ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER
J u n e 2003

No. 144ACCOUNTANTS IN JAPAN:
THE RELEVANCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL
FACTORS TO JOB SATISFACTIONby
J e a n n e H . Y A M A M U R A*
Yvonne S T E D H A M * *Michimasa SATOH **** Visiting Research Fellow (From January 2003 to April 2003), Economic

Research Center, School of Economics, Nagoya University; Associate Professor,
Department of Accounting and Information Systems, School of Business
Administration, University of Nevada Reno, United States of America** Professor, Department of Managerial Sciences, University of Nevada Reno.
*** Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Nagoya University.

Accountants in Japan:
The Relevance of Organizational Factors
to Job Satisfaction

Dr. Jeanne H. Yamamura
Associate Professor
Department of Accounting and Information Systems
School of Business Administration
University of Nevada Reno
Dr. Yvonne Stedham
Professor
Department of Managerial Sciences
School of Business Administration
University of Nevada Reno
Dr. Michimasa Satoh
Professor
Graduate School of Economics
Nagoya University

Abstract
This paper examines perceptions of organizational characteristics andtheir relationship to the job satisfaction of accountants in Japan. Data werecollected on perceptions of career-related factors and factors related to theprovisionoftechnical

information

from

235

accountants

working

ininternationally -affiliated accounting firms in selected offices in Japan. These
factors included autonomy, formal performance evaluations, career feedback,information availability, and support for networking.

Demographic factors

were controlled for.
Prior research in this area has revealed tha t autonomy, performance
feedback, and information availability are factors important to the satisfactionof accountants.

However, that research has primarily been conducted inWestern industrialized countries.

In this study, we explore the relationshipbetween selected organizational characteristics and the job satisfaction of
accountants in Japan and provide a cursory comparison of those results toresults

obtainedpreviously

from

the

U.S.

and

other

countries.

An

understanding of the values and preferen ces of each country’s accountants are
critical to the effective management of such employees in those countries.

INTRODUCTION
Accounting firms today must operate on an international scale with offices in avariety of countries. The managers of such firms face increased complexity as the firms
must address differences in legal, cultural, and technological environments. Thesedifficulties are compounded by the fact that during the recent past accounting firms havebeen challenged to provide a broad spectrum of services at consistently high quality.
The firms’ ability to successfully provide services is dependent on the professionals
working in the firms. These professionals must be highly motivated to perform and tostay with the firm. As a result, firm management must be concerned with theprofessionals’ level of satisfaction. To be successful, the firms must be able to maintain asatisfied workforce in their offices across all the countries in which they operate.
Recent contributions to the accounting and management literature reflect a
growing interest in job-related attitudes and behaviors of accountants (e.g., Gregson,
1990; Patten, 1995; Reed, et al., 1994; Robson, et al., 1992; Schell & DeLuca, 1991).
These researchers investigated the relevance of traditional antecedents and correlates ofjob satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover to accountants. In general, theresults of these studies support the traditional antecedents and correlates for theaccounting profession. However, existing management theory implies that for
professionals, such as accountants, unique factors may be related to job-related attitudes
and behaviors.
In particular, research focusing on the management of professionals provides
important insights (e.g., Benveniste, 1987; Peters, 1992; Raelin, 1986; Shapero, 1985).
Professionals have needs that are systematically different from those of other employees.
Previous studies found that autonomy, feedback, and information availability are factorsthat contribute to satisfaction of accountants (Taylor et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001;

