questionnaires. Research was conducted in the
Philippines from September 13th to 18th and in Malaysia from November lst to 5th in
1998. When visiting companies, the author explained to a person in charge the purpose of
this study, who could be participants, what needed to be given to the participants, and
how to collect the questionnaires from them. In addition, a short interview was conducted
with the person in charge mainly to obtain some background information about the
company, including the year to establish the company in the host country site, the number
of employees, the number of executives, job hopping rate, prospects for localization, and
so forth. Each person in charge was given a set of questionnaires. The questions were
worded to ask about the leader’s communication with subordinates or the subordinates’
communication with leaders. Japanese participants completed one questionnaire for
leaders and Malaysians and Filipinos completed one for subordinates. Questionnaires
were returned to the person in charge in each company. When returned, each participant
put their questionnaire in an envelope so that their answers would be kept confidential.
The author collected the questionnaires from the person in charge. Prior to this, a pilot
questionnaire was tested in order to improve questionnaire items.

Measures

In this research, a questionnaire was utilized to examine leader-subordinate
communication. In addition, it examined the perceptual differences between how Japanese
perceived their leadership and how Malaysians/Filipinos perceived their Japanese bosses’
leadership. The questionnaire was written in English. English is the second language to

all three groups, Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos, and the official language at work as

53

well. The questionnaire for Japanese asked about their behaviors as a leader and their
Malaysian or Filipino subordinates. The questionnaire for Malaysians and Filipinos asked
about their Japanese boss. The questionnaire is attached here as Appendix A (leader
version) and B (subordinate version). Some questionnaires were collected by the author
during her visits and some were sent to her later by the person in charge.
Variables

In this study, there were three kinds of independent variables and two kinds of
dependent variables. Independent variables are: (a) leadership (the performance firnction
and the maintenance firnction), (b) communication style (the degree of explicitness), (c)
demographics such as age, sex, and the length of years working for the company.
Dependent variables are (a) information sharing and (b) satisfaction. Each variable is
explained in details in the following section.
Leadership

The items to examine leadership are from Misumi (1984). There are eight items
examining performance function of leadership (e.g. Your superior gives you proper
instructions and orders) and eight items for maintenance function (e.g. Your superior is
concerned about your personal problems). On each item, there are four questions asked
for the leader version and five for the subordinate version of the questionnaire. They are
(1) the extent to which the leader practices the behavior (A. l: hereafter the number
indicates the corresponding items in the questionnaire; see Appendices), (2) attitude
toward the behavior (A2), (3) difliculties in dealing with this behavior (A 5), (4) the
degree to which this behavior motivates one’s work (A6), and (5) the importance of this

behavior as a leader (A7). The second question appeared only in the subordinate version

54

to evaluate leader behaviors. All questions were answered by marking an appropriate
number from 1 (not at all/very little/very negative) to 5 (very much/very positive). These
questions were worded to examine Japanese managers’ leadership for Malaysians and
Filipinos and one’s own leadership for Japanese, to reveal how Japanese managers’
leadership was perceived by Malaysian and Filipino subordinates as well as the perceptual
difl‘erences between how Malaysians, Filipinos and Japanese perceived Japanese
leadership. Reliability coefficient of the eight items on the performance function was .782
and that of the maintenance fimction was .890.
Communication Style

Communication style of leaders was examined by using the same 16 items for
leadership described above. On each item, there were two questions: actual delivery style
(implicit or explicit) (A3) and the desired delivery style (A.4). These questions were
answered by selecting one number ranging from 1 (very implicitly) to 5 (very explicitly).
The reliability coefficient of the 16 items on the actual message delivery style (hereafter,
explicitness) was .901. In addition, participants were asked to choose one to three items,
which indicate explicit and implicit communication style such as “Defining words what my
superior uses” and “Reading my superior’s ideas and opinions by his mood” (B. l-12).
Information Sharing

There are six questions about information sharing (D. 1-6). Three items are from
the Organizational Communication Development Audit Questionnaire (W iio, 1975) asking
about sources of information (e.g. How much information about your work and
organization do you get now from your superior?) The other three items are from the

Organizational Culture Survey (Glaser, Zamanou, & Hacker, 1987) asking about

55

information flow (e. g. I get the information I need to do my job well). Factor analysis of
these six items suggests there is one factor underlying them. All items are related to the
degree to which people in the workplace share information. The reliability coefficient of
the six items was .763.

In addition, there is another question asking about problems in communication
(D.7). Participants were asked to choose one to three items, which are defects in
communication of their organization such as “Information reaches me too late,” “The
inforrnationl get is not important,” and “Management conceals important information.”
Satisfaction

The questions measuring satisfaction have three dimensions: satisfaction with
superiors, satisfaction with subordinates, and satisfaction with communication in the
organization. Malaysian and Filipino participants were asked about satisfaction with
superiors (E. l-8) and with communication in the organization (E. 1 1-17), while Japanese
answered about satisfaction (E. 1-9) with subordinates and with communication in the
organization (E. 1 1-17). These items are adopted from Communication Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Downs & Hazen, 1977). Satisfaction with superiors and subordinates have
eight questions each, seven with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to
5 (very satisfied). Items included “Extent to which my superior knows and understands
the problems faced by subordinates,” “Extent to which my superior (subordinate) trusts
me,” and “Extent to which my subordinates are receptive to evaluation, suggestions, and
criticisms.” Satisfaction with communication in the organization has seven items including
“Extent to which this company’s communication motivates and stimulates an enthusiasm

for meeting its goals,” and “Extent to which the company’s communication are interesting

56

and helpful.” The reliability coefficient of subordinates’ satisfaction with their boss and
with the organization was .947, while that of leaders’ satisfaction with subordinates and
with the organization was .862.

In addition to these questions, the questionnaire included two open-ended
questions regarding satisfaction: (1) If the communication associated with your superior
(or subordinate) could be changed in any way to make you more satisfied, please indicate
how (E. 10); and (2) if the communication associated with your organization could be
changed in any way to make you more satisfied, please indicate how (E. 18).
Demographics

In addition to the above variables, information about demographic variables was
collected, including: type of industry (e. g. trading, construction), number of employees,
and each respondent’s sex, age, ethnicity, length of time working with their current leader,
type of work, and education. The organizational-level data was adopted from Dr.
Nishida’s questionnaire responses.

Analysis

The unit of analysis for this study is the individual. Several types of analyses were
used for testing hypotheses. Multiple regression analysis, with information sharing as the
dependent variable, was used for Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3. Hypotheses 4 used correlation
analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for Hypotheses 5, 6, 7 and 8 and
Research Questions 1, 6, 8, and 9. Research Questions 2, 3, 4, S, and 7 used rank order

correlation analysis.

57

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

This section begins with a general description of the profile of the participants and
the companies, and descriptive data about the variables. This overview is followed by the
results for each of the eight hypotheses and nine research questions.

Profile of the Participants

Table 5.1 summarizes characteristics of the study participants. The total number
of participants was 292, of which 116 were female and 155 were male. Twenty-one did
not respond. Out of 292, 67 were Japanese, 162 were Filipinos, and 63 were Malaysians.
Among the 162 Filipinos, 7 answered that they were Chinese Filipinos; others answered
that they were Filipinos. Out of the 63 Malaysians, 13 were Malay, 36 were Chinese, 2
were Indian Malaysians and the rest were unknown.

The average age was 35.7 years old. The average length of employment (in years)
at the company was 8.5. The average length of time working (in years) for the current
boss or with these subordinates was 2.3. One hundred and nineteen were in a managerial
position, 54 were non-managerial executives, 15 were general staffs, 8 were doing a
language—related job, and 17 were secretaries. Others were unknown. About the half of
the participants were working for trading companies (N = 155), 79 were working for
construction firms, 35 were in food businesses, 10 were in pharmaceuticals, 8 were in

retail and 5 had no response.

58

Table 5.1 - Profile of the Participants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Description Number
Sex Female 116
Male 155
No response 21
Ethnicity Japanese 67
Filipino 155
Chinese Filipino 7
Malay Malaysian 13
Chinese Malaysian 36
Indian Malaysian 2
No response 12
Age (Average, in years) 3 5 . 7
Length of work for the company (Average, in years) 8.5
Length of working with current (Average, in years) 2.3
boss/ subordinate
Type of job Manager 119
Executive 64
Translator or language related job 8
Secretary 17
Others 85
Type of industry Trading 155
Construction 79
Food 35
Pharmaceutical 10
Retail 8
No response 5
Note: N = 292.

59

The average length of education (in years) was 15.4 (Japanese 16.3, Malaysians, 14.9,
Filipino 15.2). The number of employees who had study abroad experience was 39
(Japanese 16, Malaysians, 20, Filipino 3).

Table 5.2 shows the demographics of the companies that participated in this study.
Out of 17 companies, 10 were trading companies and 7 were non-trading companies (see
Table 5.2). Most companies had Japanese as a top manager. Eight out of 10 trading
companies had 100 percent Japanese investment because they were mostly branch offices,
though many of them had a joint-venture firm as a second company. Non-trading
companies, on the other hand, were joint ventures. In 8 companies (5 trading companies
and 3 construction companies), the number of Japanese managers was higher than the host
national managers, while in 9 companies (5 trading companies and 2 food, 1
pharmaceutical, and 1 retail), the number of host national managers was higher than the
number of Japanese managers. The job-hopping rate was very low. A majority of
companies was trying to increase its rate of personnel localization. ‘ Advancing localization
was considered difficult for various reasons (see Table 5.2). Two most prominent factors
were: the difficulty of training host local employees, and the Japanese style of business,
which is not well understood by host country employees. This issue will be discussed in

more detail in Chapter 6.

60

Table 5.2 - Profile of the Company

 

Variable

Description

Number

 

Type of industry

Trading
Construction
Pharmaceutical
Food

Retail

.—¢
0

 

CEO or top manager/director

Japanese
Host national

 

Investment rate

100% Japan

more than 70% Japan
more than 50% Japan
more than 30% Japan

 

 

Number of Japanese manager 1~5

6~l O

11~15

more than 16
Number of host national l~5
manager 5~1O

11~15
more than 15

 

Job-hopping

High
Low
High at certain group (young, engineer, etc)

 

Localization

Proceeding
Try to proceed
Nogroceeding

 

Obstacle for localization
(participants could answer
more than two)

Difficulty of training
Japanese style of business
Communication
Information disclosure
Wage

Delegation

Technical skill

Low morality

-—I-‘-—|-‘----\JO\O\N\OOONAWMMQONANA—‘SNa—rN-‘W

 

Note: N =17.

61

for c
seal

scal

Per

11a

C01

1m}

Sal

Sa‘

mc
int

Table 5.3 summarizes descriptive data (mean, standard deviation, and reliability)

for each variable. Each variable consisted of multiple items. All items are S-point Likert-

scale questions with 5 indicating stronger responses to the question. The reliability of the

scales ranged from .763 to .947.

Table 5.3 - Descriptive Data about Variables

 

 

Variable Mean SD Reliability
Performance function of leadership
(8) 3.66 .60 .782
Maintenance function of leadership
(8) 3.57 .80 .890
Communication style (explicitness)
3.47 .63 .901
(16)
Information sharing
(6) 3.61 .60 .763
Satisfaction of subordinates
(15) 3.27 .70 .947
Satisfaction of leaders
(16) 3.30 .40 .862

 

Note: N = 292; SD = Standard Deviation; Reliability = Alpha; Numbers in parentheses
indicate the number of items in each scale; All items are 5-point Likert-Scale with 5
indicating stronger responses to the question.

62

Hypotheses about Leadership

prmnesiu

Hypothesis I predicted that managers who emphasize both performance and
maintenance as leadership functions independently affect how well the managers share
information. From the correlation matrix, it can be observed that the maintenance
fiinction of leadership appears to have stronger impact on information sharing than the
performance function (see Table 5.4). Performing the multiple regression analysis shows
that the standardized regression coefficient of the performance function and the
maintenance fianction were .147 (p < .05) and .499 (p < .001) respectively (N = 245) (see
Table 5.5), which were smaller than the correlations of the independent variables. There
was no interaction effect. When controlling for maintenance firnction, the standardized
coefficient of the performance firnction became smaller, when controlling for the
performance function, the standardized coefficient of the maintenance function became
smaller. However, the standardized coefficients were statistically significant and both

fiinctions may be enhancing on information sharing.

