Journal of Public and Private Management■ Article ■Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 1-20
ISSN 2189-2490

A comparative study on tolerance of ambiguity
and self-confidence among parent country’s nationals,
host country’s nationals, and internationallyexperienced workers（1）Yoshitaka Yamazaki
Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
yyama@bunkyo.ac.jp
Michiko Toyama
Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
toyama3@bunkyo.ac.jp
Received: 4, December, 2023

Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
5-6-1 Hanahata, Adachi, Tokyo 121-8577, JAPANTel +81-3-5688-8577, Fax +81-3-5856-6009
http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

経営論集Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

Abstract
The aim of this study had twofold. The first aim was to compare tolerance of ambiguity in two aspects,
emotion and abilities, and self-confidence for cross-cultural adaptation concerning three groups: parent
country’s nationals (PCNs), host country nationals (HCNs) and internationally experienced workers.
The third group was applied as a benchmark to understand a developmental level of the toleranceof ambiguity and the self-confidence concerning the first and second groups. The second aim was toexplore the impact of the tolerance of ambiguity on the self-confidence by applying those three groups.
For this study, two scales were newly developed: an ability to tolerate ambiguity and self-confidence forcross-cultural adaptation. We employed a sample of 617 participants: (1) 104 internationally experienced
workers of graduate school’s alumni from 37 countries, (2) PCNs: 454 Japanese employees working fora Japanese multinational enterprise (MNE), and (3) HCNs: 59 Indonesian employees working for its
subsidiary in Indonesia. Results of the ANOVA with a post-hock test revealed significant differences inthe two aspects of tolerance of ambiguity among those three groups: the internationally experienced
workers showed the highest scores; the Indonesian HCNs, the second highest; and the Japanese
PCNs, the lowest. Concerning self-confidence, the results showed a significant difference among them,while Japanese PCNs were a significantly lower level compared with the other two groups. Results ofregression analysis indicated a significant relationship between those two aspects of the tolerance of
ambiguity and the self-confidence with regard to all of three groups. Based on the results, we discussed
implications and limitations.

Keywords: tolerance of ambiguity, self-confidence for cross-cultural adaptation, international
human resource management, PCNs, HCNs, internationally experienced workers, a Japanese
MNE

1

& Arenas, 2009; Cooper, 2021). Accordingly,

Introduction

this study focused on employee’s two traits:
tolerance of ambiguity in two aspects, emotion

The international business of the volatility,

and abilities, as well as self-confidence for cross-uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity (VUCA)

cultural adaptation.

world increases the risk and pressure ofInternational human resource management

multinational enterprises (MNEs), requiring

typically describes three significant groups ofthem to redefine the content and context

employees (Briscoe, Schuler, & Claus, 2009):

of MNEs (Cavusgil, et al., 2021, van Tulder,parent country’s nationals (PCN), who can

Jankowska, & Verbeke, 2020). Their employees

potentially become a resource of expatriates;

experience new demands created by thehost country’s nationals (HCN), who are the

VUCA world where they have to manage

largest group in MNEs’ employees (Singh,

themselves f or their ef fective business

Pereira, Mellahi, & Collings, 2019); and third

operation. However, because of rapidly

country’s nationals (TCN). It was documentedchanging the international environment theythat there have been a great number of studies

engage in, it could be stated that their acquired

on expatriates in the area of international

knowledge and skills sometimes come to be

and cross-cultural studies (Yamazaki, 2014),

outdated (Horney, Pasmore, & O’Shea, 2010).

indicating that expatriates are a central engine

To update themselves properly, the MNE

for the success of MNEs as an international

employees would have to control their emotions,staffing issue. When considering the role ofminds, and behaviors (Ward, Bochner, &HCNs, Michailova, Fee, and DeNisi (2023)

Furnham, 2001). They would be required topointed out that “the business justification

particularly manage a way of responding tofor MNE workers to undertake internationalcross-cultural ambiguous situations evoked byassignments becomes more complex” so that

their international counterparts and businessthe study on HCN will become more crucial

partners overseas. To wit, we could say that(p. 15). Thus, it seems necessary to morea developmental level of their tolerance ofinvestigate HCN employees in various aspects

ambiguity in cross-cultural situations must

(Michailova, et al., 2023). Among many different

be a pivotal key for such a management

studies on HCNs, most researches have dealtof the responding. Moreover, to effectively

with study on relationships with expatriates

perform and achieve employees’ own goals in(Michailova, et al., 2023). It was suggested thatinternational work settings, their self-confidence

studies on those with the others groups might

for cross-cultural adaptation is also a crucial

be lacking. It would thereby be meaningful toattribute (Bikos, Forman, & Patton, 2021;

highlight the two groups of PCNs and HCNs

Briones, Tabernero, Tramontano, Caprara,

and then to research the two groups in terms

2

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

of cross-cultural differences in tolerance of

Ribchester, 1995; Furnham & Marks, 2013, 717).

ambiguity and in self-confidence for cross-

Ambiguous situations represent an occasion

cultural adaptation.

that remains unusual, complex, unsolved, andTo define a developmental level of PCN’sunpredictable (Budner, 1962). According toand HCN’s tolerance of ambiguity in cross-

Furnham and Ribschester (1995), tolerance of

cultural situations and self-confidence for

ambiguity is defined as “the way an individualcross-cultural adaptation, the present study(or group) perceives and processes information

utilized internationally experienced workers

about ambiguous situations or stimuli when

who had stayed oversea. We referred to theconfronted by an array of unfamiliar, complex,

developmental level of their two traits as aor incongruent clues” (179). Furnham andbenchmark to see to what extent those two

Ribschester (1995) indicated that those with low

nationals develop such traits. Moreover, ourtolerance of ambiguity tend to feel stressful andstudy explored the impact of the tolerance

threatened (Norton, 1975), respond overhastily,of ambiguity on the self-confidence for cross-and take away from ambiguous stimuli,

cultural adaptation. Accordingly, we had two

while those who experience high tolerance

research questions as follows:of ambiguity tend to look at ambiguous(1)	To what extent do PCNs and HCNs differ

situations more positively (Budner, 1962) asfrom internationally experienced workers

desirable, challenging, and interesting. Grenier,in terms of emotional and ability aspects ofBarrette, and Ladouceur (2005) discussed thattolerance of ambiguity and self-confidence

tolerance of ambiguity refers to individual’sfor cross-cultural adaption?

emotional, cognitive, and behavior responses(2)	How do these two aspects of tolerance

to ambiguous situations. Furnham and Marksof ambiguity affect self-confidence for(2013) congruently pointed out that tolerance ofcross-cultural adaptation among the threeambiguity entails individual human functioning

groups: PCNs, HCNs, and internationallysuch as emotion, perception, cognition, andexperienced workers?

behavior, while it can be also regarded as apersonality trait in general (Budner, 1962).