1

Stedham et al., 2002). While noteworthy, such research has primarily been conducted inWestern industrialized countries. As a result, it is not a template that is automaticallytransferable to accountants in all countries.
In this study, we will focus on Japanese accountants. The purpose of this stud y is
to determine the factors that are relevant to the job satisfaction of Japanese accountants.
A cursory comparison of the results of this study to the results that are based on samples
from the U.S. and other countries will allow some preliminary conclusions as to potential
differences between Japanese accountants and accountants in Western industrializedcountries. This is important because accounting firms need to be able to manage theiremployees effectively in all countries in which they operate. Management approaches
tailored to the values and preferences of the employees in each country may be required.
The Accounting Profession in Japan
Although accounting professionals have common characteristics across countries,
the specific professional environment faced by an accounting professional may shapehis/her perspectives to some degree. Hence, we will provide a brief overview of Japan’s
accounting profession in the following section.
Japan’s accounting and auditing system today is an amalgamation of two very
different regulatory structures: the Commercial Code (a statute-based and Germaninfluenced system created during the late 1800’s) and a securities-related framework (aset of laws enacted following World War II to democratize the existing securities
market) (Sakagami, et al., 1999; Suzuki, 1984). The Commercial Code is applicable toall businesses and addresses such issues as the form and content of annual financial
statements. The securities-related laws included the Securities and Exchange Law(1948), the Certified Public Accountants Law (1948), the Financial AccountingStandards for Business Enterprises (1949), and the Regulation of Financial Statements2and the Auditing Standards (1950) (Jinnai, 1990). These laws were patterned after laws
in the U.S. and were intended to put in place a securities market similar to that of the U.S.
(Oguri and Hara, 1990). The securities laws govern only publicly-traded corporations.
As a result of the differing jurisdictions and objectives, today’s system incorporates
modified versions of both the Commercial Code and Securities and Exchange Law(Oguri and Hara, 1990).
The accounting profession in the form of certified public accountants is arelatively recent addition to Japan. The enactment of the Certified Public Accountant
Law in 1948 established more rigorous requirements for certification including a seriesof examinations and completion of a three- year apprenticeship. The profession’s
primary function is dictated by the Securities and Exchange Law which requires
publicly-traded companies to submit financial statements that have been audited byindependent auditors.
Like its counterparts in other countries, the public accounting profession has
expanded its service offerings to the consulting arena. Such efforts, however, have met
with limited success. Holloway (1999) and McKinnon (1984) noted the minimal amountof consulting services provided to audit clients by Japanese CPAs. Sakagami et al.
(1999) cite the differing organization of Japanese companies and the dispersion of“management accounting” functions throughout each work group as the reason for thelack of development of a professional management accountant and the related
recognition of such expertise as a separate area. As consultants are frequently utilized in
the U.S. and other countries to study and provide recommendations in managerial areas,such as management accounting, the different manner in which Japanese companies areorganized and operated may also explain the reluctance to employ consultants.

3

The public accounting profession in Japan today consists of approximately
13,000 Japanese CPAs and 150 auditing firms (Japanese Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, 2002). These firms are responsible for auditing the approximately 4,500
companies that require an audit by an independent CPA firm. The success of thesepublicly-traded companies both domestically and internationally combined with the
emerging influence of the Japanese securities market have increased the importance ofthe role played by Japanese CPAs.
The economic woes of the 1990’s revealed serious problems in accounting andauditing practices in Japan (e.g., Gottlieb 2001). These, in turn, have led to calls forreform and changes within the profession (Opening Up 1999). Similar economic
problems in the U.S., exacerbated by auditors’ failures to uncover recent accounting
scandals, have resulted in calls for reform of the accounting profession on aninternational scale. Maintaining a satisfied and highly productive workforce in such a
climate presents a challenge to all accounting firms, particularly those with international
operations. Identification of the unique requirements of Japanese accountants will aid
accounting firms in managing their Japanese employees successfully.
Job Satisfaction of Accountants
In this study we will investigate the importance of previously identified
determinants of job satisfaction to the job satisfaction of professional accountants inJapan. In particular, the study focuses on the relationship between job satisfaction
among Japanese accountants and their perceptions of various organizational factors
identified in prior research. Two sets of factors that are important to accountants’ jobsatisfaction can be distinguished: career-related factors such as feedback on performanceand factors related to the provision of technical information - information needed toperform their work (Taylor et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Stedham et al., 2002).