Table 5.4 - Correlation Matrix of Performance, Maintenance,
and Information Sharing

 

Performance Maintenance Information

 

 

Sharing
Performance 1.00
Maintenance .374“ 1.00
Information Sharing .333" .554" 1.00
** = p < .01

63

Table 5.5 - Multiple Regression of Performance, Maintenance,
and Information Sharing

 

 

B I P
Performance .147 2.577 < .05
Maintenance .499 8.757 < .001
F = 58.26
R2 = .570
N = 245

 

B indicates standardized parameter estimates.

prmheseslandl

Hypotheses 2 and 3 predicted that managers’ communication style affects how
well exercising performance and maintenance as leadership functions determines the
degree of information sharing. Hypothesis 2 predicted that managers emphasizing both
performance and maintenance fimctions will affect how well managers share information
when messages are explicitly communicated. Hypothesis 3 predicted that even if
managers exercise both performance and maintenance, it will not contribute to how well
managers share information if messages are not explicitly communicated.

In order to see how explicitness of communication affects information sharing, the
data was divided into two groups: those who communicate explicitly and those who
communicate implicitly.

When messages were explicitly communicated, both the performance fiinction and
the maintenance function were significantly correlated to information sharing (see Table
5.6). Multiple regression analysis yielded standardized regression coefficients of the

performance fiinction and the maintenance function of .177 (p < .05) and .538 (p < .001)

64

respectively and there was no interaction effect. Although there is less effect of the
performance function on information sharing than the maintenance function, both
functions still contribute to information sharing significantly. This indicates that both the
performance function and the maintenance fiinction affect information sharing. Thus,

Hypothesis 2a was confirmed.

Table 5.6 - Correlation Matrix of Performance, Maintenance, and
Information Sharing (Explicit Communication)

 

Performance Maintenance Information

 

Sharing
Performance 1.00
Maintenance .202 l .00
Information Sharing .273“ .574" 1.00

 

N=84.**=p<.01

When messages were not explicitly communicated, the performance fimction was
not significantly correlated to information sharing, but the maintenance fimction was still
significantly correlated to information sharing (see Table 5.7). Performing multiple
regression analysis shows that the standardized regression coefficient of the performance
fimction and the maintenance function were .143 (p > .05) and .473 (p < .001)
respectively and there was no interaction effect.

The performance fimction did not contribute to information sharing when

messages were not explicitly communicated. The maintenance function, however,

65

contributed to information sharing even when messages were not explicitly communicated.
This result together with the result of Hypothesis 2 indicate that the maintenance firnction

leads to information sharing regardless of explicit or implicit communication style, but the

performance function leads to information sharing only when messages were explicitly

communicated. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed.

Table 5.7 - Correlation Matrix of Performance, Maintenance, and
Information Sharing (Implicit Communication)

 

Performance Maintenance Information

 

Sharing
Performance 1 .00
Maintenance . 1 12 1.00
Information Sharing . 162 462* * 1.00

 

N=93.**=p<.01

Hypothesisfi

Hypothesis 4 predicted that increased information sharing leads to greater
satisfaction of both Japanese leaders and Malaysian and Filipino subordinates. Increased
information sharing was positively correlated to both satisfaction with boss or
subordinates and satisfaction with the organization among all three groups and they were
all statistically significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed. Results appear in

Table 5.8.

Table 5.8 — Correlation between Information Sharing and Satisfaction

 

Satisfaction

 

 

With boss/ subordinate With organization
Information Sharing
Japanese .301 (p< .01, N= 54) .436 (p< .01,N=60)
Malaysians .309 (p < .05, N = 58) .629 (p < .001, N = 134)
Filipinos .756 (p < .001, N = 59) .544 (p < .001, N = 132)

 

khcpmhesiiijndfi

Hypothesis 5 proposed that the PM style of leadership is most strongly related to
greater information sharing and satisfaction of subordinates, while Hypothesis 6 predicted
that the pm style of leadership is least strongly related to greater information sharing and
satisfaction of subordinates. The results of Hypotheses l and 4 imply the positive
relationship between each fimction of leadership and information sharing and satisfaction.
In order to ascertain the claim of previous literature, the PM style of leadership as the best
style, subordinates were grouped based on the scores of their perception toward the
performance function and the maintenance fiinction of their managers’ leadership.
Participants who scored low on both performance and maintenance were grouped as the
“pm” group. Participants who scored high on performance and low on maintenance
function were categorized as the “Pm” group. Participants who scored low on
performance and high on maintenance functions was the “pM” group. Finally, participants

who scored high on both fiinctions constituted the “PM” group.

67

The score of the PM group was expected to be highest. Table 5.9 shows the
number of participants in each group. It suggests that 77 subordinates see their managers’
leadership as pm style, 38 as pM, 37 as Pm, and 58 as PM. In order to see how Japanese
managers viewed their own leadership style, the number of Japanese participants was
placed in parenthesis. Sixteen managers see their own leadership as pm style, 8 as pM, 10
as Pm, and 33 as PM. About half of Japanese participants observed their leadership style
as PM, whereas more than one third of the subordinates considered their managers’

leadership style as pm.

Table 5.9 - Groups of PM Style Leadership

 

 

 

Maintenance
Low High
Performance
Low pm 77 (16) pM 38 ( 8)
High Pm 37 (10) PM 58 (33)

 

Note: Numbers in parentheses reflect the number of Japanese participants.

These groups were compared with regard to the scores on information sharing and
satisfaction. Means and standard deviations of each group on satisfaction scores are listed
in Table 5.10. The participants who perceived their leaders as PM felt that they shared the
most information, whereas the participants who perceived their leaders as pm felt that they

shared information least. The analysis of variance indicated that group difference exerted

68

significant effects on information sharing (F(3) = 29.36; N = 185; p < .001). When looking
at interaction term between performance and maintenance firnctions, there was no
interaction effect. The Least Difference found that all four groups were significantly

different fiom each other.

Table 5.10 - Comparison of Four Groups on Information Sharing

 

 

 

 

Maintenance
Low High
Performance

M =3.23 M = 3.86
Low pm SD = .54 pM SD = .48

N = 68 N = 32
M = 3.54 M = 4.09
High Pm SD = .52 PM SD = .52

N = 34 N = 51

 

 

Table 5.11 shows means and standard deviations of each group on satisfaction
scores. The participants who perceived their managers as PM felt most satisfied with their
boss and organization, whereas the participants who perceived their leaders as pm felt
least satisfied. The analysis of variance indicated that group difference exerted significant
effects on satisfaction, F(3) = 28.15; N = 197; p < .001. When looking at interaction term
between performance and maintenance functions, there was no interaction effect. A test

of Least Differences with significance level at .05 found that pm and Pm groups were not

69

significantly different, but that pM and PM were different from each other and from other
two groups.

These results together suggest a PM style of leadership is strongly related to
greater information sharing and subordinates satisfaction and a pm style of leadership is
not related greater information sharing and subordinates satisfaction. Therefore,

Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported.

Table 5.11 - Comparison of Four Groups on Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maintenance
Low High
Performance
M =2.74 M = 3.25
Low pm SD = .60 pM SD = .41
N = 72 N = 34
M = 2.83 M = 3.57
High Pm SD = .46 PM SD = .58
N = 37 N = 55
Hypothesis about Perception Gaps
Leadership Gaps
Researchfluestionl

Research Question I asked whether the degree to which Japanese leaders’ exercise

leadership is perceived differently among Japanese, Malaysians and Filipinos. In order to

70

answer this question, the means of the performance and maintenance scores were
compared among these three groups. The means of performance fimction of Japanese,
Malaysian, and Filipino were 3.81 (SD = .47, N = 67), 3.43 (SD = .62, N = 62), and 3.69
(SD = .62, N = 154) respectively. The mean of the Japanese groups was the highest. The
analysis of variance found that group difference exerted significant effects on the
perception toward the performance fimction, F(2) = 7.13; N = 282; p < .01. A Tukey-
HSD test with significance level at .05 revealed that Malaysians were significantly different
from the other two groups, but that Filipinos and Japanese were not significantly different
from each other.

The same analysis was performed on the means of maintenance scores. The means
of Japanese, Malaysian, and Filipino were 3.81 (SD = .60, N = 67), 3.34 (SD = .68, N =
61), and 3.55 (SD = .89, N = 156) respectively. Again, the mean of the Japanese group
was the highest. The results of ANOVA were also significant, F(2) = 5.75; N = 283; p
< .01. A Tukey-HSD test with significance level at .05 found that Japanese were
significantly different from Malaysians, but not fiom Filipinos, and the latter two groups
were not, either.

Japanese scores on the performance and the maintenance fill'lCtIOflS were the same,
while Malaysians and Filipinos showed the maintenance scores was lower than the
performance scores.

In order to see any sex differences among subordinates, the score of female
participants and that of male participants were compared. Male employees tended to have
higher scores on both perceptions of performance and maintenance firnctions (see Table

5.12).

71

These results together suggest that the degree to which Malaysian and Filipino
subordinates recognized their Japanese managers’ leadership is less than the degree to
which Japanese managers believed that they exhibit leadership, which was even more
obvious in the maintenance fiinction and among female employees.

Table 5.12 - Perception Difference about Leadership by Sex

 

 

 

M SD N F p
Performance
Female 3.45 .64 106
1487 < .001
Male 3.79 .58 94
Maintenance
Female 3.39 .82 109
3.48 > .05
Male 3 .61 .85 92
ResearchflueslianZ

Research Question 2 asked whether the characteristics of an efficient leader vary
across Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos. For this question, participants marked one
number ranging from 1 to 5 in response to following question: What is important for an
efficient leader? Answers were ranked according to mean score; then Spearman’s rank-
order correlation was performed.

Of 16 items, the top 8 items are listed in Table 5.13. As seen in this table, there
are several items listed similarly among three groups, though they do not inform us if the

three groups have similar patterns on the characteristics of an efficient leader. Therefore,

72

 

Spearman’s rank correlation was performed to find out the degree of rank-order
association.

Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis shows that the characteristics that each
group considers to be traits of as an efficient leader varied among Japanese, Malaysians,
and Filipinos. They were not statistically similar to each other. However, Table 5.13
shows that half of the items Japanese chose as the qualities of efficient leaders are related
to the performance firnction of leadership, while Malaysians and Filipinos selected the
maintenance firnction related items. The items Malaysians and Filipinos chose are similar,

though not statistically significant.

Table 5.13 - Ranks on Efficient Leader by Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos

 

 

Rank Japanese (N = 53) Malaysian (N = 58) Filipino (N = 137)

1 Give recognition (4.57) Trust (4.51) Trust (4.58)
2 Give proper instruction ' Support (4.50) Support (4.57)
3 ’ Treat fairly (j :3; Treat fairly (4.45) Treat fairly (4.57)
4 , Give time pressure (4.31) Give recognition (4.41) Give proper instruction
5 811615611 " ' ' (4.28) Make us work to Talk 86er _, ((4.55?)

. maximum capacity (4.40)
6 , Ask for report (4.26) Concern fixture (4.38) Give recognition (4.48)

7 “How to deal with i A" A Talk freely (4.35) Concern firture (4.45)
, , r105 (4 17): .

3 Trust (4 17) "Give proper instruction Ask for opinion (4.34)

C4- 2.3.)- ,

 

Note: Numbers 1n parentheses indicate mean.
Items shadowed are Performance function, while not shadowed are Maintenance
fimction items.

73

In addition, the means of performance function of Japanese, Malaysian, and
Filipino were 4.15 (SD = .62, N = 54), 4.15 (SD = .52, SD = 136), and 3.94 (SD --- 1.09,
N = 59) respectively, whereas the means of maintenance function were 4.16 (SD = .64, N
= 53), 4.36 (SD = .64, N = 57), and 4.41 (SD = .66, N = 138) respectively. While
Japanese had similar scores on both fiinctions, Malaysians and Filipinos saw maintenance
firnction was more important than performance function as the qualities of efficient
leaders.

Researchflnestienl

Research Question 3 asked whether the perceived relational difficulties differ fi'om
behaviors which managers perform. The same procedure as RQ2 was taken for this
question. Participants’ answers to the following question were analyzed: Which behaviors
of your Japanese manager is difficult to deal with (for Japanese participants, which
behavior do you feel is difficult to deal with by your subordinates)? Table 5.14 gives the
ranking of the top 8 items.