Literature Review

Since cross-cultural situations often provide
unfamiliarity, complexity, and unpredictability

Tolerance of Ambiguity and Cross-to internationally unexperienced people, these

Cultural Situations

situations will typically turn to ambiguous ones

Over half a century, tolerance of ambiguity

towards those people. Several previous studies

has been studied in multidisciplinary areas

documented the magnitude of tolerance ofincluding “clinical psychology”, “medicine”,

ambiguity in relation to cross-culture learningand “organizational behavior” (Furnham &and international management that includes

3global leadership (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012;

empirical study revealed that tolerance ofBird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010),

ambiguity was increased after people stayedcross-cultural work teams (Lloyd & Härtel,over three months abroad but the increase2010), expatriates (Albrecht et al, 2018),

stopped at one year (Dewaele & Wei, 2013),

multilingualism (Dewaele & Wei, 2013), andwhereas people who more tolerated ambiguity

foreign language learners (Dewaele & Ip,

about foreign language exhibited less anxiety in2013). More specifically, tolerance of ambiguity

their ELF classes and more proficiency about

is involved with one of important dynamic

the language (Dewaele & Ip, 2013). Overall, pastcross-cultural competencies that determine

studies suggested that tolerance of ambiguity

supervisors’ evaluations of global leadershipis involved with cross-cultural matters,

effectiveness (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012). Bird

though there might be undecisive concerning

et al. (2010) presented tolerance of ambiguity

relationships between tolerance of ambiguity

as a cross-cultural competency, which isand expatriates’ adjustment and performance.

related to perception management. These two

Finally in this section, we discussed astudies indicated that tolerance of ambiguity

cultural dimension as a theoretical analogy of

may be conceived as a competency. In fact,

tolerance of ambiguity in cross-cultural studies.

review research on cross-cultural learning

Furnham and Marks (2013) argued that thecompetencies of expatriates showed that it isconcept of uncertainty avoidance theorized by

critical to have an ability to tolerate ambiguity

Hofstede (1997, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov,

in cross-cultural situations, suggesting that such2010) is similar to that of tolerance of ambiguity.

an ability should be developed and acquired

The definition of uncertainty avoidance relates

for expatriate effectiveness (Yamazaki &to a feeling that people are threatened byKayes, 2004). The study of Lloyd and Härtel

ambiguous situations, trying to avoid the(2010) identified also tolerance of ambiguity

situation as a group’s level of analysis suchas cross-cultural competence in terms of theas countries, societal units, or organizational

affective dimension for effective cross-culturaland institutional entities (Hofstede et al., 2010).

work teams. When focusing on research on

Thus, a certain country may exhibit a higher

expatriate management, tolerance of ambiguity

level of uncertainty avoidance tendency than

had a small association with expatriate work

other countries.

adjustment and management performance,

Self-Confidence for Cross-Culturalsuggesting that MNEs may need to consider

Adaptation

other constructs rather than tolerance of
ambiguity for the process of expatriate

Self-confidence is an important concept

selection (Albrecht et al, 2018). In the domain

in the area of business, management, andof multilingualism and foreign language, anorganization. Like one angle of tolerance of

4

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

ambiguity, the concept is also considered as a

et al., 2018). Suh et al. (2018) with a definition

personality trait that relates to the effectivenessstudy illustrated that self-confidence is aof leaders (Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2003;

belief of individual’s own worth expressed as

Mowday, 1979) and business managers (Swana combination between self-efficacy and self-& Futrell, 1990). Besides, self-confidence

esteem. Cramer et al. (2009) argued that twoconcerns a positive psychological attribute thatterms of self-confidence and self-efficacy differ.

results in good job performance (Bandura, 1997;

Morony, Kleitman, Lee, and Stankov (2013)

Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004; Stajkovic

discussed that both constructs include the& Luthans, 1998) as well as the success ofword self-confidence and they are a self-belief

individuals and organizations (Luthans etconstruct, but “whereas self-efficacy refers to aal., 2004). McCarty (1986) explained that

person’s perception of their ability to conduct

self-confidence is related to perception thata particular behavior, self-confidence reflects a

individuals can succeed in their endeavor

degree of certainty about a perception, event, or

as a course of action. Several researchers

outcome” (81).

and scholars discussed that self-confidence

Self-confidence has been investigated inis described as self-efficacy (Maurera, 2001;

the area of cross-cultural studies in terms of

Luthans et al., 2004; Stajkovic & Luthans,cross-cultural differences in self-confidence1998). Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy(Morony et al., 2013; Suh et al., 2018; Yamazaki,

as an individual’s belief that individuals can

2016; Zlata, 2013). For example, Morony et al.

achieve their goals and effectively complete(2013) found that self-confidence was not a big

specific assignments by using their motivation,difference between Confucian Asia and Europe

cognition, capabilities, and behavior. In the earlycountries but it was “most important predictor

age when self-efficacy was introduced in theof math accuracy” among each of country’s

literature, it entailed a particular assignment,

reasons (79). Suh et al. (2018) revealed thata specific job, or a certain task. Later, self-

American students had a greater level of

efficacy was applicable in a more general casecounselor activity self-efficacy than Korean

or situation with a broad scope of behavior

students. Additionally, there was a positive(Eden & Zuk, 1995; Luszczynska, Gutierrez-

relationship between counselor activity self-

Dona, & Schwarzer, 2005), including an overall

efficacy and age with regard to students ofjudgement for effective performance (Eden &both countries (Suh et al., 2018). The study ofZuk, 1995), and effective control for individual’s

Yamazaki (2016) showed significant differences

stress using abilities (Schwarzer & Born, 1997).

in self-confidence of employees between

However, some researchers advocatedJapan, Malysia, and Thailand and found thatthat self-confidence is different from self-

there was a strong relationship between job-efficacy (Cramer, Neal, & Brodsky, 2009; Suhrelated self-confidence and job satisfaction