4

Career-related factors address the needs of the accountant for information thatwill enable him/her to develop and maintain expertise. They include autonomy, formal
performance evaluations, career feedback, and support for networking. Accountants, as
professionals, value autonomy which both recognizes and enables expertise. It
recognizes expertise as “experts” are commonly allowed to work freely, without directsupervision, as they employ their expertise in solving a problem. It enables expertisedevelopment as solving problems individually develops and improves expertise throughapplication and practice. Formal performance evaluations provide specific feedback
from other professionals that enables the developing professional to assess his skill andknowledge levels. Career feedback in the fo rm of a demonstrated interest in theprofessional’s current and future opportunities and recognition of achievements provides
direction to the developing professional and allows him/her to identify and acquire theskills needed to continually increase expertise. Finally, networking with otherprofessionals is critical to the developing professional as it provides another form of
feedback on the currency of the professional’s expertise and provides the professionalwith information about external as well as internal opportunities for expertise expansion.
Factors related to the firm’s provision of technical information address
information availability. They include ease of access, training on available resources,
and financial reimbursement. Ease of access addresses the convenience of information
provision. Clearly, the difficulty involved in accessing the information needed to do
one’s job, especially for an accountant whose essential activities involve the acquisition,
creation, packaging, or application of such information, can impact job satisfaction.
Training on available resources relates to the training provided to professionals to enable
them to access the firm’s information resources. Financial reimbursement addresses thefirm’s policies toward reimbursing costs incurred by its professionals to acquire5information. This is important as it not only provides the financial support to theprofessional to acquire relevant information but also because it reflects the organization’s
awareness of and commitment to meeting the professional’s needs.
Previous research has also identified other factors that potentially impact job
satisfaction. These factors are controlled for, including gender, tenure, and location.
Hypotheses
Applying the model presented in the previous section to accountants in Japan, wesuggest two sets of hypotheses. The first four hypotheses address career-related factors
whereas the last three hypotheses relate to the importance of access to technicalinformation:
H1a: Autonomy is posit ively related to Japanese accountants’ job satisfaction.
H1b: Formal performance evaluations are positively related to Japanese
accountants’ job satisfaction.
H1c: Career feedback is positively related to Japanese accountants’ job satisfaction.
H1d: Support for networking is positively related to Japanese accountants’ jobsatisfaction.
H2a: Ease of access to technical information is positively related to Japanese
accountants’ job satisfaction.
H2b: Training on available information resources is positively related to Japanese
accountants’ job satisfaction.
H2c: Financial reimbursement for information costs is positively related toJapanese accountants’ job satisfaction.

6

METHODOLOGY
SampleSurvey questionnaires were distributed through contacts to 400 participants at alllevels employed by five public accounting firms in Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka in Spring
2002. Responses were returned by 235 accountants for a response rate of 59%. The
survey instrument adapted from Taylor et al. (1999) was translated into Japanese andback-translated into English with appropriate changes made after consultation withknowledgeable Japanese accounting professionals.
Table 1 summarizes the sample statistics. The majority of the respondents werein their 20’s and 30’s. Approximately 16% of the sample was female and 84% was male.
About half (46%) of the sample consisted of staff and seniors with managers comprising
the next largest group (25%). The sample consisted primarily of auditors (91%) with
consultants making up the balance.
Measures
Table 2 presents the variables and their measures. Previously validated measures
were used for all variables. The dependent variable, job satisfaction (SATISFACTION)
utilized Smith et al.’s (1969) Job Descriptive Index (JDI). The JDI is a widely usedmeasure that looks at job satisfaction as a function of satisfaction with the work itself,
the supervisor, co-workers, pay, and opportunity for promotion. It has the further
advantage of being validated in public accounting settings (e.g., Gregson, 1992; Reed etal., 1994; Schell & DeLuca, 1991). The reliability of the measure for SATISFACTION
was evaluated and found to be acceptable with a Cronbach alpha of 0.74 (Cronbach1951).
Three items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman and Oldman, 1980)
were used for AUTONOMY, addressing the freedom and independence available in the7job and the opportunity to exercise personal judgment. The reliability of the
AUTONOMY measure was evaluated and found to be acceptable with a Cronbach alphaof 0.81.
CAREER, EVALUATION, NETWORKING, EASE, FINANCE, andTRAINING were measured using a series of items relating to career planning, formal
performance evaluations, encouragement of networking, provision of technicalinformation, financial reimbursement of information acquisition costs, and training in theutilization of firm information resources. These measures were previously validated inresearch on accountants’ job satisfaction and its relationship to the provision of
information and career-related factors (Taylor et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Stedham
et al., 2002). All were evaluated for reliability and found to be acceptable with Cronbachalphas of 0.85, 0.84, 0.90, 0.73, 0.72, and .92, respectively. The measurement of CITY,
GENDER, and TENURE are described in Table 2. CITY is included in this study tocontrol for geographic differences as the data were collected in different cities.
Analysis
Pearson correlations, ANOVA, and F-tests provided an initial assessment of therelationships among study variables and enabled identification of the specific predictors
to be included in the multivariate analysis. Multivariate regression analysis was thenemployed for the evaluation of the relationship between job satisfaction and the variablesof interest while controlling for other predictors of job satisfaction.
RESULTS
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the descriptive statistics and correlations for thevariables of interest. The correlations for the seven organizational factors and
SATISFACTION were positive and significant, thus providing initial support for the
hypotheses. None of the control variables was significantly related to job satisfaction.

