■ 論文 ■経営論集
Vol.2, No.2, March 2016, pp.1-21
ISSN 2189-2490

日本、マレーシア、タイで働く現地従業員に関する仕事への自信と職務満足の関係についての研究：
気質的アプローチ
山

﨑

佳

孝

概要
本研究は「職務満足と仕事に対する自信がどのように関係しているか」を気質的アプローチにより、アジアで働く人を研究対象として調査した。調査のサンプル数は合計で801名、内訳は210名の日本人、392名のマレーシア人、199名のタイ人であり、２つの日系企業から協力を得た。先ず、分散分析の結果から職務満足と仕事の自信の度合いは３つの国で明らかに異なるレベルを示し、両変数とも日本が最低値、マレーシアが中間、タイが最高値であった。次に、職務満足と仕事の自信の関係について重回帰分析を行った。年齢、性別、職務年数、職位の社会的属性変数をコントロール後、調査対象者全体及び３ヶ国の個別において、仕事の自信は職務満足に影響を及ぼす結果となった。この研究結果から国や文化にかかわらず、一般論としての「仕事の自信が職務満足に作用する」という見方を強化し、さらに気質的アプローチがアジアを対象にしたサンプルでも有効であることを示した。

キーワード：職務満足、仕事の自信、気質的アプローチ、現地従業員、アジア、日系企業（受領日

文教大学経営学部〒253-8550 神奈川県茅ヶ崎市行谷1100
Tel 0467-53-2111(代表)

Fax 0467-54-3734

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

2015年10月24日）

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

The impact of job-related self-confidence on job
satisfaction among host country nationals of Japan,
Malaysia, and Thailand: A dispositional approach
Yoshitaka Yamazaki*

Chan, Ployhart, & Slade, 1999). A great

１．Introduction

number of cross-national studies of job satisfaction differences have been conducted for

The management of human resources

almost half a century (see Blunt, 1973; Clark &(HRs) is key to the success of multinational

McCabe, 1972; Haire, Ghiselli, & Porter,

corporations (MNCs) (Bartlett & Ghoshal,

1966; Huang & Van de Vliert, 2004; Krant &1989; Doz & Prahalad, 1986). In MNCs, hostRonen, 1975; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990;

country nationals (HCNs) have played an

Lincoln, Hanada, & Olson, 1981; Mueller etincreasinglyroleal., 2009; Ryan et al., 1999; Slocum &(DeNisi, Toh, & Connelly, 2006) among

Topichak, 1972; Spector & Wimalasiri, 1986).

global personnel in both nonmanagement andYet, most studies, especially early compara-

management jobs (Briscoe, Schuler, & Claus,

tive research, tended to simply present job2009). To manage and retain competentsatisfaction variations among a few countries

HCNs, MNCs have to understand not only to(Mueller et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 1999) withwhat extent they are satisfied with their jobs inlittle explanation about what makes job satis-

MNC subsidiaries, but also what factors

faction differ by country (Sanches-Runde,enhance their job satisfaction, since job

Lee, & Steers, 2009). As a consequence,satisfaction

MNCs may lack understanding of how and why

importantrelates

and

to

job

activeperformance(Wiggins & Moody, 1983).

HCNs in different countries are satisfied with

Although managing HCNsʼ job satisfac-

their jobs. The present study thereby ad-tion is strategically important for MNCs indresses cross-national analysis of HCNsʼ job

their efforts to gain a competitive advantage insatisfaction particularly in connection withthe global business world, multinational re-job-related self-confidence through a disposi-search concerning job satisfaction differences

tional approach, as proposed by Judge (1992)

among countries still remains constrained

and his colleagues (Judge, Locke, & Durham,(Mueller, Hattrup, & Hausmann, 2009; Ryan,

1997; Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies,2001).

* 文教大学経営学部
yyama@shonan.bunkyo.ac.jp

Like job satisfaction, the concept of1

self-confidence is relevant to critical domains of

The inconsistent results across countries

HR management and organizational behavior

in studies of job satisfaction in connection with

(Gist, 1987; Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans,self-confidence may not only cast doubt on

2004; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). A theoreti-

such a relationship within MNCs in practical

cal connection between self-confidence and job

terms but also raise theoretical questions aboutsatisfaction can be seen in a dispositional model

the cross-national generalizability of the con-of job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997). This

struct of job satisfaction derived from amodel explains that four core personality traits

perspective of dispositional approaches. It

are determinants of job satisfaction, and one ofseems important to investigate whether job

those traits is general self-efficacy, an academ-

satisfaction is related to self-confidence in theic

self-confidence

job across countries, particularly in the(Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004). Judge and Bono

research context of Southeast Asian countries,(2001) conducted a meta-analysis using stud-

which have produced inconsistent results.