As seen in Table 5.13, it is obvious that all three groups think it is diffith to deal
with performance-related behaviors such as “urging them to complete work by the time
Specified” and “making employees work to maximum capacity.” Spearman’s rank-order
correlation analysis discovered that Malaysians and Japanese have similar patterns on their
l'Eltikings (r = .671, p < .01). Other combinations of two groups were not significantly
Siniilar. Japanese felt difficulty in performing performance-related behaviors, and

Malaysians and Filipinos also felt difficulty in dealing with managers’ performance-related

behaviors,

74

Table 5.14 - Ranks on Difficulty by Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos

 

Japanese (N = 58)

Malaysian (N = 61)

Filipino (N = 156)

 

Give time pressure (3.31)

Make them work to
maximum capacity (3.28)
Strict about regulations

How to deal with
inadequate job
Make them work to
maximum capacity (2.66)
Strict about amount of

(2.77)

Concern fisture (2.64)

Treat fairly (2.55)

Give time pressure (2.50)

(3.22) work (2.66)
Strict about amount of Ask for report (2.50) Give recognition (233)
work (3 .09)
5 Work out plans (3.02) Concern future (2.50) Trust (2.46)
6 Concern personal Give time pressure (2.48) Make us work to
problems (2.98) maximum capacity (2.41)
7 Ask for report (2.93) Work out plans (2.48) Strict about regulations
(2.39)
8 Trust (2.91) Concern personal Give proper instruction
problems (2.48) (2.39)

 

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate mean.
Items shadowed are Performance firnction, while not shadowed are Maintenance
fimction items.

Rcmmhfluestionfl

Research Question 4 asked whether the manager behaviors which subordinates feel
motivate them differ from the behaviors which leaders feel to motivate their subordinates.
The same analysis as RQ2 and RQ3 was followed. Participants answered the question:
Which behavior of your Japanese leader motivates you to work (for Japanese participants,
which behavior do you think motivates your subordinates)? Answers were ranked

according to mean score. Spearman’s rank-order correlation was then computed.

75

Table 5.15 - Ranks on Motivate Behavior by Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos

 

Rank Japanese (N = 57)

Malaysian (N = 59)

Filipino (N = 137)

 

l

2

7

8

Give recognition
Treat fairly
Support

Trust

(4.42)
(4.12)
(4.12)

(4.09)

Give proper instruction

7 Concern future
Talk freely

Ask for opinion

(4.00)
(3.96)

(3.96)

Treat fairly
Trust
Give recognition

Support

. Concern future
. (4.02) ~

Talk freely

Ask for opinion

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate mean.
Items shadowed are Performance firnction, while not shadowed are Maintenance

firnction items.

(4.35)
(4.28)
(4.20)
(4.18)
(4.17)

(4.15)

(4.05) I

Give proper instruction '
' ' ~ (3 .90)

' Concern firture

Trust (4.37)
Support (4.32)
Treat fairly (4.28)
Talk freely (4.27)

Give recognition (4.25)

, Give proper instruction

_ . , . (4.18) :
Ask for opinion (4.09)

(4.05)

Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis revealed that the three groups have

difi‘erent patterns on ranking the 16 items. However, Table 5.15 shows that the same 8

items were chosen by three groups. This finding suggests that Japanese managers believe

that maintenance-related behaviors would motivate subordinates, just as Malaysian and

Filipino subordinates believe that maintenance-related behaviors do, in fact, motivate

them.

76

Communication Style Gaps
Hmhesifl

Hypothesis 7 predicted that Malaysians and Filipinos think their Japanese leaders
communicate more implicitly than Japanese leaders themselves think they do. In order to
test whether there is any difference between how Malaysians and Filipinos perceive
Japanese leaders’ communication style and how Japanese leaders see their own
communication style, a Tukey-HSD test with significance level at .05 was employed.
Means of explicitness score of Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos were 3.75 (SD = .57, N
= 55), 3.30 (SD = .55, N = 60), and 3.43 (SD = .65, N = 157) respectively. Higher score
indicates more explicitness. ANOVA found the difference among three groups was
significant, F(2) = 8.98; N = 266; p < .001. A Tukey-HSD test revealed that Japanese
score was significantly higher than those of Malaysians and Filipinos. The same pattern
was found when looking at the two functions separately. This suggests that Japanese
think their communication is more explicit than host country employees perceive. Thus,
Hypothesis 7 was supported.
prathesisfi

Hypothesis 8 predicted that Malaysians and Filipinos want their Japanese leaders
to exercise leadership more explicitly than Japanese leaders want to do. When examined
both performance and maintenance functions of leadership together, there was no
significant finding and thus Hypothesis 8 was not supported. However, looking at the two
firnctions separately, there was an interesting outcome. The mean of how performance
function of leadership wants to be delivered among Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos

were 4.13 (SD = .65, N = 54), 3.50 (SD = .64, N = 62), and 3.82 (SD = .67, N = 155)

77

respectively. Higher score indicates more desire to have information more explicitly.
Japanese managers think that they need to be more explicit on the performance firnction of
leadership, while Malaysians and Filipinos want less to do. ANOVA found the difference
among these three groups was significant, F(2) = 13.52; N = 270; p < .001. A Tukey-HSD
test with significance level at .05 revealed that all groups were different from each other.
On the other hand, the means of how the maintenance firnction of leadership want
to be delivered among Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos were 4.02 (SD = .79, N = 56),
4.04 (SD = .72, N = 61), and 4.08 (SD = .81, N = 157) respectively. Higher score
indicates more desire to have information more explicitly. The means of three groups
were apparently not so different. However, when comparing the mean of the performance
firnction with the mean of the maintenance firnction within each group, there was a
significant difference for Malaysians and Filipinos, whereas no difference for Japanese (see

Table 5.16).

Table 5.16 - Comparison of Means of Leadership Function Among Three Groups

 

 

N Performance Maintenance t p
Japanese 54 4.13 4.02 -1.18 > .01
Malaysian 60 3.50 4.04 5.92 < .001
Filipino 152 3.82 4.08 4.69 < .001

 

78

This result indicates that Malaysian and Filipino subordinates want their Japanese
managers to be more explicit on maintenance-related messages. Japanese managers want
to be more explicit for delivering both types of messages, while Malaysian and Filipino
subordinates want Japanese managers to be less explicit than Japanese want to be in terms
of performance-related messages.

Researchflrestirmj

Research Question 5 asked when messages are unclear if the strategies they use are
different among Japanese, Malaysians and Filipinos. This question attempted to reveal
what kinds of strategies people use when messages are unclear. There are 10 items to

choose from. Table 5.17 lists the top 5 items chosen by each group.

Table 5.17 - Strategies in Response to Unclear Messages

 

Rank Japanese (N = 67) Malaysian (N = 61) Filipino (N = 162)

 

1 Making sure what is told Making sure what is told Making sure what is told

2 Ask more information Ask more information Ask more information
3 Use visual aids Defining words Defining words

4 Use examples Read his/her mood Read his/her mood

5 Judge from context Use visual aids Use examples

 

Note: Number represents the items shown below.

The top two strategies were the same among three groups. It seems that

Malaysians and Filipinos were quite similar. In order to test how the ranking was

79

similar/different among these three groups, Spearman’s rank correlation was performed.
Spearman’s rank correlation analysis yielded that Malaysians and Filipinos were
significantly Similar (r = .746, p < .05) indicating that they use the similar strategy when
messages are unclear, while Japanese were different from other two groups.
Information Sharing Gaps
Researchflnestienfi

Research Question 6 questioned that the degree to which they think information is
shared among leaders and subordinates varies across Japanese, Malaysians and Filipinos.
When comparing means of information sharing scores among three groups, there was no
significant difference among them. The mean of each group was as follows: Japanese (M
= 3.51, SD = .46, N = 60), Malaysian (M = 3.55, SD = .54, N = 60), and Filipino (M =
3.50, SD = .67, N = 139). Thus, the analysis of variance didn’t find any ethnic difference
in information sharing.
Researchflurstionl

Research Question 7 examined if the communication problems they think exist in
organization vary across Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos. For answering this question,
participants selected three items about the worst problems in communication of their
organization. There were 12 items to choose from. Out of 12, top six items were listed by
country (see Table 5.18). The top six items Malaysian and Filipino participants chose
were exactly the same, whereas Japanese chose some different items. Employing
Spearman’s rank-order correlation on all 12 items, Japanese and Malaysian/Filipino groups

were not significantly similar.

80

Table 5.18 - Communication Problems by Country

 

 

Rank Japanese (N=67) Malaysian (N=63)/Filipino (N=162)

1 Information reaches late Management does not know what
the employees think

2 Information is not accurate Information is not readily available

3 Information is not readily available Management conceals important
information

4 Information does not reach Information is not accurate

5 Get too much information Information reaches late

6 Management does not know what The language in information is

the employees think difficult

 

Satisfaction Gaps

Researchfluestienfl

Research Question 8 asked the degree to which subordinates feel satisfied with

their managers and which managers feel satisfied with their subordinates differ among

Japanese, Malaysians and Filipinos. The means were as follows: Japanese (M = 3.38, SD

= .40, N = 57), Malaysian (M = 3.30, SD = .64, N = 61), and Filipino (M = 3.45, SD

.84, N = 156). Higher score indicates more satisfaction with their managers or

subordinates. There was no significant difference among these groups. This indicates

there was no ethnic difference in satisfaction gap with leaders or subordinates in the entire

groups. There was no sex difference, either.

81

Researchfluestionfl

Research Question 9 examined to see if the degree to which they feel satisfied with
the communication in their organization is different among Japanese, Malaysians and
Filipinos. The means of each groups was: Japanese (M = 3.27, SD = .58, N = 61),
Malaysian (M = 3.00, SD = .75, N = 62), and Filipino (M = 3.16, SD =79, N = 153).
Higher number indicates more satisfaction with the communication in their organization.
There was no significant difference among these groups at this level. However, male
employees were more satisfied with their organization than female employees, F(l) = 4.46;
N = 200; p <05.

Thus, there was no ethnic difference in satisfaction with organization in the entire
population. However, female employees were less satisfied than male employees.
Answers to Open-ended Questions

Although there were no hypotheses or research questions about the open-ended
questions, it may be beneficial to analyze the data to extract the type of issues the
participants were concerned with more satisfactory communication with superior or
subordinate and organization. The questions were: (1) If the communication associated
with your superior (or subordinate) could be changed in any way to make you more
satisfied, please indicate how; and (2) if the associated with your organization could be
changed in any way to make you more satisfied, please indicate how.
Supenorsandjnbordinates

First, each answer was carefiilly examined and several categories were generated.
Second, each answer was grouped into one of those seven categories: performance

fiinction of leadership, maintenance fiinction of leadership, communication, language,

82

meeting, information sharing, and other (see Table 5.19). Performance function of
leadership includes opinions such as “Instructions should be clear and consistent” and
“Superior shouldn’t give too much of working pressure to staff.” Maintenance fiinction of
leadership includes “Show appreciation when subordinates put effort and hard work” and
“Superior must be trustfiil to his subordinates.” Communication items are “More chances
of communication will create mutual understanding” and “Learn Filipino communication
custom.” Language issues include “Let’s just use English among ourselves to make
change more practical” and “Learn to speak English more fluently.” Meeting items are
“We will make more time of meeting” and “Hold meetings with local staff — currently
none. Very deep feeling of segregation.” Information sharing includes “Accuracy and
availability of relevant information.”

As shown in Table 5.18, the most concerned aspect that Malaysian and Filipino
subordinates seek for in more satisfied communication with superior was maintenance
fimction of leadership. They would like their superiors to be more sensitive to
interpersonal relationship issues. For instance,

“I wish my superior be much understanding and sensitive to the demands and ideas
of his staff’ (29-year-old, female, Filipino).

“Be more transparent and trust the capabilities of their subordinates who have been
working for the company much longer than them” (38, male, Chinese Filipino).

“Treat subordinates as fair as possible. Maybe favor on one person/race, but not to
show/over-show unbalance treatment to other subordinates” (3 0, female,
Malaysian).

“My superior should know staffs’ problem, listen to them, treat them fairly, don’t
just listen to one person’s idea and act fiiendly to all the staff” (23, female, Chinese
Malaysian).

83

Table 5.19 - Suggestions for More Satisfied Communication with Superiors

 

 

 

Japanese Malaysian Filipino
Performance firnction of leadership 2 (10.5%) 3(11.5%) 14(23%)
Maintenance firnction of leadership 1( 5.3%) 17(65.4%) 22(36%)
Communication 7(36.8%) 1( 3.8%) 6( 9.8%)
Language 2(10.5%) 0 8(13.1%)
Meeting 1( 5.3%) 2( 7.7%) 5( 8.2%)
Information sharing 0 0 2( 3.3%)
Other 6(31.6%) 3(11.5%) 4( 6.6%)
Total 19 26 61

 

On the other hand, Japanese leaders thought more frequent communication was

the key. They recognized the importance of fi'equent communication with subordinates,

though their answers implied only the general idea with no specific direction.