8

Table 5 presents the results of the multivariate regression analysis. Regression of
the study va riables and control variables on SATISFACTION resulted in a highly
significant model with an adjusted R2 of 0.531. The beta weights for AUTONOMY,CAREER, and EASE were significant and in the predicted direction, thus supporting
Hypotheses 1a, 1c, and 2a. Of the control variables, only CITY was significant.
Examination of the variance inflation factors (VIF) revealed no VIFs larger than 10.
VIFs in excess of 10 are considered indicative of potential inflation related to thecoefficients (Myers, 1986).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThe purpose of this study was to identify organizational factors relevant to the job
satisfaction of Japanese accountants. Specifically, we were interested in accountants’satisfaction with respect to perceptions of career-related factors and factors related to theprovision of technical information. Accountants, as professionals, require assistance inevaluating their knowledge and skill levels and in continually developing their expertise.
They also require current, relevant technical information to do their jobs. Our findings
indicate that two career-related variables, autonomy and career feedback, and one
information-provision variable, ease of access to information, were important to job
satisfaction.
The importance of autonomy to job satisfaction is interesting as it raises aquestion noted in prior research. Aono and Daniel (1992) observed that Japanese
accounting firms attracted more independent personalities. Such personalities would
prefer more autonomy and perhaps indeed find it essential to their job satisfaction. An
interesting question for future research is a comparison of Japanese accountants withother professions in Japan to determine whether the importance of autonomy is unique toJapanese accountants or ge neralizable to other professions in Japan. This result is9

particularly noteworthy given that the Japanese culture has generally been characterized
as collectivistic rather than individualistic (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001). The importanceof autonomy and independence is counterintuitive to that cultural characteristic. Perhaps
the professional culture of accountants supersedes the national culture or, as found by
Matsumoto (2002), Yamamura and Stedham (2002) and others, the Japanese culture isindeed becoming more individualistic in general.
The significance of career feedback identifies the importance of career planning
to Japanese accountants. Keeping one’s expertise current and advancing in one’s careeris critical to professionals and, as our results show, that is also true for accountants inJapan. This result is consistent with the Japanese culture that is characterized as longterm oriented (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). On an individual level, this orientation could
appear in the form of long-term planning for one’s career, including identification ofopportunities and recognition of career achievements.
Formal performance evaluation was not important to the job satisfaction ofJapanese accountants. This is interesting as previous studies identified formal
performance evaluation as the most important factor for accountants in the U.S. Culturaldifferences between the two countries may provide an initial explanation. The U.S.
culture is highly individualistic and short-term oriented (Hofstede 2001). These
characteristics imply that U.S. accountants are very interested in specific feedback on
their individual performance and possibly less interested in more long-term oriented
career planning. In the more collectivistic Japanese culture, however, feedback to thegroup might be considered more appropriate. Directly addressing a person’s
performance may result in an unacceptable “loss of face” for that individual.
Communications regarding performance, particularly performance deficiencies, would
be made in a more subtle fashion (Hofstede 2001).