5

concerning all three countries. Finally, Zlata

meta-analysis conducted by Wilson et al. (2013)(2013) investigated confidence structures

documented that cross-cultural self-efficacy

using the sample from China, Ecuador, Guinea-

was strongly associated with sociocultural

Bissau and Russia based on a system-functional

adaptation. Since previous cross-cultural andapproach to personality study. They showedinternational studies supported the relationshipthat comparative analysis of factor structures

between self-efficacy and cross-culturalof self-confidence clarified the magnitude ofadjustment or adaptation, Bikos et al. (2021)

ethnopsychological specificity (Zlata, 2013).

invented a scale of self-efficacy for sociocultural

Overall, we would say that most cross-cultural

adaptation, referring to competencies that arestudies on self-confidence presented differences

based on behavior and necessary for cross-in it across countries.

cultural transitions (Wilson, Ward, Fetvadjiev,

This study attempted to extend a review& Bethel, 2017). The scale was designed toprocess concerning self-confidence for cross-measure such an efficacy belief in a domain-

cultural adaption to self-efficacy relevance

specific manner and it was characterized as

due to very little research on the concept ofmultidimensional factor structures including

self-confidence for cross-cultural adaptation.

emotion, cognition, and behavior with regard

Several cross-cultural studies were conductedto environments and tasks (Bikos et al., 2021).

in terms of research on relationships between

Depending on researcher’s interests in cross-cross-cultural adaptation or adjustment andcultural situations and issues, the invented

self-efficacy beliefs (Jian-hua, Wen-hua, Hua-scale can be applied with flexibility due to thedong, & van Oudenhoven, 2009; Li & Gasser,

its multidimensional nature (Bikos et al., 2021).

2005; Wilson, Ward, & Fischer, 2013; Zhang &The scale allows them to make a combination

Goodson, 2011), well as research on measures ofamong factors with contexts (i.e., self-efficacy

self-efficacy for sociocultural adaptation (Bikos

for cognitive tasks in an environment; Bikos etet al., 2021). The study of Jian-hua et al. (2009)

al., 2021).

showed that intercultural communication self-

Finally, this study sought for an answer

efficacy had an impact on most multidimensional

to a research question of relationships between

facets of cross-cultural adaptations. Li andtolerance of ambiguity in cross-cultural

Gasser (2005) confirmed a positive relationshipsituations and self-confidence for cross-cultural

between cross-cultural self-efficacy and socio-

adaption. The management literature suggested

cultural adjustment. Zhang and Goodson (2011)a relationship between tolerance of ambiguity

conducted a systematic review of the predictors

and self-efficacy (Endres, Chowdhury, &of psychological adjustment concerning,

Milner, 2009; Lane & Klenke, 2004). To support

indicating that self-efficacy was an influential

this view, if persons have a low tolerance ofpredictor of sociocultural adjustments. The

ambiguity, they tend to perceive that they

6

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

cannot control tasks and environment (Budner,countries; (2) PCNs: 454 Japanese employees

1962). Actually, empirical studies reported thatworking for a Japanese MNE; and (3) HCNs:

those who have a higher tolerance of ambiguity

59 Indonesian employees working for its

showed higher self-efficacy (Endres et al.,subsidiary in Indonesia. Table 1 depicts2009). Since there is very few research on the

demographic characteristics of the three groups

relationship between the tolerance of ambiguityof participants with regard to age, gender, andand self-confidence across cultures, the present

management vs. non-management in a Japanesestudy attempted to pursue this research

MNE. Each group of the participants differedquestion.

in average ages (internationally experienced
workers, 42.86; Japanese, 39.21; Indonesian,
29.59) and in gender ratios (internationally

Methods

experienced workers, 61% of male vs. 39% of

Sample and Sampling Procedures

female; Japanese, 89% vs. 11%; Indonesian, 100%

A sample of this study was totally 617

vs. 0%). These demographic variations might

participants: (1) 104 internationally experienced

be an influential component when conducting

workers of graduate school’s alumni from 37

comparative studies.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of three groups’ participants
Internationallyexperienced workers

Japanese PCNs

Indonesian HCNs

N

104

454

59

Mean

42.86

39.21

29.59

S.D.

8.81

13.53

8.90

Male

63

406

59

Female

41

48

0

Age

GenderManagement
positionManager–108

5

Non manager

–

346

54

The whole group of international experi-

Among the 37 countries, 25 countries showed

enced workers was composed of 37 countries.

one or two participants. Overall, the sample

As shown in Table 2, the subgroup of Indonesia

distribution in this study was diversified inconsisted of 13 participants as the largest, thatterms of countries, which led us to consider thisof USA had 10 as the second, and that of Japan

sample as a microcosm of different countries,

and Uzbekistan was equally 8 as the third.

but not particular country’s representativeness.

7

Table 2. C ountries and regions of internationallyexperienced workers（N = 104）
Country/
Participants
regionCountry/
regionin two aspects, emotion and abilities, and selfconfidence for cross-cultural adaptation. In

Participants

terms of the emotional aspect of toleranceof ambiguity, we applied and modified part

Australia

1

Laos

3

Bangladesh

1

Malaysia

2

Bhutan1

Mali1

Cambodia2

Mongol3Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale” that was

Chile

1

Myanmar

5

China

2

Nepal

3

created by Tomono and Hashimoto (2005).

Congo

1

Peru

1

Djibouti

1

Philippines

6with 17 items using a 6-point Likert scale

Egypt

1

South Africa

2

Eswatini

1

Sri Lank

3(1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree). To

Finland

1

Swiss

1

meet the intention of our study focusing on the

Ghana

2

Thailand2

Hong Kong

2

Timor-Le1

emotional aspect of tolerance of ambiguity, we

India

4

Turkey1

Indonesia

13

UK

2

one subcomponent of intolerance of ambiguity

Italy

1

USA

10

Japan

8

Uzbekistan8

at first encounters. Also, we reversed its

Jordan1Vietnam5

Kyrgyzstan

1of subcomponents of “Revised Interpersonal

Their scale was composed of three factors

applied only five items from six ones relevant tonumbers to be selected in the scale (original:
1= strongly agree to 6= strongly disagree), themodification of which allowed us to interpret

To collect data from 617 participants,

the greater scores, the more people tolerate in

we approached two different institutions: anambiguous situations.

international graduate school in Japan and a

An Ability Aspect of Tolerance ofJapanese MNE whose headquarter is in Japan

Ambiguity

operating an Indonesian subsidiary to produce
automobile parts. These institutions agreed