110"

The same procedure was employed for this data set and the categories found in the

previous analysis were also obtained except benefits. Benefits were such as “Adapt

employee development plan and employee interview in yearly evaluation” and “To offer

more and better future benefits and promotion (pay raise)” Table 5.20 shows the

participants’ suggestion to management about more satisfied communication in

organization.

84

Table 5.20 - Suggestions for More Satisfied Communication in Organizations

 

 

 

Japanese Malaysian Filipino
Communication 5(45.5%) 10(38.4%) 11(21.6%)
Information sharing/ system 0 3(1 1.5%) 8(15.7%)
Meeting 0 8(30.8%) 6(1 1.8%)
Language 0 0 3(5.9%)
Benefits 0 1(3.8%) 3(5.9%)
Performance function of leadership 1(,9.1%) 0 3(5.9%)
Maintenance function of leadership 1( 9.1%) O 15(29.4%)
Other 4(3 6.4%) 4(1 5.4%) 2(3 .9%)
Total 1 l 26 5 1

 

Communication is a top concern for Japanese and Malaysians. The following are

comments fi'om both groups.

“Communication system should be established as a procedure” (49, male,

Japanese).

“Japanese try to mingle with Filipinos more” (31, male, Japanese).

“Open communication between top management and staffs” (24, female, Chinese

Malaysian).

“There should be more ‘human touch’ in the communication” (34, male, Indian

Malaysian).

85

Among Filipino participants, communication was also a concern, but the
maintenance fiinction was an even greater concern. Maintenance means attention to
relational issues in the organization, such as:

“Equality regardless of race, position or years of service” (27, female, Filipino).

“Japanese staff need to be more open, trustworthy, honest, not overly exaggerated
in suspicion” (25, male, Filipino).

These are directed to the set of Japanese employees and management rather than to a
particular Japanese superior. The results of open-ended questions about satisfaction with
communication with superiors and in the organization urge more concern of interpersonal
or relationship-maintenance aspects in communication from their superiors and

organization. This issue is discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION

Overview

This section begins with a description of general patterns of findings across
hypotheses and research questions, followed by explanations of the results and theoretical
implications for the study of communication and leadership in organizations. Based on the
findings, some suggestions for Japanese leaders and their host country employees are
offered. Limitations and implications for firture research comprise the last section.

General Patterns of Findings
Hypotheses about Leadership

The Leader-Subordinate Communication Model (see Figure 3.2) predicts that
information will be shared better between managers and subordinates under managers who
emphasize both performance and maintenance (PM) as leadership functions, and when
messages are communicated explicitly.

According to the results of examining hypotheses, subordinates did perceive that
information was shared more under Japanese managers who emphasized both performance
and maintenance as leadership fimctions, especially managers who focused on maintenance
issues and not just performance issues. In addition, when messages were communicated

more explicitly, information was shared more, and subordinates felt more satisfaction with

their managers.

87

The Leader-Subordinate Communication Model also predicted that more
information sharing will lead to more satisfaction among both managers and subordinates
with each other and the organization. Results confirmed these predictions. When
information was shared, Japanese managers were more satisfied with Malaysian and
Filipino subordinates and the subordinates were satisfied with their managers. Moreover,
all groups were more satisfied with the organization when information was better shared.

The results of analyses about leadership styles based on the firnctions of
performance and maintenance revealed that the PM style (high in both performance and
maintenance) was most strongly related to information sharing and satisfaction. The pM
style (low in performance and high in maintenance) was next most related, and the pm
style (low in both performance and maintenance) was least strongly related to information
sharing and satisfaction. This result is consistent with the claim of PM leadership theorists
and previous literature (e.g., Misumi, 1984; 1992). However, considering that the pm
style and the Pm style didn’t differ statistically, the maintenance fiinction seems more
important to Malaysian and Filipino employees. High maintenance behaviors by managers
seem linked to information sharing and satisfaction. There must be transcultural
dimensions of leadership style which appear to be effective in any cultural settings, but the
specific aspects may vary across cultures (Smith et al., 1989).

According to the data, both the maintenance function and the performance
function contributed to information sharing when messages were communicated explicitly,
whereas only the maintenance firnction contributed to information sharing when messages
were not explicitly communicated. This result does not support hypothesis 3. Perhaps

subordinates feel secure and act cooperative when they believe that their leaders try to

88

protect their benefits and care about them (Chemers, 1997; 1998). Under such conditions,
they are willing to work toward their leaders’ objectives and achieve organizational goals.

In addition, when messages are explicitly communicated, subordinates
acknowledge that both performance and maintenance functions are performed, thus
information sharing and satisfaction increase. However, when messages are not explicitly
communicated, performance-related messages do not facilitate information sharing and
satisfaction.

This result is slightly different from the Leader-Subordinate Communication Model
that predicts that neither performance nor maintenance functions contribute to information
sharing and satisfaction when messages are not explicitly communicated. Though there
must be more studies needed to investigate this difference, the earlier study of PM
leadership theory (Misumi, 1984) may explain a part of it. The study investigated the
relationship between communication flow and PM style leadership. Communication flows
most smoothly under PM style leaders, pM next, Pm, and then pm style leaders. The
maintenance function may play more vital role in communication. Thus, even when
messages are not explicitly communicated, the maintenance function still could contribute
to information sharing and satisfaction, whereas the performance firnction could not.
Hypotheses about Perception Gaps

In order to examine how the data reflect on the Leader-Subordinate
Communication Model in more detail (see Figure 3.2), perceptual differences between
leaders and subordinates were investigated in terms of leadership, communication style,

information sharing, and satisfaction.

89

With regard to leadership, Japanese mangers believed that they exhibited both
performance and maintenance as leadership fiinctions whereas Malaysian and Filipino
subordinates little recognized Japanese managers’ leadership. This gap was more obvious
in the scores for maintenance firnctions. In addition, there was a sex difference among
subordinates. Male subordinates recognized Japanese managers’ leadership better than
female subordinates.

When examined in greater detail, differences between Japanese managers and
Malaysian/Filipino subordinates were revealed in terms of perceived leadership behaviors.
Japanese managers defined an efficient leader as someone who handles performance-
related matters well, such as giving proper instruction, giving appropriate amounts of time
so that subordinates complete tasks on time, and asking subordinates to report their work
progress. However, Japanese managers felt it difficult to deal with these performance-
related issues. As other studies found (Takanriya & Thurley, 1985; White & Trevor,
1983), Japanese managers are strongly task-oriented. Even if they want to push
Malaysian and Filipino subordinates strongly for excellent performance, their high
expectation does not meet; the subordinates do not act as the managers want.

On the other hand, Malaysian and Filipino subordinates defined an efficient leader
as someone who handles maintenance-related matters well, such as trust of and support
for subordinates, fair treatment, and being accessible. Like Japanese managers,
subordinates also felt dimculties in dealing with performance-related behaviors. They
thought their boss’s maintenance-related behaviors would motivate them to work,

consistent with the definition of an efficient leader.

Interestingly, Japanese managers believed that maintenance-related behaviors on
their part would motivate their subordinates, but this is not consistent with their own
definitions of an efficient leader. It seems to Japanese managers that an eflicient leader is
the one who can handle difficult performance-related matters, but not one who motivates
subordinates for better work.

In short, there was a substantial difference of view between Japanese and
Malaysians/Filipinos about leadership; such a difference between managers and
subordinates may not be obvious within organizations where only Japanese work.
However, this difference appears when people with different cultural backgrounds work
together. The concept of leadership between Japanese and Malaysians/Filipinos differs in
meaning, and this gap may be a product of their work or organizational culture. Leaders
in any organizations do need to attend both to the task at hand and also to the
maintenance of good relationships with subordinates. But how this is to be accomplished
in each setting will be dependent on the meanings given to particular leadership behavior
in different cultural settings (Smith & Tayeb, 1988). A manager who fi'equently checks on
which work is done properly as seen an appropriate leader behavior in Japan, as maybe
too demanding in Malaysian and Filipino settings.

Peterson, Smith, and Tayeb (1993) found the significant difference in the
leadership meaning between the western countries like the US. and the UK. and Japan.
They state that a managers who is “considerate yet who pushes very strongly for excellent
output can easily be viewed as exercising legitimate authority in Japan” and “the same
combination may be viewed as schizoid or unacceptably paternalistic” in the US. and the

UK. (p. 265). Comparing Malaysia and the Philippines with Japan, as Filipino values:

91

personalisrn, authoritarianism, and familism (Andres, 1988; Jocano, 1990) suggest,
Malaysian and Filipinos need a manager who is more considerate.

Concerning communication styles, it was found that Japanese managers think they
communicate more explicitly than their subordinates think they do. Managers notice the
need to communicate explicitly when working with host country employees, but then they
don’t enact explicit communication behaviors, according to their subordinates. Both
Malaysian and Filipino subordinates want their Japanese managers to be more explicit
about maintenance behaviors such as showing trust and supporting them.

Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos in this study chose similar strategies when
messages were unclear. Malaysians and Filipinos chose almost the same strategies.
Concerning communication problems they think exist in their organization, the pattern was
similar. Malaysian and Filipino subordinates picked exactly the same items such as
“Management does not know what the employees think” and “Information is not readily
available.” The pattern was different from Japanese. It may be important to ask why
Malaysians and Filipinos reveal the same pattern even though they are working in two
different countries.

There could be several explanations provided. Three prominent ones would be:
(1) Subordinates are similar across countries; (2) Malaysians and Filipinos are culturally
similar; and (3) Japanese companies have similar environment in other countries. These
points will be discussed later in this chapter.

With regard to the degree to which Japanese, Malaysians, and Filipinos think

information is shared among leaders and subordinates, there was no ethnic difference.

92

Leadership style was related to information sharing as previously explained for leadership
style differences.

A similar pattern was found concerning satisfaction with one’s boss/subordinate
and satisfaction with the organization. There was no ethnic difference among Japanese,
Malaysians, and Filipinos. Leadership styles differentiate the degree of satisfaction
(Misumi, 1984). However, there was a significant sex difference about satisfaction with
organization. Male employees were more satisfied with organization than were female
employees. Male employees also perceived that Japanese managers exercise leadership
more so than was perceived by female employees. These results together may suggest
that Japanese companies are a better place to work for male employees.

Suggestions for Japanese Managers

Japanese and Malaysians/Filipinos differed in their perceptions about efficient
leaders. While Japanese think efficient leaders are those who can handle difficult
performance-related behaviors well, Malaysians and Filipinos think those who can take
care of subordinates well. Subordinates perceived that information was shared better
under the managers who focus on maintenance behaviors and they were more satisfied
with those managers. Of course, the status difference (the Japanese were managers and
Malaysians and Filipinos worked for Japanese managers) may have caused this difference.
However, as Chemers (1998) says, this result suggests that culture determines the quality
of desirable leaders and changes the degree of satisfaction of subordinates towards the
leaders accordingly.

Based on results of the current research, a boss’s maintenance-related behaviors

are more important to subordinates as a determinant of satisfaction than are performance-

93

related behaviors. Andres (198 8) mentions genuine fiiendliness and an outgoing concern
for others as qualities Filipinos look for in a leader. Chemers (1997) argues that
performance-related behaviors may be important and effective at the early stage of group
and organizational development and task achievement, but may then generate negative
outcomes over a long period of time.

This possibility is important for Japanese managers who are performance-oriented
and who work with maintenance-oriented subordinates. Maintenance behaviors create
trustful relationship between leaders and subordinates. Once a trustfirl relationship is
established, leaders’ performance behaviors are more likely to be accepted and supported
by subordinates. Previous research is consistent with this result (Ayman & Chemers,
1983; Misumi, 1984).

Communicating explicitly is also an important key to better information sharing
and satisfaction. When messages are not explicitly communicated, performance behaviors
don not contribute to information sharing and satisfaction. Japanese managers need to be
more concerned with communicating performance behaviors more explicitly, that will
enhance information sharing and satisfaction.

When people with different cultural backgrounds work together, extra sensitivity
to relational issues is required. I assume that Japanese managers’ maintenance behaviors
can work properly when they work with Japanese subordinates. However, when working
with subordinates from different cultures, messages meaning should be manifest. Though
Japanese managers answered that they cared about maintenance behaviors in the present

study, their subordinates claimed this was not the case. Yet, according to the result of

94

open-ended questions, many subordinates expressed their requests that Japanese managers
would consider more about maintenance-related issues.