ies published from 1957 to 1997 and found that

Additionally, it should be noted that thejob satisfaction is strongly linked to general

samples of the aforementioned international

self-efficacy. However, in more recent re-studies were diverse. Costa Rican participants

search on a connection between job satisfaction

were composed of university students andand self-confidence in international contexts,

factory workers in international firms, whilecross-national empirical studies have shown

German participants included schoolteachers,

complex and inconsistent results. Consistenthigh school students, and East German mi-with the findings of Judge and Bonoʼs (2001)

grants (Luszczynska et al., 2005). The

meta-analysis, the cross-national research ofresearch participants of the Southeast Asiansatisfaction

countries consisted of employees working for

term

that

describes

conducted

byLuszczynska,

Gutierrez-Dona, and Schwarzer (2005) docu-

privatemented a strong correlation between work or(Luthans et al., 2006). Accordingly, previous

school satisfaction and self-efficacy in Costa

studies did not specifically target HCNs work-

Rica and Germany. However, the cross-cul-

ing for MNCs.

firms

and

publicorganizations

tural investigation of Luthans, Zhu, andIn summary, the present study seeks to

Avolio (2006) reported in part that job

address how job satisfaction of HCNs relates tosatisfaction was not significantly associatedtheir self-confidence in the job at a subsidiarywith self-efficacy in the Southeast Asianof an MNC in the three Asian countries ofcountries

andJapan, Malaysia, and Thailand. This study is

Thailand, a result that may be related to thealso intended to contribute to theory concern-

economic uncertainty in the countries when

ing the cross-national generalizability of thetheir study was conducted.

construct of job satisfaction through a view ofofIndonesia,

Malaysia,

2

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

dispositional approaches. Last but not least,

workers and 83 American counterparts work-

this study aims to offer useful insight for HR

ing for a glass company and documented thatinternational management practices for thethe job satisfaction of Mexicans was higher

effectiveness of MNCs.

than that of Americans. Furthermore, Lincoln
et al. (1981) examined a total of 522 employ-

２．Job Satisfaction and JobRelated Self-Confidence AcrossCountries

ees of Japanese MNCs to compare three groupsof American, Japanese - American, andJapanese employees and reported that the job
satisfaction of the American group was greater

2.1

than that of the other two groups. Similarly,

Cross-national differences in job

Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) investigatedsatisfaction

more than 8,000 workers in the United States

Job satisfaction describes a positive

and Japan and documented that Americans

emotion linked to individualsʼ evaluation of

exhibited greater satisfaction with their job but

their job (Locke, 1976). The construct of job

less commitment to their company thansatisfaction has been widely studied in theJapanese workers. By using 10 specificmanagement literature (Dormann & Zapf,

aspects of job satisfaction, Spector and2001; Judge et al., 2001; Mueller et al., 2009;

Wimalasiri (1986) conducted a comparative

Sanches- Runde et al., 2009). Because of

study using 182 Singaporean employees andrapidly expanding globalization, an interna-

3,442 American employees from multiple

tional perspective of job satisfaction has drawn

organizations and reported that five specificthe attention of management scholars andsatisfaction facets were significantly different

specialists (Liu, Borg, & Spector, 2004). As

between those countries. Overall, muchdiscussed in the introduction, a great number

empirical evidence from previous comparativeof cross-national job satisfaction studies havejob satisfaction research has illustrated that job

been documented.

satisfaction tends to vary by country.

For example, Haire et al. (1966) con-This studyʼ s research context involves

ducted their comparative study of 14 countries

Asian HCNs of MNCs̶specifically in Japan,

with more than 3,600 managers and found that

Malaysia, and Thailand̶to determine how job

employees from Argentina, Chile, India,

satisfaction of HCNs differs by country. The

Italy, and Spain displayed comparatively low

aforementioned empirical evidence suggests

job satisfaction, whereas Swedish employeesthat HCNsʼ job satisfaction may vary by

exhibited the highest satisfaction with theircountry, and it is useful to identify how

job. Another cross-national study by Slocum

similarly or differently HCNs are satisfied withand Topichak (1972) investigated 94 Mexican

their job in specific countries. Accordingly,

3the present study addresses the following

1995; Luszczynska et al., 2005), the term

exploratory question (EQ):ʻgeneral self- efficacyʼ is used. General self-⑴

2.2

How do HCNs from Japan, Malaysia,

efficacy represents a comprehensive judgment

and Thailand working in MNCs differ inthat people can perform effectively in given

job satisfaction?