The rest of two important variables

to cooperate with our study. After getting

represented the ability aspect of tolerance ofa permission of research ethics from ourambiguity and self-confidence for cross-cultural

department of university, we conducted data

adaption. We newly developed two scales forcollection.

this study. In terms of scale development for
the tolerance of ambiguity, we designed one-

Instruments

factor structure to investigate the ability
aspect of it, including four items using 7-point

An Emotional Aspect of Tolerance ofLikert scale (1=cannot do at all to 7=extremely

Ambiguity

excellent). In order to analyze the one facture

There were three key variables to be

structure using four items, we first applied themeasured in this study: tolerance of ambiguity

maximum likelihood method of an exploratory

8

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ( E F A ) e m p l o y i n g 104

Then, we further investigated whether

internationally experienced workers. Results ofstructural discrimination exists between thethe EFA indicated a single factor, as shown by

two components of tolerance of ambiguity:

eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 68.14%

emotion (5 items) and ability (4 items). Resultsof the total variance. To validate this oneof the EFA on the same sample applying theconfiguration, a confirmatory factory analysis

guideline of an eigenvalue >1 illustrated that

(CFA) was conducted on the same sample.

two factors were dominant, accounting forResults of the CFA revealed the fit indices fell

69.84% of the total variance. Subsequently,

within an acceptable range (χ = 0.76, p > 0.05;

results of the CFA on the same sample

goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 1.00; comparative

exhibited, except the chi-square score, the fit

fit index [CFI] = 1.00; incremental fit index [IFI]

indices stayed mostly within an acceptable= 1.01; root mean square error of approximation

range (χ2= 48.17, p < 0.01; GFI = 0.91; CFI =[RMSEA] = 0.00; standardized root mean square

0.96; IFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.07).

residual = [SRMR] = 0.01), indicating that theTables 3 and 4 summarized results of EFA

data of 104 participants fit the one structure

and CFA respectively in terms of tolerance ofmodel well.

ambiguity: emotion and ability.

2

Table 3. Results of EFA concerning tolerance of ambiguity: emotion and ability (N = 104)
No. of Factor

One

Tolerance of
ambiguity Items

One

Two
h2

h2

1

2

h2

Emotion 1

0.69

0.48

0.66

0.07

0.48

Emotion 2

0.92

0.84

0.93

-0.04

0.84

Emotion 3

0.84

0.70

0.89

-0.12

0.72

Emotion 4

0.66

0.44

0.57

0.21

0.48

Emotion 5

0.84

0.71

0.84

0.00

0.71

Ability 1

0.65

0.42

0.15

0.57

0.42

Ability 2

0.74

0.55

-0.11

0.79

0.57

Ability 3

0.83

0.69

0.08

0.78

0.67

Ability 4

0.81

0.66

-0.02

0.84

0.69

2.73

4.41

1.88

48.96

Eigenvalue

3.50% of total variance

69.98

68.14

Total variance

69.98

68.14

9

20.88
69.84

Table 4. Results of CFA concerning tolerance of ambiguity and self-confidence (N = 104)
EFA

CFA

No. ofitems

No. offactorχ2

CMIN/DF

GIF

CFI

IFI

RMSEA

SRMR

Emotion

5

1

9.16

1.83

0.97

0.99

0.99

0.09

0.03

Variables
Tolerance of
ambiguity
Ability

4

1

0.76

0.38

1.00

1.00

1.01

0.00

0.01

Emotion &Ability92

48.17**

1.85

0.91

0.96

0.96

0.09

0.07

Self-confidence

61

47.19**

5.24

0.88

0.89

0.89

0.20

0.08

4

1

6.50*

3.25

0.97

0.98

0.98

0.15

0.03

Note. C MIN/df = minimum discrepancy per degree of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI =comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; N = 04; **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

of eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining

Self-Confidence for Cross-Cultural

63.78% of the total variance. Then, to verify

Adaption

this one configuration, the CFA was performed.

We also newly developed a scale for

However, results of the CFA revealed that the

self-confidence for cross-cultural adaption.

fit indices did not reach an acceptable range

As discussed earlier, there was an existing(χ2 = 47.19, p < 0.01; GFI = 0.88; CFI = 0.89; IFI

instrument invented by Bikos et al. (2021): a= 0.89; RMSEA = 0.20; SRMR = 0.08). Thus,

scale of self-efficacy for sociocultural adaptation

we closely analyzed correlation matrix amongthat is characterized as being multidimensional

the 6 items and found that two items (i.e.,with a large number of question items, anditems 4 and 5) were not so strongly correlated

it was designed to measure detailed facets ofwith the others. After these two items were

human functioning in cross-cultural situations.

eliminated, we again carried out the EFA andFor our study, we attempted to create a

CFA on the same sample. Statistics of both

unidimensional scale that investigates self-

factor analysis were improved and fell within

confidence in cross-cultural adaption, which

the acceptable levels, as illustrated in Tables

might reduce the work-load of employees’

4 and 5 (i.e., EFA results: 75.39% of the total

answering questionnaires. We designed 6

variance; CFA results: the fit indices except thequestion items in relation to self-confidence

score of χ2 = 6.50 (p < 0.05) and that of RMSEA

for cross-cultural adaption and tested them

= 0.15. Researchers generally apply the fit

using EFA and CFA on the same sample ofindex of RMSEA in order to evaluate a model

104 internationally experienced workers. As

fit. Although it is considered to use RMSEA

depicted in Table 5, results of the EFA revealed

for the evaluation, the methodological research

one factor structure by applying the guidelineof Kenny, Kaniskan, and McCoach (2015) and

10

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

that of Chen, Curren, Bollen, Kirby, and Paxton= 0.98; SRMR = 0.03. Accordingly, we concluded(2008) indicated the performance of RMSEA

that four items model of self-confidence forvaried with degree of freedom (i.e., sample

cross-cultural adaptation would be an adequate

sizes and question items), suggesting that othermeasure.

fit indices need to be evaluated properly if a

Finally, Cronbach’s alphas of three scalesdegree of freedom was small. Since the degree

used for this study were 0.84 or over as shownof freedom in our study was two, it should bein Table 6. Additionally, Appendix A presented

important to look at other indices. In fact, as

each question of two newly developed scales forillustrated in Table 4, the four values fell within

this study.

an acceptable range: GFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.98; IFI
Table 5. Results of EFA concerning self-confidence for cross-cultural adaption (N = 104)
Factor