10

Contrary to our expectations, networking was not important to Japanese
accountants. It appears that stronger group orientation has resulted in an environment
where individuals easily, informally, and frequently communicate. As a result,formalized networking is not necessary. Interestingly, networking was not considered
important by U.S. accountants in earlier studies (Stedham 2002; Taylor 1999). Given the
more individualistic nature of U.S. accountants as well as the demands of the profession
to market services, networking would seem a necessity. The lack of importanceattributed to networking by U.S. accountants may indicate that such activities, while
important to the firm’s success, are not necessarily valued by professionals on an
individual level. Alternatively, the firms may not be perceived as supporting suchactivities. In either case, the firms may need to more actively encourage the involvementof their professionals in networking activities.
The final significant factor, ease of access to information, reflects concerns
common to professionals in general. If information is critical to one’s job, the ease ofaccessing and acquiring needed information is important to job satisfaction. However,training on how to access the resources as well as financial support to access resourceswere not important to Japanese accountants. Perhaps separate training on information
resources is not needed as it is automatically provided in the extensive training processcompleted by accountants. Similarly, most firms have information easily available andthe issue of expenses to acquire information is not relevant today.
Prior research in this area has revealed that for accountants in the U.S. andAustralia ease of access to information was of great importance. Although clear culturaldifferences exist between these countries and Japan, the nature of the accounting
profession may supersede these differences – accountants need appropriate information
to do their job. It is interesting that the differences between accountants in different

11countries seem to lie within the career-related factors. These factors may be more
affected by specific cultural values and the specific professional environment in acountry than the need for technical information.
CITY was significant, reflecting potential differences in offices and firms among
the respondents. Anonymity concerns among participating firms prevented identificationof respondents by firm. Although it is possible tha t differences may exist among officesof the same firm, we suspect that the CITY variable is a proxy for firm differences.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONSLimitations inherent to our study arise from the use of a questionnaire survey andutilization of measures validated in research in western industrialized countries. Survey
data are prone to errors of leniency, acquiescence, and halo effects (Brownell, 1995).
Biases related to such errors may be present in the data. The use of measures previously
validated only in western industrialized countries potentially affects the validity of thedata collected from Japanese respondents. The strong results obtained, however, fromvalidity and reliability analyses support the validity of the measures for use in Japan.
These caveats not withstanding, the results of this study have theoretical andpractical implications. Helmreich and Merritt (1998) noted that the performance ofprofessionals is impacted by both national and professional culture and by otherinfluences such as the historic and economic settings in which they operate. Hofstede(2001) has placed professional culture (occupational culture) halfway between national
culture and organizational culture and suggests that occupational culture will be equallyassociated with values and practices. Our results indicate that professional culture may
supersede national culture in certain areas. Determination of the nature of therelationship between national culture and professional culture offers a promising area for
future research. For accountants in particular, the rapid expansion of international

12accounting and auditing standards around the world suggests the possibility of asupranational accounting profession. A critical prerequisite might be determining
whether accountants’ professionalism can be separated from national culture.
The transferability of findings on job satisfaction of accountants from country tocountry is clearly limited. Existing models of job satisfaction do not account for suchdifferences. In practical terms, international firms must take care to ensure that Japanese
accountants’ needs for autonomy, career-related information, and ease of access totechnical information are met. Only then they will be able to retain a highly satisfied andproductive staff of professionals.

13

REFERENCES

Aono, J.Y. and S.J. Daniel. 1992. “An Empirical Comparison of Auditing Practices in
the U.S.A. and Japan,” Unpublished Working Paper. Honolulu, Hawaii: Collegeof Business Administration, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Benveniste, G. 1987. Professionalizing the Organization. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brownell, P. 1995. “Research Methods in Management Accounting,” A c c o u n t i n g
Research Methodology Monograph No. 2 .

Melbourne, Australia: Coopers &Lybrand.
Cronbach, L. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,”P s y c h o m e t r i k 16: 297-334.

Gottlieb, M. 2001. “Viewpoint – Sun Setting on Japan’s Economy?”
I n d u s t r y W e e k . c o m Sept. 11, 2001. Retrieved 1/28/03.

Http://www.industryweek.com/Columns/Asp/columns.asp?ColumnId=822.
Gregson, T. 1990. “Measuring Job Satisfaction with a Multiple-Choice Format of the
Job Descriptive Index,” Psychological Reports , Vol. 66: 787-93.
_____. 1992. “An Investigation of the Causal Ordering of Job Satisfaction andOrganizational Commitment in Turnover Models in Accounting,” B e h a v i o r a l
R e s e a r c h i n A c c o u n t i n g 2: 32-49.