There is also a racial issue to which Japanese managers should give careful
consideration. Some employees expressed their feeling about unfair treatment among
different racial groups. Both Malaysia and the Philippines are multi-ethnic countries. In
Malaysia, especially, people are very sensitive about ethnic issues. One of the major
challenges for Japanese managers in Malaysia is dealing with the unusual balance of
Malays and Chinese. Management faces problems in organizing supervision of the
workforce and in deciding on promotion in an atmosphere of ethnic rivalry and suspicions
of favoritism (Smith, 1996). As discussed in Chapter 1, Japanese companies tend to give
managerial positions to Chinese. This tendency was predominant in trading companies in
this study. When interviewed, Japanese managers said that it was easier to get along with
Chinese employees thanks to their cultural similarity with Japanese. They said they had
sometimes dinner together with Chinese employees. This is one of the most basic ways of
developing social cohesion among employees. Due to religious reasons, Malaysians of
different ethnic groups cannot eat together. Drinking alcohol is a usual way of corporate
socialization for both Japanese and Chinese and this is also the place where some business
negotiations are held. Yet, Malays cannot drink. Malays cannot eat pork and Indians
cannot eat beef. Thus, Japanese managers tend to gather with Chinese. These behaviors
may make some employees feel treated unfairly.

Japanese managers are required to develop cultural and relational sensitivity in
their short period of postings of three to five years. Being sensitive to cultural and

' relational issues is one of the most important intercultural communication skills. If one

95

manager becomes aware of these issues and able to handle them, that will improve the
relationship between the manager and his/her subordinates, but this won’t change other
managers. Not only about being sensitive, but also about other intercultural
communication issues, it is diflicult for each manager to be aware of them and change
himself/herself accordingly within a short period stay in a host country. Moreover, even if
one manager acquires intercultural communication skills through his/her host country
experiences, the next manager from Japan should go through the process in the host
country again. Companies have to establish a system in which all employees will be aware
of communication as one of the essential strategies in intercultural business settings.
Suggestions for Management

As discussed previously, the managers I interviewed in the current study
understand the importance of localization for the firture competition in a global market.
They know that having Japanese managers at an overseas subsidiary costs much higher
than employing host country managers. Despite that, advancing localization was
considered diflicult for various reasons. What makes localization so difficult? As shown
in Chapter 5, there are two most prominent factors that may hinder management from
localization. They are the difficulty of training host local employees and the Japanese style
of business. These are somewhat interrelated.

There are several reasons why companies feel difficulties of training host country
employees: (1) They don’t have enough time and people who train host country
employees; (2) Capable employees leave for other companies even if they are trained; and
(3) Both Japanese and host country employees have cultural and communication gaps

toward each other.

96

First, Japanese managers’ posting usually lasts 4 to 5 years in a host country.
Within a limited time period, devoting a lot of time and money on training host country
employees is not an easy task without a systematic support from management. Because
they don’t train the host country employees, they cannot have the host country employees
who meet their expectation.

Second, even though they spend time and money on training host country
employees, the employees don’t stay long in the company. For example, the employees
find out that they cannot be promoted to a director position because the position is for
Japanese. Therefore, they are disappointed. In another case, since management does not
provide a clear career path with host country employees, the employees are worried about
their firture career, thus quit the company. When interviewed, several companies told me
jokingly that older ones stay in the company, but young, capable employees tend to quit
the company. Young employees are motivated and fill] of dreams, but they soon find out
that their future is unclear and they have little chance to become a director in the Japanese
company, then leave there. Those who are not capable enough to leave for other
companies will remain there.

Third, Japanese and Malaysian/Filipino employees have different expectations
about each other. Malaysian and Filipino employees look for more care and sensitivity in
their Japanese leader, but this is not what Japanese managers try to achieve. In addition,
Japanese managers expect too much from their host country employees. They expect the
host country employees to work like their Japanese subordinates. Many managers may

not be satisfied with the subordinates who don’t work more than they are told to do. This

97

is related to the concept of job. The managers are discontented with the lack of autonomy
and responsibility of the host country employees.

In addition, trading companies’ clients are mainly Japanese companies. They have
business in Japan and keep the business partnership in the host country. Therefore, the
Japanese managers think that they need to do business in a Japanese way, thus cannot fully
leave responsibilities to host country employees. Because host country employees are not
familiar with Japanese business practices, Japanese managers cannot depend on them.
Because the managers don’t leave responsibilities to host country employees, the
employees cannot be brought up to the level for meeting the managers’ expectation. This
is a vicious circle. In this sense, the difficulty of training host local employees and
Japanese style of business are interrelated. If management would insist Japanese style
business and capable host local employees would resign the company owing to this, the
company will lose its international competitiveness.

From interviews, turnover rate appeared to be low due to Asian economic
recession at the moment when this study took place. However, this does not guarantee to
stop future job-hopping. When economic becomes stable again, and if a company is not
an attractive workplace, host country employees may start leaving the company again. As
explained above, 30% of the companies answered that the job-hopping rate was high at
certain group such as young employees and engineers. If the employees are young and
capable, or experts on a field, they still can find a better job even under economic
recession. Unless companies do something, they cannot keep capable host local

employees for other companies, especially western companies.

98

However, we should consider what localization is once again. If localization is just
to give a position to host local employees, it is not too much trouble. Localization does
not simply mean transferring positions from Japanese to host country employees.
Subsidiaries need to organize management and system in which host country employees
can accomplish business goals that Japanese headquarter sets up without Japanese
expatriates assistance (Sakuma, 1993).

In addition to localization, there may be other issues that Japanese overseas
subsidiaries should take into consideration, such as how to manage female employees.
According to the result of this study, female employees were less satisfied than men with
their companies. Why did they feel less satisfied comparing to male employees? One
possible reason may be promotion. Table 6.1 illustrates the number of employees of the
Japanese subsidiaries that joined this study. They are sorted by job type, country, and sex.
In both Malaysia and the Philippines, male employees are more likely found at higher
positions, while female employees tend to have language-related jobs and secretary
positions. This tendency may be related to less satisfaction of female employees toward
companies, too. Smith (1996) reports that female employees are more likely assigned to
finance, marketing and sales, and administration departments rather than research and
production operation functions. She also reports a case about a female Chinese science
graduate in a Japanese subsidiary in Malaysia, who was placed in a terminal category as
section head in charge of the laboratory, and was not considered for promotion, even
though the males recruited with her went on to become engineering and production

managers. Japanese overseas subsidiaries have similar organizational structure as the

99

headquarters in Japan. The problems in the headquarter are in common with those of the
subsidiaries.

Moreover, as pointed out at the earlier page in this chapter, communication
problems the participants think exist in organization were similar between Malaysians and
Filipinos. They picked exactly the same items such as “Management does not know what
the employees think” and “Information is not readily available.” The pattern was different
from Japanese. Why did Malaysians and Filipinos think that they were not well informed
by management or others? It is more natural to think that Japanese companies have
similar environment across host countries than that Malaysians and Filipinos are culturally
similar or subordinates are similar across countries, in which information does not flow

well among employees.

Table 6.1 — Number of Employees by Job Type, Country, and Sex

 

 

 

Malaysians Filipinos
Female Male Female Male
Position
Manager of other managers 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 2 (4%) 6 (13%)
Manager 3 (19%) 4 (20%) 18 (39%) 22 (49%)

Non-managerial executives 14 (47%) 12 (60%) 6 (13%) 14 (31%)

 

General staff 9 (30%) 2 (10%) 2 (4%) ' 3 (6%)
Language related 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (815%) O (0%)
Secretary 3 (10%) 0 Q‘Vo) 11 (24%) 0 (0%)
Total 30 20 46 45

 

100

Management needs to encourage managers and subordinates to exchange
information through vital communication. Management should diffuse information across
sections and departments and draw up from there, too. When people from different
cultures work together, it is essential that management creates a framework or a structure
in which management actively communicates management goals and administration
operations with employees at an organizational level. At an individual level, each manager
needs to be concerned about cultural and relational matters with subordinates.

Suggestions for Malaysian/Filipino Subordinates

Intercultural communication issues at a workplace is not only Japanese managers’
responsibilities, but also host local employees’ accountability as well. Because
intercultural communication is a two-way process, it is not enough for one to acquire
intercultural communication skills. There are three main points that host country
employees might want to consider.

First, to some extent, they need to be conscious that they are working for a
Japanese company or with Japanese bosses and colleagues. Working for a Japanese
company is their choice. They need to be prepared that Japanese managers will be
different from Malaysian and Filipino managers. Keeping the idea that they are working
together with people fiom different cultures in their mind is the first step.

Second, when they find something wrong or they don’t understand with Japanese
managers, they have to actively ask for information and explanation from Japanese
managers. For example, scolding a subordinate in fi'ont of others is not unusual at
Japanese companies. This used to be a serious problem in overseas subsidiaries and it still

is. There were many host country employees who left Japanese companies due to these

101

Japanese managers’ behavior and there are still some. Scolding someone in front of others
is severely damaging one’s face in many Asian cultures such as Malaysia, the Philippines,
and Thailand. There was a case like this reported at a company when I was interviewing
for the current research. A manager yelled at a subordinate and the subordinate quit the
company. Managers have to know the cultural norm that they cannot shout at
subordinates in public. If some managers are insensible, subordinates need to appeal to
the managers.

Third, as stated above, being culturally and relationally sensitive is also required
for subordinates, too. Listening to bosses, as they want the bosses to listen to them is
important. However, this is not a one-way communication. As previously discussed, even
if one subordinate becomes a culturally competent communicator, this won’t change the
whole organization. Organization system needs to change as well as both managers and
subordinates individually change.

Implications for Future Research

Among the Japanese overseas subsidiaries investigated in the present study,
Japanese were mostly superiors and Malaysians and Filipinos were mostly subordinates.
The current study only focused on the ongoing communication issues between Japanese
managers and Malaysian/Filipino subordinates in Malaysia and the Philippines. Hence, it
was the out of focus to look at the relationship between Japanese managers and Japanese
subordinates. However, focusing only on Japanese managers and host national employees
could not clearly conclude that the perception differences were caused simply by cultural
difference or possibly by status difference. Looking at Japanese manager-subordinate

relationships will be helpfirl to clear out this problem. This will be the next research

102

project. In addition, the present study only looked at Japanese-Malaysians and Japanese-
Filipinos relationships. Thus, it cannot generalize about other countries.

Concerning methodological issues, due to time and financial constraints, the
present study only examined participants based on questionnaires and a small number of
interviews. The questionnaire was administered both to Japanese and Malaysians/Filipinos
and it was written in English. Thus, it could exclude the translation problems and provide
the same quality with both managers and subordinates. Looking at communication issues
and leadership styles at points of both managers and subordinates was worthwhile.
However, interviews were conducted only with Japanese managers. Talking with them
gave me insights for the real workplace scene. Interviewing the subordinates could
Strengthen this study.

Concluding Remarks

Japanese multinational corporations have relocated Japanese managers to overseas
subsidiaries. Overseas subsidiaries belong to a parent company in Japan, but don’t have a
strong tie to host county employees. Japanese managers come and go between a parent
company and overseas subsidiaries. They are expected to achieve a goal. From the
perspective of host country employees, overseas subsidiaries are not considered a part of
the parent company because they as employees have no chance to actively take part in the
mainstream business of a parent company.

Japanese companies, however, have globalized. Leading companies like Toyota
have finally begun “global human resource management.” Host country subordinates will
be given opportunities to be a part of entire corporation, not just a member of a

subsidiary. This will allow Japanese and host country managers to pursue the same career

103

paths, have the same levels of job security, and receive the same types of training and
fiinge benefits. When this system starts working, managers can show clear, alternative
career paths to subordinates.

Global resource management will be a driving force for managers and subordinates
to change their communication and work relationships. At the same time, it will
inevitably plunge corporations into intercultural communication issues. Managers have
avoided these issues, but will now have to face them. They need to make efforts to
communicate more efficiently when working with subordinates from different cultures.
The real stimuli for change in organizations are people — the managers and subordinates

who, together, determine the fate of the organization and, hence, of themselves.

104

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. (ed) (1992). UnderstandmgtheMalaxsrannorkforceflrdelmefor
managers. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Institute of Management.

Adler, N. (1986). InternationaLdimensionsoflorganizationalbehardor Boston:
Kent Publishing Company.

Andres, T. D. (1988). Marmgingpeoplebyflfipingxalues. Quezon City,
Philippines: Publishers’ Press.

Aokl. K & Umata, K (1997) Nihonkrgyuhokusetsujoushrlarauajoushmo

mestmeml. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Ariff, M. (1991). IheMalaysianeconomxhcifieconneetions NY: Oxford

University Press.