Factor

Self-confidence forcross-cultural adaptation

1

h2

1

h2

Item 1

0.73

0.53

0.73

0.54

Item 2

0.85

0.72

0.88

0.77

Item 3

0.91

0.82

0.90

0.81

Item 40.60

0.36

Item 50.59

0.35

Item 6

0.78

0.61

0.78

0.60

Eigenvalue

3.83

3.02

% of total variance

63.78

75.39

Total variance

63.78

75.39

Table 6. Cronbach’s alphas of three scales used for this study

Variables

GroupsInternationallyexperienced
workers

Japanese
PCNs

Indonesian
HCNs

N

104

454

59

No. ofitems

Cronbach α

Tolerance of ambiguity
Emotion

4

0.84

0.89

0.87

Ability

5

0.89

0.91

0.86

4

0.89

0.91

0.88

Self-confidence

from internationally experienced workers

Resultsin terms of emotional and ability aspects oftolerance of ambiguity and self-efficacy forThis study raised two research questions:cross-cultural adaption? (2) How do those(1) To what extent do PCNs and HCNs differ

two aspects of tolerance of ambiguity affect11

self-confidence for cross-cultural adaptationsuggesting a large effect of group differencesamong the three groups: PCNs, HCNs, andon both variables of the tolerance of ambiguity

internationally experienced workers?

(η2 > 0.14). Results of the post hoc examination:
Tukey test, illustrated that a mean difference ofTolerance of Ambiguity among PCNs,

each group was significantly different from that

HCNs, and Internationally Experiencedof each other, indicating that internationally

Workers

experienced workers had the highest degree

Results of the Analysis of Varianceof both variables; Indonesian HCNs exhibited(ANOVA) indicated significant differences

the second highest; and Japanese PCNs showedin both aspects of emotion and abilities ofthe lowest level. Table 7 summarized statisticalcross-cultural tolerance of ambiguity among

test results of the ANOVA with the post hoc

three groups (emotion: F = 90.74, p < 0.01, η2 =investigation.

20.23; abilities: F = 149.38, p < 0.01, η = 0.33),
Table 7. Results of ANOVA and a post hoc test of tolerance of ambiguity among three groups
Tolerance of ambiguity: Emotion
SourceSS

Tolerance of ambiguity: Ability

df

MS

F

η

SS

90.74**

0.23

388.372

798.17614

1186.53

616

Between groups

203.282

101.64

Within groups

687.76

614

1.12

Total

891.04616

2Mean differences
Mean

SD

1. Internationallyexperienced workers

4.46

0.98

1

2. Japanese PCNs

2.91

1.09

1.55**

3. Indonesian HCNs

3.26

0.97

1.20**

2-0.35*

df

MSF

194.18 149.38**

η2
0.33

1.30

Mean differences
Mean

SD

5.01

0.93

1

3.05

1.20

1.97**

4.49

0.95

0.52*

2

-1.44*

Note. **p < .01, *p < 0.05. Tukey test was used as a post hoc examination.

It can be assumed to say that internation-

workers. Also, it may be necessary to consider

ally experienced workers have well developed

a country’s culture, particularly with regard

the tolerance of ambiguity of both emotion

to uncertainty avoidance of the two countries.

and abilities through staying long in foreign

According to Hofstede’s cultural comparison

countries where they have been required to(Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede et al., 2010), Japaneseinteract with cross-culturally different peoples.

have a very high score of uncertainty avoidance

In the meantime, it could be assumed that thein general, while Indonesians exhibited a lower

other two groups would not have had sufficientscore than Japanese and a middle score in gen-time to develop the tolerance of ambiguity

eral. Based on this notion, Japanese PCNs tend

compared with the internationally experienced

to have lower tolerance of ambiguity compared

12

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

with Indonesian HCNs. Employees of those two

confidence. Results of the Tukey test showed acountries would need to develop more tolerance

significant difference between Japanese PCNsof ambiguity towards a level of internationallyand the other two groups, Indonesian HCNs,

experienced workers.

and internationally experienced worker, while
no significant difference between the other two

Self-Confidence for Cross-Culturalgroups. Like the tolerance of ambiguity of three

Adaptation among Those Three Groups

groups in order, the self-confidence showed

Results of the ANOVA revealed athe same order among them: internationallysignificant difference in self-confidence forexperienced workers had the highest level;cross-cultural adaptation among those three

Indonesian HCNs exhibited the second highest;groups (F = 230.72, p < 0.01, η = 0.43), and theand Japanese PCNs showed the lowest level.

value of the eta-square was interpreted as a

Table 8 summarized statistical test results oflarge effect of group differences on the self-

the ANOVA with the post hoc investigation.

2

Table 8. Results of ANOVA and a post hoc test of self-confidence among three groups
Self-confidence for cross-cultural adaptation
Source

SS

df

MS

F

η2

230.72**0.43

Between groups

389.11

2

194.56

Within groups

517.76

614

0.84

Total

906.87616
Mean differences

GroupsMeanSD

1. Internationallyexperienced workers

4.95

0.69

1

2. Japanese PCNs

3.06

0.98

1.89**

3. Indonesian HCNs

4.68

0.78

0.26

2

-1.89**

Note. **p < .01, *p < 0.05. Tukey test was used as a post hoc examination.

three groups in terms of the effect of theRelationships between Tolerance oftolerance of ambiguity on the self-confidence.

Ambiguity and Sel-Confidence

Table 9 illustrated results of correlation analysis

This study examined how emotion andconcerning the three groups. As a demographic

abilities of tolerance of ambiguity respectively

characteristic, age was significantly, differently

has an impact on self-confidence for cross-related with three key variables according

cu l t u ra l a da pt a t i o n by c o nt r o l l i ng a g e

to the three groups, while gender had no

and gender. Since three groups showed arelation with the variables. In the group ofsignificantly different level of two aspects ofinternationally experienced workers, age had

the tolerance of ambiguity, we analyzed eacha positively significant relationship with all13

of the three key variables. However, it wasof those cross-cultural competence such as

negatively significantly related to them in thetolerance of ambiguity. In case of Japanesegroup of Japanese PCNs, while there was no

HCNs, it is thought that their cross-cultural

association in that of Indonesian HCNs. The

experiences are limited generally, though

results might be explained according to possible

younger people seem more open, flexible andtraits of aged employees, particularly withadaptable towards foreigners and their cultures.

regard to internationally experienced workers

This perspective might suggest that younger

and Japanese employees because their results

generation can perceive themselves to havewere opposite. As internationally experienced

more tolerance of ambiguity and self-confidence

workers get older, they may obtain more cross-for cross-cultural adaptation.