Hackman, J.R. and G.R. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley.
Helmreich, R.L. and Merritt, A.C. 1998. Culture at Work: National, Organizational,
and Professional Influences . London: Ashgate.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.

14

_____. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, andOrganizations Across Nations . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

_____ and M.H. Bond. 1988. “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to
Economic Growth,” O r g a n i z a t i o n a l D y n a m i c s 16: 4-21.
Holloway, N. 1999. “A Numbers Problem,” F a r E a s t e r n E c o n o m i c R e v i e w (Nov. 9):74-75.
Japan Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2002. . “Number of JICPA
Membership.” Retrieved 7/7/02. Http://www.jicpa.or.jp/n_eng/e-member.html.
Jinnai, Y. 1990. “The Function of Accounting: A Japanese Perspective,” Accounting,A u d i t i n g a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y J o u r n a l 3(2): 8-23.

Matsumoto, D. 2002. The New Japan: Debunking Seven Cultural Stereotypes.
Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.
McKinnon, J. 1984. “Cultural Constraints on Audit Independence in Japan,” T h e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f A c c o u n t i n g E d u c a t i o n a nd R e s e a r c h (Fall): 17-43.

Myers, R.H. 1986. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. Boston,
Massachusetts: Duxbury Press.
Oguri, T. and Y. Hara. 1990. “A Critical Examination of Accounting Regulation in
Japan,” A c c o u n t i n g , A u d i t i n g a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y J o u r n a l 3(2): 37-51.
“Opening Up.” 1999. Accountant (June): 17.
Patten, D.M. 1995. “Supervisory Actions and Job Satisfaction: An Analysis ofDifferences Between Large and Small Public Accounting Firms,” Accounting
Horizons , June: 17-28.

Peters, T. 1992. Liberation Management. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Raelin, J. 1986. Clash of Cultures. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

15

Reed, S., S.H. Kratchman, and R. H. Strawser. 1994. “Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment, and Turnover Intentions of United States Accountants: The Impactof Locus of Control and Gender,” Auditing & Accountability Journal , Vol. 7:
31-58.
Robson, G.S., R.M. Barefield, and E.D. Smith. 1992. “Public Policy, Experience
Requirements, Turnover in Public Accounting,” R e s e a r c h i n A c c o u n t i n g
Regulation 6: 131-148.

Sakagami, M., H. Yoshimi, and H. Okano. 1999. “Japanese Accounting Profession inTransition,” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 12(3): 340-357.
Schell, B.H. and V.M. DeLuca. 1991. “Task-Achievement, Obsessive-Compulsive,
Type A Traits, and Job Satisfaction of Professionals in Public Practice
Accounting,” Psychological Reports 69: 611-630.
Shapero, A. 1985. Managing Professional People: Understanding Creative Performance.
New York: The Free Press.
Smith, P.C., L.M. Kendall, and C.L. Hulin. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago, Illinois:
Rand McNally and Company.
Stedham, Y., J. Yamamura, D. Ta ylor, and M. Nelson. 2002. “Organizational Factors
and Dimensions of Satisfaction: A Comparative Study of Accountants inAustralia and the U.S.,” A u s t r a l i a n A c c o u n t i n g R e v i e w 12(3): 32-40.
Suzuki, N. 1984. “The Japanese Auditing System: Its Problems and Prospects,”
included in Managerial Accounting: An Analysis of Current International
Applications. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: Center for International Education
and Research in Accounting, Department of Accountancy, University of Illinois.

16Taylor, D., J. Yamamura, Y. Stedham, and M. Nelson. 2001. “Managing KnowledgeWorkers in Accounting Firms,” J o u r n a l o f K n o w l e d g e M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e 2(July). Http://www.tlainc.com/jkmpv2.htm.
Taylor, D., J. Yamamur a, Y. Stedham, and M. Nelson. 1999. “Managing Professionals:
The Impact of Organisational Factors on Dimensions of Satisfaction in Chartered
Accounting Firms,” J o u r n a l o f C o n t e m p o r a r y I s s u e s i n B u s i n e s s a n d
G o v e r n m e n t , Vol. 5/1: 21-33.