Arrifin, J. (1992). Industrial development and women factory workers in Malaysia:
Issues relevant to family and social welfare. In K. S. Cho, & M. S. Ismail (Eds) Caring

WW. Kuala Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia

Ayman, R. & Chemers, M. M. (1983). The relationship of supervisory behavior
ratings to work group effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction among Iranian managers

loumalanppliedPsxchologm, 338 341
Barnard, C. I. (1938). Ihefimctionsoflthesxecutixe. MA: Harvard University

Press.

Barrier to globalization. (1999, April 16). NihQnKflzaLShinbun. p.13.

Bartlett, C. A, & Yoshihara, H. (1988). New challenges for Japanese
multinationals: Is organization adaptation their Achilles heel? HumanResQnrce

Managementll, 19-43.

Bavelas, A, & Barnett, D. (1951). An experimental approach to organizational
communication. PersonneLZl, 366-371.

Beechler, S. ,& Taylor, S. (1994). The transfer of human resource management
systems overseas: An exploratory study of Japanese and American maquiladoras. In N.

Campbell, & F Burton (Eds.,) Japanesemultinationalszmrategiesandmanagementimhe
glahaLkaisha. London: Routledge.

105

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds). (1968). WWW. NY:
Harper & Row.

Casimir, G., & Keats, D. (1996). The effects of work environment and in-group
membership on the leadership preferences of Anglo-Australians and Chinese Australians.

lournalnmessfiulturaUstchologle, 436-457.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). Aniategratmenheenmfleadership. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Chemers, M. M. (1998). Leadership and culture. MW. 28-
43.

Chung. S. (1995) AstudufKorealananeselmmxenmresandmcaanblems

WWW Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Takushoku University, Tokyo, Japan.

Clements, S. D., & Ayers, D. (1976). WWW
W5 Ft- Benjamin Harrison, IN: US. Army Administrative Center.

Das, S. (1987). Extemalities, and technology transfer through multinational
corporations. loumalnflmematlonalficonomrcsazz, 171-182.

Devito, J. A. (1996). MessagesBuildinginterpersonalcommunicationskills. NY:
HarperCollins.

Dodd, C. H. (1989).121mamics_o£inlel:cultural_eommmrication. Dubuque. IA: Wm.
C. Brown Publishers.

Downs, C. W ,&Hazen, M. (1977). Afactonanabctmmdiesoflcommunication
satisfactionJQurnalnfBusineSLCnmmunicationJA, 63- 73

Dunung. SP. (1995). DoingbusinessinAsiLIhecompleteguide NY: Lexington
Books.

Barley, P C ,,&Erel M (1997) WWW
understandhomkersmnthermumneueejhemddnifl‘eremly. NY: Oxford

University Press.

Fujiwara, Y. (1997, January). MalaxsiajnumlfiimatmmMalaxsial. Unpublished

manuscript, Japanese Embassy in Malaysia.

Fujino, T. (1998). GumubarizeishonnnshimeLenketsukeieilfilabalizational
derelonmentandjoimmanagement] Tokyo: Bunshin-do

106

FUkUda’ 1K: (1988) lapanesestylemanagemennransferrediheexaenenceof
EnslAsia. NY: Routledge.

Funakawa, A (1998) Iabunkajidainoguroubamkeieiilranscultural
managemenLAnenLaanoachfoLglobalnrganizationsl. Tokyo. Toppan.

Glaser, S. R, Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting
organizational culture. Mamgemelnfiemmumcatmnfluanedni, 173 198.

Gomes, A (1999). Peoples and cultures. In A Kaur, & I. Metcalfe (Eds), The
shapmgnfiMalaysra. Hampshire, England: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Haraoka, K & Wakabayashi M (1993) SeabihkomnrmkelshonJeto

11111 ..« 01° 1 .. 11 .111111.-111s-.'1 1.-i111 11. .11

organization]. Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan.

Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1993). Managing cultural differenges. Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Hayashi, K. (1994). Ibunkaflaafeimkeieiilmgmlmraljmerfacemanagememl
Tokyo: Nihonkeizaishinbunsha.

Hui, C. H. (1990). Work attitudes, leadership styles, and managerial behaviors in

different cultures. In R Brislin (Ed), Apnfimnultumlmxchnlngy (pp. 186-208).
London: Sage.

Hunt, J. G. (1991). LeadershipAnmsynthesis. London: Sage.
Huq, A. (1994). Malaysiamnomiesuecess. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Pelanduk

Publications.

Ikehata, S & Ikuta, S (1992) SekmgendmshLilounananaarndarshlLMQdd
mademhlsttMMmIemJnsanefSoutheastAsiam Tokyo: Yarnakawa Shuppan.

Imada, T., & Sonoda, S. (1995)-Aiiakarano_shisen_[1apanin_the_eyes_ofAsiansl
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Ishida, H. (1985). Mhoakrgyaunekokusaurmrkannflnlemanonallahor
managemenmflananesemmpanies]. Tokyo: Nihon Rodo Kyokai.

Ishida, H. (1986). Transferability of Japanese human resource management abroad.
HumanResourceManaaemenLZi. 103-120.

Ishida, H & Shiraki M (Eds..)(l990) Krayougumubamkanmmzarsenmaku
WWW. Tokyo: Nikkan Kogyo Shinbunsha.

107

Iwauchi, R, Kadowaki, A, Abe, E. ,Jinnouchi, Y., & Mori, S. (1992). Kaigai

I '1M._0I'. all ..OI‘O“. ...-011' 1.1.I.IIII‘.

management]. Tokyo: Dobunkan Shuppan.

IETRO Report (June. 1996). IbenurnbemflananesecemnaniesinMalaysia.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: JETRO.

JETRO Report. (February, 1997). WWW. Manila, the
Philippines: JETRO.

Jocano,...FL(I990)u..1:3~11-11 ‘
culture. Quezon City, Philippines: Punlad Research House.

 

Johnson, C. (1988). Japanese-style management in America. Califemia
WM 34-45

Kagono, T. (1997). Sharing of cultural values in Japanese business organizations.
QrganmatmnalfimeMZI 4-11

Karimata, M. (1989). Scshlklnemdaashrppuflaeadershlnmnrgamzanon]. Tokyo:
Chuo Keizaisha.

Kataoka, S., & Mishima, R (1997).Ana_mkke1.krgycumokem_lbunka

11111.'111 1 ..111111..11.1'.'1111.1' .1T0ky0

Bunshindo.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). IhesociaLpsxchologrLoferganizations. NY: John
Wiley & Sons.

Kaur, A., & Metcalfe, I. (1999). IheshnpjngefMalaysia. Hampshire, England:
Macmillan Press Ltd.

Kawatani’ T-r & Abdullaln MB. (1996). CommunicationhandhnokfoLMalaysian
anilananesemanasm. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 1818 Malaysia.

Kimbara, T. (1991). Localization and performance of Japanese operations in

Malaysia and Singapore. In S.Yamashita (Ed), Imafcmflanancsflcchnnlcuand
managementtntheASEANeQuntnes. Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo press.

Kopp, R. (1994). International human resource policies and practices in Japanese,

European, and United States multinationals. WWW, 531-599.

108

Krishnan, N (1997). Malaysraaflitodehrsokumgaikokujinmdmmhamondaiga

mzuluLIMalaysmiahoLshortagaanthepmblemsoflforergnJahorsl International Labor
Inforrnation, 225, 6- 12. Toyo: The Japan Institute of Labor.

Lewin, K. ,Lippitt, R. & White, R. K. (1939) Patterns of aggressrve behavror 111
experimentally created social climates loumaleflSocmPsycholongfl, 271-301

McDaniel, D 0. (1994). WWW
indeojnflmneilndonesiaMalaxsiLandfingapore NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation

Mehden, FR. (1987). Malaysia - A political survey. In Institute of Strategic and

International Studies (Ed), WW. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
ISIS Malaysia.

Mmbsxshimlimflm (April, 1998). Manila, the Philippines: The Japanese
Chamber of Commerce & Industry of the Philippines, Inc.

The Ministry of General Affairs, Statistics Bureau. (1998). Selminotuukeiflorld
slatisficsl. Tokyo: The Ministry of Finance, Printing Office.

Miranda, Jr., C. V- (1994). WWW
Ehilinpincs. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Misumi, J. (1984). Riidaashippu koudouno kagaku [Ihe behavioral science of
leadership]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

Misumi, J. (1985).IhebehanoraLscrence_Qfleadershra_Anmmdisc1plmm
W. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press

Misumi, J. (1992). PM theory of leadership from a cross-cultural perspective. In
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Innoxationsjnemsmrlmral

I‘ I..°I '51.qu02'0 IIII I. 'III I'HI II‘ II'H‘I'O I' I'IIi II

AsmanmioLCmssLulmmmholmheldflmpan (pp 18- 27) Amsterdam
Swets & Zeitlinger Inc.
Misumi, J. ,& Peterson, M (1985) The Performance-Maintenance (PM) theory of

leadership: Review of a Japanese research program. AdmrmstmuugSmencefluancrlxjfl,
198-223.

Morgan, G. (1986). Imageso£orgamzation Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., Stripp, W. G. (1993). Deudomngglubamrgamzatmn.
Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

109

Negandhi, A. R. ,Eshghi, G. S. ,& Yuen, E. C (1985) The management practices
of Japanese subsidiaries overseas. CaliliomiaManagemenLReflWl, 93-105.

Neher, C. D- (1999)-Southeast_A51aJn_the_newumemanonal_era._lLd_ed Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.

Ofreneo, R. E. (1995).Eh1hpp1nemdusmalrzatron_and_1ndustnalrclamns. Quezon
City, Philippines: UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Peng, T. N (1994). Demographic trend and family structure in Malaysia. In S.

Chong, & K. S Cho. (Eds) SocraLDexelopmemundeLraprdJndusmahzathhmsaof
SgutheastAsia. Kuala Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia.

Peterson, M. F. ,Smith, P. B. ,& Tayeb, M. H. (1993). Development and use of
English versions of Japanese PM leadership measures in electronics pants. lQumamf

mgamzauonalflehauondfi, 251-267.

Pillai, P. (1994). Preface. In M. Pillai, & Othman, R. (Eds), Learningjumrk,
mrkingjejeam. Kuala Lumpur; ISIS Malaysia.

Promoting global human resource management. (1998, December 17). Nian
KeizaLShinhun. 1111-

Sakuma. M (1993) GenehikeieinohenkakulRefonninghosLemmry
management] Tokyo. Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha

SarDesai, D. R. (1994). WM Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Schein, E. H. (1985). thanizaiianaLfiulIumandJeadmhip. CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Shimada, H. (1994). Nihonnokoxouflaaaneseemnloxmem]. Tokyo: Chikuma
Shobo.

Shiraki, M (1995) NihonkrgxounokokirsarumekrjhrgenkannMemanonal
resourcemanagememfilapanemompamesl. Tokyo: Nihon Roudou Kenkyu Kikou

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1995). Leadership and management communication. In

Eundamentalsoiorganizationalcommunication(3rd ed. pp, 267- 312) NY: Longman
Publishers.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1981). IhenurturanLtasKleaderAmodeLoLeflbchmxecunye
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

110

Smith, W. (1993). Japanese management in Malaysia. WWII.
11, 50-76.

Smith, W. (1996). Management in Malaysia. Intemalianalfincxclansdianf
BusinesamdMauagememJ. 2951-2961.

Smith, P. B ,& Tayeb, M (1988). Organizational structure and processes. In M.

H Bond (Ed.,) WWW Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Smith, P. B. ,Misumi, J. ,,Tayeb M. ,Peterson, M., & Bond, M. (1989) On the

generality of leadership style measures across cultures. 1QurnaLQ£chupatiQnal
magnum. 97-109.

Takahashi, F. (1998). Laboamanagementsxstemsjnlapanesemmpaniesinthe

'hl'l'_111‘.‘-11"H1_1.1 '11.1'-1 1' 111.15' «11.111-11.2‘11'1 1516111.

Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.

Takamiya, S & Thurley, K (1985) lapanlaemergingmultinationalsm
intemationalmmparisonofipolicieaandnmctices. Tokyo. University of Tokyo Press

Talib, R., & Chee-Beng, T. (Eds). (1995). WWW
deyelnpmminMalaysia Malaysia. Pelanduk Publications.

White, M., & Trevor, M. (1983). UndeLlapaneseJnanagement. London:

Heinemann.

Wiio, 0. A. (1975). Systemaoflnfonnatiommmunieationmmm

Helsinki: Helsinki Research Institute for Business Economics.

Xu, L. (1989). Comparative study of leadership between Chinese and Japanese
managers based upon PM theory. In B. J. F allong, H. P, Pfister, & J. Brebner (Eds. ),

Advanccsjnjndustrialmganizationalpsxchology. NY: Elsevier North-Holland

Yamashita, S. (1991). Economic development of the ASEAN countries and the

role of Japanese direct investment. In S.Yamashita (Ed), Imnsfemfilapanesejechnology
andmanagernentttheASEANmuntrjes. Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo press.