cultural experiences that more develop a level
Table 9. Results of correlation analysis concerning tolerance of ambiguity
and self-confidence based on three groups
Internationally experienced worker（N = 104）
Mean

SD

1

2

3

1

age

42.86

8.81

2

gender

–

–

0.14

3

Tolerance of ambiguity:
Emotion

4.46

0.98

0.27**-0.02

4

Tolerance of ambiguity:
Ability

5.01

0.93

0.26**

0.07

0.40**

5

Self-confidence

4.95

0.69

0.27**-0.04

0.45**

1age

4

0.58**

Japanese PCNs（N = 454）
39.21

13.53

2

gender

–

–

0.04

3

Tolerance of ambiguity:
Emotion

2.91

1.09

-0.11*-0.04

4

Tolerance of ambiguity:
Ability

3.05

1.20

-0.24**

0.03

0.45**

5

Self-confidence

3.06

0.98

-0.12*-0.01

0.49**

0.62**

Indonesian HCNs（N = 59）
1

age

29.59

8.90

2

gender–––3

Tolerance of ambiguity:
Emotion

3.26

0.97

0.06

–

4

Tolerance of ambiguity:
Ability

4.49

0.95

0.19

–

0.38**

5

Self-confidence

4.68

0.78

-0.08

–

0.47**

Note. **p < .01, *p < 0.05.

14

0.67**

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

Like a way of the correlation analysis,

β = 0.17; Japanese PCNs β = 0.24; Indonesianthat of regression analysis was also conducted

HCNs, β= 0.20) and abilities (internationallyby a separate examination based on threeexperienced workers, β= 0.34; Japanese PCNs

groups; however, results on the three groups

β= 0.42; Indonesian HCNs, β= 0.51) as shown

were very similar except a significant effectin Table 10. These results of the relationshipsof age on the self-confidence in Indonesian

between them were consistent with those of

HCNs. Both emotional and ability’s variables

the correlation analysis. Overall, those resultsof cross-cultural tolerance of ambiguity

suggest that both emotion and ability aspects ofsignificantly affected self-confidence for cross-tolerance of ambiguity tend to have an effect on

cultural adaption in terms of all three groups:

self-confidence for cross-cultural adaption.

emotion (internationally experienced workers,
Table 10. Results of regression analysis on relationships between toleranceof ambiguity and self-confidence based on three groups
GroupsInternationallyexperienced workers

Japanese PCNs

Indonesian HCNs

N

104

454

59

Variables enteredSelf-confidence in cross-cultural adaptation
β

Age

0.01

0.00

-0.02*

Gender

-0.12

-0.06

–

0.17**

0.24**

0.20*

Tolerance of ambiguity
EmotionAbility

0.34**

0.42**

0.51**

F

16.96**

90.15**

21.48**

R2

0.41

0.45

0.54

Note. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Similar results were made with regard to a

Discussion

level of ability aspect of it. Also, a level of selfconfidence for cross-cultural adaptation was

Results of Summary

varied with the three groups, while a difference

Based on the study results relevant to tew

in the self-confidence between Indonesian HCNs

research questions, a level of emotional aspect

and internationally experienced workers wasof tolerance of ambiguity differed among three

insignificant. All of those results confirmed

groups: internationally experienced workers

that internationally experienced workers

showed the highest, Indonesian HCNs did agreatly developed the two personality traits

middle, and Japanese PCNs did the lowest.

of tolerance of ambiguity and self-confidence

15

for cross-cultural adaptation, compared with

In turn, these kinds of staffing in internationaldomestic employees of MNEs. Second, both

HRM might also allow them to increase theiremotion and ability aspects of the tolerance of

motivations to work for their MNEs.

ambiguity significantly affected self-confidence

Next implication may lead to find out

for adaptation within all three groups. It can beother cross-cultural variables that affect self-interpreted that the more employees tolerateconfidence for cross-cultural adaptation. Since

ambiguous situations in cross-cultural contexts,

self-confidence is very important for success,the more they feel confident that they adapt

achievement, and performance in organizations

themselves to there.

as discussed earlier (Bandura, 1997; Luthans,
2004; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), a way of

Implications

developing and increasing self-confidence seems

This study offered three implications. Thea critical research theme. This study provided

first implication concerns trainings of MNEevidence of how the two aspects of toleranceorganizations. PCNs’ and HCNs’ developmentalof ambiguity affect self-confidence for cross-levels of emotion and abilities of the tolerance

cultural adaptation; thus, other personalityof ambiguity were much lower than those of

traits like self-esteem, locus of control, a big fiveinternationally experienced workers. MNEs

element (Bono & Judge, 2003) might also be

may need to provide cross-cultural training

influential on the self-confidence. If those traits

opportunities for both PCNs and HCNs to

can be improved or even developed, MNEs

develop the tolerance of ambiguity in cross-would expand a way of strengthening the self-

cultural situations. This notion seems criticalconfidence through training sessions of MNEs.

to Japan and other developing countries where

A question will be raised: which personality

foreigners are expected to increase within theirtraits are associated with the self-confidence forlabor market. To PCNs and HCNs equippedcross-cultural adaptation. This question wouldwith more developmental level of it, they would

also be able to positively contribute to the area

be able to work more effectively with co-of international HRM.

workers or counterparts who possess different

The third implication concerns cross-cultural backgrounds. As a consequence, it cancultural investigation as to an effect of country’s

be expected that they would enhance theirculture to tolerance of ambiguity. As discussed

confidence for cross-cultural adaptation, whichin the result section, uncertainty avoidance

may lead to increase their performance. Also,of country’s or national culture might havesuch PCNs with the adequate development

an effect on a level of tolerance of ambiguity.

would potentially become an important

Our study results revealed that Japanesecandidate of expatriates, while the HCNs may

PCNs had a lower level of two variables of

become that of inpatriates or transpatriates.

tolerance of ambiguity than Indonesian HCNs.