Yamamura, J. and Stedham, Y. 2002. “Revisiting Hofstede.” Unpublished working
paper, Reno, Nevada: College of Business Administration, University of Nevada

Reno.

17

TABLE 1: SAMPLE
Category
AGE
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 and over
Total
GENDER
Female
Male
Total
LEVEL
Staff
SeniorSupervisor
ManagerSr. Manager
Partner
Total
DIVISION
Audit
Consulting
Total

Tokyo

Nagoya

Osaka

Total

35
48
13
96

27
39
14
80

17
26
11
54

79
113
38
230

18
79
97

9
73
82

9
44
53

36
196
232

34
13
7
22
14
3
93

32
9
6
23
8
3
81

14
2
8
11
15
4
54

80
24
21
56
37
10
228

90
5
95

82

39
15
54

211
20
231

18

82

TABLE 2: VARIABLES
Variable
Dependent Variable:
Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables:
Autonomy
Career feedback
Formal performance
evaluation
Encouragement of
networking
Ease of information access
Financial support

Training on available
information resources
Control Variables:
Location

GenderYears employed in public
accounting

Variable Name

MeasureSATISFACTION

Job Descriptive Index [72 items]

Career-Related Factors
AUTONOMY
Job Diagnostic Survey [3 items]
CAREER
3 items concerning careerplanning
EVALUATION
4 items concerning formal
performance evaluations
NETWORKING
7 items concerning theencouragement of networking
Technical Information Factors
EASE
4 items concerning the provisionof technical information
FINANCE
2 items concerning
reimbursements for meeting andpublication expenses
TRAINING
6 items related to training in firm
information resources
CITY

1 = Tokyo; 2 = Nagoya;
3 = Osaka (Included in regression
analysis as TOKYO andNAGOYA indicator variables)
1= Male; 0 = Female
Nn

GENDERTENURE

19

TABLE 3: PEARSON CORRELATIONS

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.440**.662**.469**.351**.296**.274**.234**.595**.375**.245**.310**.294**.140*.109.228**.123.298**.317**.133*-.074.257**-.074.241**.446**.354**.454**.215**.411**.110.449**.002.124.230**.016.272**

8

1. Job Satisfaction
Determinants of Job Satisfaction

Career-Related Factors
2. AUTONOMY
3. CAREER
4. EVALUATION
5. MOTIVATION
Factors Related to Information Provision
6. EASE
7. TRAINING
8. FINANCE.

Control Factor

9. TENURE* = Significant at p < .05; ** = Significant at p < .01

20.206**TABLE 4: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
VariableN
Mean
AUTONOMY
234
4.85
CAREER
235
4.03
EASE
235
4.85
EVALUATION
235
4.03
FINANCE233
4.57
NETWORKING233
3.72
SATISFACTION
214
128.91TRAINING
234
4.17
TENURE
233
7.98

21

Std. Dev.
1.17
1.29
1.11
1.44
1.58
1.22
35.64
1.21
7.33

Range
1.00 – 7.00
1.00 – 7.00
1.00 – 7.00
1.00 – 7.00
1.00 – 7.00
1.00 – 7.00
30.0 – 205.0
1.00 – 6.33
.40 – 42.00

TABLE 5: Regression Results
Variable
Std. Betat
Independent Variables
Career-Related Factors
AUTONOMY.217
3.673
CAREER.522
7.907
EVALUATE.098
1.424
NETWORK.066
1.146
Technical Information Factors
EASE
.130
2.350
FINANCE.013.233
TRAINING
-.060
-.927
Control Variables
TOKYO
-.135
-2.120NAGOYA-.061-.973
GENDER-.022-.443
TENURE.000-.003
2Adj. R = .531, F = 22.06; p-value = .000

22

p-value

VIF

.000
.000
.156
.253

1.524
1.902
2.060
1.455

.020
.816
.355

1.341
1.389
1.834

.035
.332
.658
.998

1.759
1.709
1.077
1.544