Yano, M. (1998). The heterogeneity and the originality of R & D teams: The
empirical study of the organization of a manufacturing company. QrganizationaLScicnce,
11(3), 61- 73.

Yoshihara, H. (1996). Miiuknnakokusaikeieiflmmamrejntemational
management]. Tokyo: Hakuto Shobo.

lll

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadershipjnergam'zatinn Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

112

APPENDICES

113

APPENDIX A

114

APPENDIX A

Leader-Subordinate Communication Survey (For Leaders)

 

The purpose of this survey is to examine communication styles of F ilipinos/Malaysians
and Japanese at work. The data obtained in this survey will be statistically processed.
Your name and responses will be kept strictly confidential. Please do not put your name on
the questionnaire. Your cooperation in completing the survey will be appreciated greatly.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Nebashi, Reiko

Rikkyo University

 

 

 

A. Please answer the followings questions about your behaviors as a superior.

 

 

1. What extent do you do the following behaviors? Please circle an appropriate number ranging
from 1 (to a very little extent) to 5 (to a very large extent).

 

1. You are strict about observing regulations. 1 2 3 4 5

2. You give your subordinates proper instructions and orders. 2 3 4 5

3. You are strict about the amount of work that your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates do.

4. You urge your subordinates to complete their work by l 2 3 4 5
the time s/he has specified.

5. You try to make your subordinates’ work to their 1 2 3 4 5

maximum capacity.
6. When your subordinate does an inadequate job, you focus on the l 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on his/her personality.

7. You ask your subordinates for reports about the progress 1 2 3 4 5
of their work.

8. You precisely work out plans for goal achievement each month. 1 2 3 4 5

9. You talk freely with your subordinates about their work. 1 2 3 4 5

10. You generally support your subordinates. I 2 3 4 5

11. You are concerned about your subordinates’ personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5

12. You trust your subordinates. l 2 3 4 5

13. You give your subordinates recognition when they do their 1 2 3 4 5
job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, you ask your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates’ opinion about how to solve it.

15. You are concerned about your subordinates’ future benefits 1 2 3 4 5

like promotions and pay raises.
16. You treat your subordinates fairly. l 2 3 4 5

115

 

 

 

 

3. In what manner do you do the following behaviors? Please circle an appropriate number ranging
from 1 (very implicitly) to 5 (very explicitly).

 

1. You are strict about observing regulations. 1 2 3 4 5

2. You give your subordinates proper instructions and orders. I 2 3 4 5

3. You are strict about the amount of work that your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates do.

4. You urge your subordinates to complete their work by 1 2 3 4 5
the time slhe has specified.

5. You try to make your subordinates’ work to their 1 2 3 4 5

maximum capacity.
6. When your subordinate does an inadequate job, you focus on the 1 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on his/her personality.

7. You ask your subordinates for reports about the progress 1 2 3 4 5
of their work. .

8. You precisely work out plans for goal achievement each month. I 2 3 4 5

9. You talk freely with your subordinates about their work. 1 2 3 4 5

10. You generally support your subordinates. l 2 3 4 5

11. You are concerned about your subordinates’ personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5

12. You trust your subordinates. l 2 3 4 5

13. You give your subordinates recognition when they do their 1 2 3 4 5
job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, you ask your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates’ opinion about how to solve it.

15. You are concerned about your subordinates’ future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.

16. You treat your subordinates fairly. l 2 3 4 5

 

 

4. In what manner do you want to do the following behaviors? Please circle an appropriate number
ranging from 1 (very implicitly) to 5 (very explicitly).

 

1. You are strict about observing regulations. 1 2 3 4 5

2. You give your subordinates proper instructions and orders. 1 2 3 4 5

3. You are strict about the amount of work that your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates do.

4. You urge your subordinates to complete their work by l 2 3 4 5
the time s/he has specified.

5. You try to make your subordinates’ work to their 1 2 3 4 5

maximum capacity.
6. When your subordinate does an inadequate job, you focus on the I 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on his/her personality.
7. You ask your subordinates for reports about the progress 1 2 3 4 5
of their work.
8. You precisely work out plans for goal achievement each month.
9. You talk freely with your subordinates about their work.
10. You generally support your subordinates.
11. You are concerned about your subordinates’ personal problems.
12. You trust your subordinates.

1—11—11—11—11—1
NNNNN
wwwww
##bé-fi
MMMMM

116

 

 

13. You give your subordinates recognition when they do their 1 2 3 4 5

job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, you ask your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates’ opinion about how to solve it.

15. You are concerned about your subordinates’ future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.

16. You treat your subordinates fairly. l 2 3 4 5

 

 

5. Do you feel any problem or difficulty to practiee the following behaviors to your subordinates?
Please circle an appropriate number ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

 

1. You are strict about observing regulations. I 2 3 4 5

2. You give your subordinates proper instructions and orders. 1 2 3 4 5

3. You are strict about the amount of work that your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates do.

4. You urge your subordinates to complete their work by l 2 3 4 5
the time slhe has specified.

5. You try to make your subordinates’ work to their 1 2 3 4 5

maximum capacity.

6. When your subordinate does an inadequate job, you focus on the l 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on his/her personality.

7. You ask your subordinates for reports about the progress I 2 3 4 5
of their work.

8. You precisely work out plans for goal achievement each month. I 2 3 4 5

9. You talk freely with your subordinates about their work. 1 2 3 4 5

10. You generally support your subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5

11. You are concerned about your subordinates’ personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5

12. You trust your subordinates. I 2 3 4 5

13. You give your subordinates recognition when they do their 1 2 3 4 5
job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, you ask your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates’ opinion about how to solve it.

15. You are concerned about your subordinates’ future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises. .

16. You treat your subordinates fairly. l 2 3 4 5

 

 

6. Do you think the following behaviors motivate your subordinates to work? Please circle an
appropriate number ranging from I (not at all) to 5 (very much).

 

1. You are strict about observing regulations. 1 2 3 4 5

2. You give your subordinates proper instructions and orders. 1 2 3 4 5

3. You are strict about the amount of work that your 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates do.

4. You urge your subordinates to complete their work by l 2 3 4 5
the time slhe has specified.

5. You try to make your subordinates’ work to their 1 2 3 4 5
maximum capacity.

6. When your subordinate does an inadequate job, you focus on the I 2 3 4 5

117

 

 

inadequate way the job is done instead of on his/her personality.
7. You ask your subordinates for reports about the progress

of their work.
8. You precisely work out plans for goal achievement each month.
9. You talk freely with your subordinates about their work.
10. You generally support your subordinates.

l 1. You are concerned about your subordinates’ personal problems.

12. You trust your subordinates.

13. You give your subordinates recognition when they do their
job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, you ask your
subordinates’ opinion about how to solve it.

15. You are concerned about your subordinates’ future benefits
like promotions and pay raises.

16. You treat your subordinates fairly.

~—-_—

NNNNNN

wwwwww

bbhhhb

UIKII'JI'JI

M 'JI

 

 

7. Do you think the following behaviors are important for an efficient leader? Please circle an

appropriate number ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

 

1. You are strict about observing regulations.
2. You give your subordinates proper instructions and orders.
3. You are strict about the amount of work that your
subordinates do.
4. You urge your subordinates to complete their work by
the time slhe has specified.
5. You try to make your subordinates’ work to their
maximum capacity.
6. When your subordinate does an inadequate job, you focus on the
inadequate way the job is done instead of on his/her personality.
7. You ask your subordinates for reports about the progress
of their work.
8. You precisely work out plans for goal achievement each month.
9. You talk freely with your subordinates about their work.
10. You generally support your subordinates.

11. You are concerned about your subordinates’ personal problems.

12. You trust your subordinates.

13. You give your subordinates recognition when they do their
job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, you ask your
subordinates’ opinion about how to solve it.

15. You are concerned about your subordinates’ future benefits
like promotions and pay raises.

16. You treat your subordinates fairly.

118

NM

00

bah-h

AAA-35h

.5

M

'JIUI‘JILII

‘Jt 'JI

kl!

 

B. Please select from the following list threeitems about things that most concern you when
communicating with your subordinates. Please write the number W.

.. Making sure of what my subordinate means

Defining words what my subordinate uses

Asking for more explanation from my subordinate

Using metaphors and examples to state my ideas and opinions

Using visual aids to tell my idea and opinion

Reading my subordinate’s ideas and opinions by his/her facial expression
Reading my subordinate’s ideas and opinions by his/her gestures
Reading my subordinate’s ideas and opinions by his/her mood

.Judging what my subordinate means by context

10. Asking for more information fi'om someone else, not my subordinate

12. Other (specify. )

I

 

 

l l

 

oeseweww~

 

 

 

C. In this series of questions we would like you to describe how your subordinate
communicates. Think about his/her behavior no general rather than about specific situations.

Blearecircleanapnmpnamiimm ranging from listmnglxdrsagreeltaitstmnglxagmel.

. My subordinate has a good command of English.

. My subordinate is sensitive to others’ needs of the moment.

. My subordinate typically gets right to the point.

. My subordinate pays attention to what other people say to him or her.
. My subordinate can deal with others effectively.

. My subordinate is a good listener.

. My subordinate’s writing is difficult to understand.

. My subordinate expresses his or her ideas clearly.

. My subordinate is difficult to understand when he or she speaks.
10. My subordinate generally says the right things at the right time.
11. My subordinate is easy totalkto.

12. My subordinate usually responds to message

(memos, phone calls, reports, etc.) quickly.

\OOOQQM-G-WNu—n
1—1—1—1—11—11—1—11—1-uu—1—n-1
NNNNNNNNNNNN
wwwwwwwwwwww
A-h-thbA-bh-th
MUIUIUIMUIUIUIUIUIUIUI

D. Please answer the followings questions about information in your company.

1. How much information about your work and organization do you get now from your immediate
subordinate?

Very little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

2. When receiving information from your immediate subordinate, how accurate would you estimate
it usually is?

Completely inaccurate 1 2 3 4 5 Completely accurate

3. Of the total amount of information you receive at work, how much do you pass on to your
immediate subordinate

None 1 2 3 4 5 All

119

4. I get enough information to understand the big picture here.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much so
5. When changes are made the reasons why are made clear.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much so
6. I get the information I need to do my job well.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much so

7. Please select from the following list three items about things that worst defects in
cormnunication of your organization. Please write the number 1, 2, and 3.

H

Information is not readily available.

Infomiation reaches me too late.

Information does not reach me.

Information is not accurate.

Information is useless.

Information is not important.

The language in information material is difficult.

I get too much information

9. Management conceals important information

10 Management does not know what the employees think and feel
11. I cannot express my opinion freely m my organization.

12. My opinions do not count and nobody listens to what I say.
13. Other (specify: )

 

 

“S999?!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Please indicate how satisfied you are with the following. Please circle an appropriate

number ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

1. Extent to which my subordinates are responsive to downward l 2
directive communication

2. Extent to which my subordinates anticipate my needs for l 2
information

3. Extent to which I do not have a communication overload l 2

4. Extent to which my subordinates are receptive to evaluation 1 2

5. Extent to which my subordinates are receptive to suggestions, 1 2
and criticisms

6. Extent to which my subordinates are receptive to criticisms l 2

7. Extent to which my subordinates feel responsible for initiating l 2
accurate upward communication

8. Extent to which my subordinates trust me 1 2

9. My own leadership 1 2

120

Abs-h

«fin-P-

10. If the communication associated with your subordinates could be changed in any way to make
you more satisfied, please indicate how:

 

 

ll. Extent to which this company’s communication motivates and l 2 3 4 5
stimulates an enthusiasm for meeting its goals

12. Extent to which the people in my company have great ability 1 2 3 4 5
as communicators

l3. Extent to which the company’s communication makes me feel 1 2 3 4 5
a vital part of it

14. Extent to which the company’s communications are interesting

15. Extent to which the company’s communications are helpful

16. Extent to which informal communication is active

17. Extent to which the amount of communication in the company
is about right

u—u—ni—nu—n
NNNN
wwww
hA-b-k
UIKJIM'JI

18. Ifthe communication in your organization could be changed in any way to make you more
satisfied, please indicate how:

 

 

F. Please answer the following questions about you and your company.
1. Sex: Female Male
2. Age:

3. Nationality:

 

4. Type of industry of your company: Please circle an appropriate number.

Mannfaemdngjndnstry NemManufaeIuringIndustm
Electrical & Electronic Products 11. Trading

1.
2. Steel & Nonferrous Metal Products 12. Construction

3. Petroleum & Chemical Products 13. Commerce/Retail
4. Transportation Machinery & Parts 14. Transportation

9. Other 15. Bank & Security
(Please specify ) 99. Other

(Please specify )

121

5. The number of employees in your company: Please circle an appropriate number.

1. LessthanSO 2. 50 to 99 3. 100 to 299
4. 300 to 999 5. More than 1000 9. I don’t know.
6. How long have you been working with this company? years months

7. How long have you been working with the current subordinates?
years _ months

 

8. What is your type of work? Please circle an appropriate number.

I am a manager (that is, I have at least one hierarchical subordinate),
l. a manager of people who are not managers themselves.