16

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

Coincidentally, a score of uncertainty avoidance

second limitation was a scale developmentof Japanese (92; Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede et al.,process. This study developed two measures:2010) was higher than that of Indonesia (48;an ability of tolerance of ambiguity and self-

Hofstede 1997; Hofstede et al., 2010), indicating

confidence for cross-cultural adaptation. For thisthat Japanese tend to avoid ambiguity thanscale development, we applied internationallyIndonesians. There was theoretical discussion

experienced workers because they were eligible

between tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty

in light of their background. However, thisavoidance (Furnham & Marks, 2013), but

study used them for both analyses of EFA

it will not be confirmed by empirical study,

and CFA. It should be better to use a different

yet. Although a unit of analysis may need tosample for CFA. Although this study verified

be adjusted (i.e., individual level vs. country/

those two scales, the scales should be checkednational level), this empirical investigation

with different sample.

would add the contribution on international andAcknowledgement

cross-cultural studies.

This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

Limitations(grant no. 19K01893).

This study will point out several limitations
Note

on methodological concerns. The first limitation(1) An early version of this paper was presented at

was participants. We applied three groups tothe Academy of International Business Oceania

compare cross-cultural variables. Although

Annual Symposium in November 2023.

the participants of internationally experienced
workers were characterized as those who

References

already highly developed cross-cultural

Albrecht, A. -G., Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Deller, J., &Paulus, F. M. (2018). Tolerance of ambiguity:

traits and competencies, it is clear that they

Relations with expatriate adjustment and job

did not belong to a Japanese MNE as theirperformance. In B. M. Wiernik, H. Rüger & D.

expatriates who may have a certain level of theS. Ones (Eds.). Managing Expatriates: Successcompetence and attribution for effectiveness

Factors in Private and Public Domains, (pp.

of its international business operations. Thus,

71-82). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich
Publishers.

expatriates of the same MNE would be a

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of

better sample for comparative studies. Also,

control. New York: Freeman.

Indonesian participants in this study did not

Bikos, L. H., Forman, R., & Patton, K. M. (2021). The

contain female employees who are criticalself-efficacy for sociocultural adaptation scale

workforce in organizations. The study results(SESCAS): Development and initial psychometricevaluation. Counseling Psychologist, 49(1), 33-79.

based on an Indonesian subsidiary from thedoi.org/10.1177/0011000020951861

Japanese MNE might be gender biased. The

17

Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M. J., & Oddou,

Cremer, D. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Leader

G. (2010). Defining the content domain ofself-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness:intercultural competence for global leaders.

The moderating role of leader self-confidence.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 810-

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

828. doi: 10.1108/02683941011089107

Processes, 95, 140-155.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-

Cooper, R. D. (2021). The role of self-efficacy in ex-

evaluations: A review of the trait and its role inpatriate adjustment: An allegorical perspective.

job satisfaction and job performance. European

Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 55(1), 122-137.

Journal of Personality, 17, S5-S18.

Dewaele, J. -M, & Ip, T. S. (2013). The link between

Briones, E., Tabernero, G., Tramontano, C., Caprara, G.
V., & Arenas, A. (2009). Development of a culturalforeign language classroom anxiety, second

self-efficacy scale for adolescents (CSES-A).

language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated

International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

English proficiency among Chinese learners.

33, 301-312. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.006

Studies in Second Language Learning and

Briscoe, D. R., Schuler, R. S., & Claus, L. (2009).

Teaching, 3(1), 47-66.

International human resource management:

Dewaele, J. -M, & Wei, L. (2013). Is multilingualism

Policies, and practices f or multinational

linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity?

enterprises (3rd Ed.). Oxson, UK: Routledge.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(1),Budner, S. N. Y. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a

231–240. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000570
Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. (1995). Seasickness as a self-

personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30,
29-50.

fulfilling prophecy: Arising self-efficacy to boost

Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-performance at sea. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 628-635.

cultural competencies and global leadership

Endres, M. L., Chowdhury, S., & Milner, M. (2009).

effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47,

Ambiguity tolerance and accurate assessment of

612-622. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.014

self-efficacy in a complex decision task. Journal of

Cavusgil, S. T., van der Vegt, S., Dakhli, M., De Farias,S., Doria, E. F., Eroglu, S., Liu, L. A., & Wang, E.

Management & Organization, 15(1), 31–46.

Y. (2012). International business in an accelerated

Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of

VUCA world: Trends, disruptions, and coping

ambiguity: A review of the recent literature.
Psychology, 4(9), 717–728.

strategies. Rutgers Business Review, 6(3), 219-

Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of am-

243.
Chen, F., Curren, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., &biguity: A review of the concept, its measurement

Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation

and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179-199.
doi.org/10.1007/bf02686907

of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA
test statistic in structural equation models.

Grenier, S.; Barrette, A.M.; Ladouceur, R. (2005):

Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462-494.

Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance

doi:10.1177/0049124108314720

of ambiguity: Similarities and differences.
Personality and Individual Differences 39, 593-

Cramer, R. J., Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L.
(2009). Self-efficacy and confidence: Theoretical

600. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014

distinctions and implications for trial consultation.

Hofstede, G. H. (1997). Cultures and organizations:

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andSoftware of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-

Research, 61, 319-334.

Hill.

18

経営論集

Vol. 10, No. 1（2024）pp. 1-20

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010).

Management Journal, 29(4), 840-847.
Michailova, S., Fee, A., & DeNisi, A., (2023). Research

Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind
(3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

on host-country nationals in multinational

Horney, N., Pasmore, B., & O’Shea, T. (2010).

enterprises: The last five decades and ways

Leadership agility: A business imperative for a

forward. Journal of World Business, 58(1),VUCA World. People & Strategy, 33(4), 33-38.

101383. doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101383

Jian-hua, L., Wen-hua, Y., Hua-dong, Y., & van Ouden-

Mowday, R. T. (1979). Leader characteristics, self-

hoven, J. P. (2009). Cross-cultural adaptation ofconfidence, and methods of upward influence inChinese students in the Netherlands. US-Chinaorganizational decision situations. Academy of

Education Review, 6(9), 1-9.

Management Journal, 22(4), 709-725.

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B.

Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tol-

(2015). The performance of RMSEA in models

erance. Journal of Personality Assessment 39(6),with small degrees of freedom. Sociological607-619. doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa3906_11

M ethods & Research, 44(3), 486-507. doi:Suh, S., Crawford C. V., Hansing, K. K., Fox, S., Cho,
M., Chang, E., Lee, S., & Lee, S. M. (2018). A

10.1177/0049124114543236
Lane, M. S. & Klenke, K. (2004). The ambiguity

cross-cultural study of the self-confidence oftolerance interface: A modified social cognitive

counselors-in-training. International Journal formodel for leading under uncertainty, Journal of

the Advancement of Counselling, 40, 255-266. doi.

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 69-

org/10.1007/s10447-018-9324-4
Singh, S. K., Edward Pereira, V., Mellahi, K., &81.
Li, A., & Gasser, M. B. (2005). Predicting Asian

Collings, D. G. (2019). Host country nationals

international students’ sociocultural adjustment:characteristics and willingness to help self-

A test of two mediation models. International

initiated expatriates in the UAE. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 561-576.

Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(8),doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.003

1707–1730.

Lloyd, S., & Härtel, C. (2010). Intercultural competen-

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, L. (1998). Social cognitivecies for culturally diverse work teams. Journal

theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditionalof Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 845-875. doi:

motivational and behavioral approaches. Organi-10.1108/02683941011089125

zational Dynamics, 26(4), 62-74.

Luszczynska, A., Gutierrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of(2005). General self-efficacy in various domains ofchange: A dispositional approach to job attitudes.

human functioning: Evidence from five countries.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 469-480.

International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80-89.

Schwarzer, R., & Born, A. (1997). Optimistic self-

Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004).

beliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-

Positive psychological capitals: Beyond humanefficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychology,
3(1–2), 177-190.

and social capital. Business Horizon, 47(1), 45-50.
Maurera, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning andTomono, T., & Hashimoto, T. (2005). Development ofdevelopment, worker age, and beliefs about self-

revised interpersonal intolerance of ambiguity

efficacy for development. Journal of Management,

scale. Japanese Journal of Personality, 13(2),220-230.

27, 123-140.
McCarty, P. (1986). Effects of feedback on the self-

Van Tulder, R., Jankowska, B., & Verbeke, A. (2020).

confidence of men and women. Academy ofProgress in international business research in19

an increasingly VUCA world. In R. van Tulder,confidence on job satisfaction among hostA. Verbeke & B. Jankowska (Eds.). Internationalcountry nationals of Japan, Malaysia, andBusiness in a VUCA World: The Changing Role

Thailand: A dispositional approach. Journal ofof States and Firms (pp. 1-21). Bingley, UK:

Public and Private Management, 2(2), 1-12.
Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential

Emerald.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The
psychology of culture shock (2ndapproach to cross-cultural learning: A reviewEd.). Eastand integration of competencies for successful

Sussex, UK: Routledge.

expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management

Wilson, J., Ward, C., Fetvadjiev, V. H., & Bethel, A.

Learning and Education, 3(4), 362-379. doi:(2017). Measuring cultural competencies: The

10.5465/amle.2004.15112543

development and validation of a revised measure

Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors ofof sociocultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-international students’ psychosocial adjustment

Cultural Psychology, 48(10), 1475-1506. doi.

to life in the United States: A systematic review.

org/10.1177/0022022117732721

International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

Yamazaki, Y. (2014). Using a competency approach

35, 139-162. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011

to understand host-country national managers in

Zlata, B. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of factor

Asia. International Journal of Human Resource

structures of self-confidence of difference groups

Management, 25(15), 2103-2128.

of students. Prsocedia - Social and Behavioral

Yamazaki, Y. (2016). The impact of job-related self-

Sciences 86, 482-486.

Appendix A: Two newly developed scales used for this study
ScalesTolerance of
ambiguity:
Ability

Self-confidencein crosscultural
adaptation

Item
Descriptions
No.
1

Without problems, tolerate the behaviors and gestures of people I have never seen before.

2

Tolerate a situation where I am not familiar with the meaning of people’s story andbehavior.

3

Tolerate ambiguity, even when I’m with someone I meet for the first time.

4

Tolerate ambiguous situations, even though I don’t clearly understand what people say.

1

I am skillful at being flexible in adapting to the manners of a different culture and foreigncountry.

2

I can adjust myself to the requirements or norms of another culture.

3

I am confident that I can adapt to a different culture.

4

It is difficult for me to adapt myself to a way or behavior required by a foreign or different
country.

5

I’m not confident in adapting to the way of life and customs of other countries.

6

I am confident that I can blend in with life in a foreign country or different culture and adapt
to the lifestyle there.

Note. The term “people” in this questionnaire refers to those who have a different cultural background and/or
those who are different nationalities.

20

経営論集
Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 1-20
ISSN 2189-2490

本国社員、海外現地社員、国際経験に富む
ワーカーに関する曖昧さへの寛容性と異文化適応への自信に関する比較研究
山

﨑

佳

孝

遠

山

道

子

概要
この研究の目的は 2 つある。第 1 の目的は、本国社員（PCN）、海外現地社員（HCN）、国際経験に富む
ワーカーを研究対象とし、感情と能力の両側面における曖昧さへの寛容性と、異文化適応への自信を比較研究することである。国際経験に富むワーカーは、特に他 2 グループの曖昧さへの寛容性と自信に関する発達レベルを把握するためのベンチマークである。第 2 の目的は、曖昧さへの寛容性がどの程度異文化適応の自信に影響するかを調査することである。この研究では、①曖昧への寛容性の能力面と②異文化適応への自信に関して 2 つの尺度を新たに開発した。研究対象者は合計で 617 人である。
（1）37 か国の国際経験豊富なワーカー104 名、（2）PCN －日本の多国籍企業に勤務する日本人社員 454 名、（3）HCN－インドネシア支社の現地社員 59 名である。分散分析の結果、曖昧さへの寛容の 2 面性は有意であることが示された。国際経験に富むワーカーが最も高い値を示し、次にインドネシアの現地社員、日本の本国社員が最も低い結果となった。異文化適応への自信も有意差が示され、日本の本国社員は他 2 グルー
プに比べて低い結果となった。重回帰分析の結果、3 グループとも同様に、曖昧さへの寛容性の感情と能力の両側面とも異文化適応への自信に対して有意であった。最後に研究結果がもたらす意義について議論した。
キーワード：曖昧さの寛容性、異文化適応の自信、国際人的資源管理、本国人材、現地国人材、国際経験ワーカー、日系多国籍企業（投稿日

文教大学経営学部〒 121-8577 東京都足立区花畑 5-6-1
TEL：03-5688-8577

FAX：03-5856-6009

http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

2023 年 12 月 4 日）

経営論集

Vol . 10, No . 1

ISSN 2189-2490
2024年 3 月31日発行
発行者

文教大学経営学部

石塚

浩

編集

文教大学経営学部

研究推進委員会

編集長

山﨑

佳孝

〒121-8577 東京都足立区花畑5-6-1
TEL：03-5688-8577

FAX：03-5856-6009

http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/