2. a manager of other managers.

lamnotamanagerandlworkmostofthetimeinanoffice,
3. teaching language and/or translating documents in an ofiicc.
4. as an executive who supervises workers in an office.

lamnotamanagerandIdonotworkmostofthetimeinanomce;
5. I am an executive who supervises workers in a place other than an office.

9. Other (Please specify )

9. How many years of formal school education did you complete in your country?
Please circle one and write the number of years. If you were educated in another country, please
circle 9 and specify.

 

 

 

1. years in my country
9. years in my country and years in the foreign
country (name )

122

APPENDIX B

123

APPENDIX B

Leader-Subordinate Communication Survey (For Subordinates)

 

The purpose of this survey is to examine communication styles of Filipinos and Japanese
at work. he data obtained in this survey will be statistically processed. Your name and
responses will be kept strictly confidential. Please do not put your name on the
questionnaire. Your cooperation in completing the survey will be appreciated greatly.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Nebashi, Reiko
Rikkyo University

 

 

 

A. Please answer the followings questions about your leader’s behaviors.

 

 

1 What extent does your superior do the following behaviors? Please circle an appropriate number
ranging from 1 (to a very little extent) to 5 (to a very large extent).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time 1 2 3 4 5
he has specified.

5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity. 1 2 3 4 5

6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the 1 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.

7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of 1 2 3 4 5
your work.

8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement 1 2 3 4 5
each month.

9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Your superior generally supports you. 1 2 3 4 5

11. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Your superior trusts you. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well. I 2 3 4 5

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks I 2 3 4 5
your opinion about how to solve it.

15. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.

16. Your superior treats you fairly. 1 2 3 4 5

124

 

 

 

2. Are you positive/neutral/negative towards the following behaviors of your superior? Please

circle an appropriate number ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations.

2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders.

3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do.

4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time
he has specified.

5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity.
6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.

7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of
your work.

8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement
each month.

9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work.

10. Your superior generally supports you.

1 1. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems.

12. Your superior trusts you.

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks
your opinion about how to solve it.

15. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits
like promotions and pay raises.

16. Your superior treats you fairly.

l
1
l
l

.—

NNNN

N

MWWW

WU)

«Bbbb

h-hhhbh & h

A

4

LIILIILIIM

(JIM

 

 

3. In what manner does your superior do the following behaviors? Please circle an appropriate

number ranging from 1 (very implicitly) to 5 (very explicitly).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations.
2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders.
.3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do.
4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time
he has specified.

5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity.

6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.

7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of
your work. i

8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement
each month. '

9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work.

10. Your superior generally supports you.

11. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems.

12. Your superior trusts you.

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks
your opinion about how to solve it.

125

u—sy-‘p—sp—s

H

hill-nih‘I-‘HH

NNNN

N

NNNNNN

wwww

WU)

03000303039)

#3 AA-hh

.h

Abbhufih

MM MMM'JI

Ur

MMUIMLIIUI

 

 

15. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.
16. Your superior treats you fairly. l 2 3 4 5

 

 

4. In what manner do you want your superior to do the following behaviors? Please circle an
appropriate number ranging from 1 (very implicitly) to 5 (very explicitly).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations.
2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders.
3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do.
4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time
he has specified.
5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity.
6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.
7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of l 2 3 4 5
your work.
8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement 1 2 3 4 5
each month.
9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work. 1 2
10. Your superior generally supports you. 1 2
11. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems. I 2
12. Your superior trusts you. 1 2
1 2
l 2

u—nu—nr—nu—o
NNNN
wwww
«Db-38543
MMML’I

a—Is—n
NN
U30»)
#45
ML]!

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks
your opinion about how to solve it.

15. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.

16. Your superior treats you fairly. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

5. Do you feel any problem or difficulty with the following behaviors of your superior? Please
circle an appropriate number ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders. l 2 3 4 5

3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time 1 2 3 4 5
he has specified.

5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity. 1 2 3 4 5

6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the l 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.

7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of l 2 3 4 5

your work.
8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement 1 2 3 4 5
each month.
9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work. 1
10. Your superior generally supports you. 1
11. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems.

.—
NNN
WWW
«fin-Bk
LIILIILII

126

 

 

12. Your superior trusts you. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well. 1 2 3 4 5

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks l 2 3 4 5
your opinion about how to solve it.

15. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.

16. Your superior treats you fairly. l 2 3 4 5

 

 

6. Does each of the following behaviors generally motivate you to work? Please circle an
appropriate number ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations.
2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders.
3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do.
4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time
he has specified.
5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity. 1
6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the l 2
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.
7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of l 2 3 4 5
your work.
8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement 1 2 3 4 5
each month.
9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work. l 2
10. Your superior generally supports you. 1 2
11. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems. l 2
12. Your superior trusts you. 1 2
l 2
l 2

i—nr—Iu—su—
N NNNN
mm 03030003
#3 hhA-h
ML]! MMLIIM

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well.

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks
your opinion about how to solve it.

15. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits 1 2 3 4 5
like promotions and pay raises.

16. Your superior treats you fairly. l 2 3 4 5

 

 

7. Do you think the following behaviors are important for an efficient leader? Please circle an
appropriate number ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

 

1. Your superior is strict about observing regulations.
2. Your superior gives you proper instructions and orders.
3. Your superior is strict about the amount of work that you do.
4. Your superior urges you to complete your work by the time
he has specified.
5. You superior tries to make you work to your maximum capacity.

u—su—n—u—n
NNNN
wuwu
b-fiA-fi
MMML’I

.—
N
W
A
kl!

6. When you do an Inadequate job, your superior focuses on the l 2 3 4 5
inadequate way the job is done instead of on your personality.
7. Your superior asks you for reports about the progress of l 2 3 4 5

your work.
8. Your superior precisely works out plans for goal achievement 1 2 3 4 5

127

 

 

each month.

9. You can talk freely with your superior about your work. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Your superior generally supports you. 1 2 3 4 5

11. Your superior is concerned about your personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Your superior trusts you. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Your superior gives you recognition when you do your job well. 1 2 3 4 5

14. When a problem arises in your workplace, your superior asks I 2 3 4 5
your opinion about how to solve it.

l5. Your superior is concerned about your future benefits 1 2 3 4 -
like promotions and pay raises.

16. Your superior treats you fairly. l 2 3 4 5

B. Please select from the following list mmitems about things that most concern you when
communicating with your superior. Please write the number 1m}.

Making sure of what my superior means

Defining words what my superior uses

Asking for more explanation from my superior

Using metaphors and examples to state my ideas and opinions
Using visual aids to tell my idea and opinion

Reading my superior’s ideas and opinions by his/her facial expression
Reading my superior’s ideas and opinions by his/her gestures
Reading my superior’s ideas and opinions by his/her mood
.Judging what my superior means by context

l0. Asking for more information from someone else, not my superior
12. Other (specify: )

l l

 

liH

99°39‘99P’N3"

 

C. In this series of questions we would like you to describe how your superior communicates.
Think about his/her behavior In general rather than about specific situations. mm

anamnriatenumher ranging from Ltstmnglarlisagmcnnitstmngmm

. My superior has a good command of English.

. My superior is sensitive to others’ needs of the moment.

. My superior typically gets right to the point.

. My superior pays attention to what other people say to him/her.
. My superior can deal with others effectively.

. My superior is a good listener.

. My superior’s writing is difficult to understand.

. My superior expresses his or her ideas clearly.

.My superior is difficult to understand when he or she speaks.
10. My superior generally says the right things at the right time.
11. Mysuperioriseasytotalkto.

12. My superior usually responds to message
(memos, phone calls, reports, etc.) quickly.

cooqemawro—
I—oII—O—t-‘D—II—a—ta—I—‘D—Or—s—I
NNNNNNNNNNNN
wwwwwwwwwwww
khhbbbhbhbbh
mmmmmmmmmmmm

128

D. Please answer the followings questions about information in your company.
1. How much information about your work and organization do you get now from your immediate
superior?

Very little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

2. When receiving information from your immediate superior, how accurate would you estimate it
usually is?

Completely inaccurate l 2 3 4 5 Completely accurate

3. Of the total amount of information you receive at work, how much do you pass on to your
immediate superior

None 1 2 3 4 5 All

 

4. I get enough information to understand the big picture here.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much so

5. When changes are made the reasons why are made clear.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much so
6. I get the information I need to do my job well.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much so

7. Please select from the following list three items about things that worst defects in
communication of your organization. Please write the number 1, 2, and 3.

Information is not readily available.

Information reaches me too late.

Information does not reach me.

Information is not accurate.

Information is useless.

Information is not important.

The language in information material is difficult.

I get too much information.

9. Mamgement conceals important information.

10. Management does not know what the employees think and feel.

11. I cannot express my opinion freely rn my organization.

12. My opinions do not count and nobody listens to what I say.
13. Other (specify: )

 

PENN?"

 

 

 

 

 

9°39?"

 

 

 

 

129

E. Please indicate how satisfied you are with the following. Please circle an appropriate

number rangingfromluecydissatisfiedlmitxerysatisfied).

l. Extent to which my superior knows the problems faced l 2 3 4 5
by subordinates.

2. Extent to which my superior understands the problems faced l 2 3 4 5
by subordinates.

3. Extent to which my superior listens and pays attention to me. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Extent to which my superior offers guidance for solving 1 2 3 4 5
job related problems.

5. Extent to which my superior trusts me.

6. Extent to which my superior is open to ideas.

7. Extent to which my superior supen/ises our work.
8. My superior as a leader.

h-tv—I—Ii—i
NNNN
wwww
h-fi-fi-b
UIUUIM

 

10. If the communication associated with your superior could be changed in any way to make you
more satisfied, please indicate how:

 

 

l 1. Extent to which this company’s communication motivates l 2 3 4 5
and stimulates an enthusiasm for meeting its goals.

12. Extent to which the people in my company have great ability 1 2 3 4 5
as communicators.

l3. Extent to which the company’s communication makes me 1 2 3 4 5
feel a vital part of it.

14. Extent to which the company’s communications are interesting. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Extent to which the company’s communications are helpful. 1 2 3 4 5

l6. Extent to which informal communication is active. 1 2 3 4 5

l7. Extent to which the amount of communication in the company 1 2 3 4 5
is about right.

18. If the communication in your organization could be changed in any way to make you more
satisfied, please indicate how:

 

 

F. Please answer the following questions about you and your company.
1. Sex: Female Male

2. Age: ____

 

3 . Ethnicity:

130

4. Type of industry of your company: Please circle an appropriate number.

Manufaemnnglndustry We
1. Electrical & Electronic Products 11 Trading
2. Steel & Nonferrous Metal Products 12. Construction
3. Petroleum & Chemical Products 13. Commerce/Retail
4. Transportation Machinery & Parts 14. Transportation
9. Other 15. Bank & Security
(Please specify ) 99. Other
(Please specify )

5. The number of employees in your company: Please circle an appropriate number.

1. Less than 50 2. 50 to 99 3. 100m299 'i

 

4. 300 to 999 5. More than 1000 9. I don’t know. a
6. How long have you been working with this company? years months
7. How long have you been working with the current superior? years months

8. What is your type of work? Please circle an appropriate number.

I am a manager (that is, I have at least one hierarchical subordinate),
l. a manager of people who are not managers themselves.
2. a manager of other managers.

I am not a manager and I work most of the time in an office,
3. teaching language and/or translating documents in an office.

4. as an executive who supervises workers in an office.

I am not a manager and I do not work most of the time in an office;
5. I am an executive who supervises workers in a place other than an office.

9. Other (Please specify )
9. How many years of formal school education did you complete in your country?
Please circle one and write the number of years. If you were educated in another country, please
circle 9 and specify.

1. years in my country

9. __ years in my country and years in the foreign
country (name )

131

 

"7'111111111'11111111’