situations (Eden & Zuk, 1995), handle

Self-confidence

definitionsdifficult environments (Luthans et al., 2006),

andand manage life stressors with a confident view

cross-national differences
Self-confidence

individualsʼ

As with job satisfaction, self-confidence

perception that they can succeed in a certain

may also vary based on country and culture.

effort (McCarty, 1986). This personality

Several empirical studies showed cross-nation-

characteristic is important for the effectivenessal differences in self-efficacy (Klassen, 2004).

of business persons (Swan & Futrell, 1990)

For example, Schwarzer and Born (1997)

and especially of leaders (Mowday, 1979;

illustrated that participants in Hong Kong andCremer2003).

Japan exhibited the lowest self-efficacy, while

Furthermore, self-confidence is considered athose in Costa Rica and Russia showed thepositive mental asset for individual and organi-highest among 13 countries. The cross-nation-zational success (Luthans et al., 2004) andal study by Scholz, Gutierrez-Dona, Sud, andleads to favorable job performance (Bandura,

Schwarzer (2002) examined 25 countries and1997; Luthans et al., 2004; Stajkovic &found the lowest self- efficacy among the

Luthans, 1998). Self- confidence is also pre-Japanese and Hong Kong Chinese and thesented as ʻself- efficacyʼ in the literature (seehighest self-efficacy among participants fromMaurera, 2001; Luthans et al., 2004; Stajkovic

Costa Rica, Denmark, and France. Klassen& Luthans, 1998). According to Bandura(2004) reviewed 20 self- efficacy studies in(1982, 1997), self- efficacy refers to peopleʼ scross-cultural settings and suggested that self-

self- confidence (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998)

efficacy beliefs of people from Western culturesthat they can coordinate and achieve theare higher than those of people from non-courses of action to effectively complete a given

Western cultures, such as Asia and Easternspecific job, applying their own resources ofEurope. It is thought, then, that self- confi-

motivation, cognition, and behavior capabil-dence also varies by country. Because thisities (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). The term

study examines HCNs of subsidiaries of MNCs,

ʻself-efficacyʼ is usually employed to address a

as with the first question concerning job

specific job or a particular task. Whensatisfaction, it addresses a second exploratory

discussing a more general or overall situationquestion as follows:&vandescribesof their abilities (Schwarzer & Born, 1997).

Knippenberg,

and a wide range of behavior (Eden & Zuk,⑵

4

How do HCNs from Japan, Malaysia,

経営論集Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

and Thailand working in MNCs differ inrooted in individual characteristics. Contrary

self-confidence in the job?

to

2.3

situational

theories,

dispositional

ap-proaches directly link a source of job satisfac-

Situational and dispositional factors

tion with individual personalities; therefore, itthat influence job satisfaction

can be said that job satisfaction is independent

It is unclear why there are differences inof peopleʼ s situation and job characteristics

job satisfaction between countries. Judge et(Judge et al., 1997). For example, if people

al. (1997, 2001) explained that factors thatgenerally tend to be satisfied with their life or

influence job satisfaction have been classified

possess positive affectivity, they will be

into situational approaches (focusing on thesatisfied with their job. Therefore, their job

environment)

approaches

satisfaction does not depend on whether they

(focusing on personal traits), as well as ahave a positive or negative task or job situation

combination of the two. Situational theories(Houghton & Jinkerson, 2007).

ordispositional

have been widespread in the management

Research on dispositional approaches hasliterature (Houghton & Jinkerson, 2007).

received criticism (Cropanzano & James,

Such theories explain how job satisfaction

1990; Gerhart, 1987), most of which has

depends on the work situation or the nature ofconcerned methodological problems (Judge,

job features. The two-factor theory proposed1992). Nonetheless, empirical evidence hasbycolleagues

supported dispositional approaches (Houghton(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959)& Jinkerson, 2007). For example, the study

and the job characteristics model of Hackman

with employees of a U.S. medical institution

and Oldham (1976) are typical of situational

conducted by Agho, Muller, and Price (1993)

theories (Judge et al., 2001). International

indicated that both positive and negative

job satisfaction studies using job types (Huang

affectivities were strongly associated with

& Van de Viliert, 2004) and those with

employeesʼ job satisfaction. Watson and Slacksocioeconomic factors (Pichler & Wallace,(1993) conducted a longitudinal study of2009) are also thought to fall into this classifica-

employees working for a university in thetion.

United States and also found a stable associa-

Herzberg(1966)

andhis

The dispositional approach is a centraltion between both affectivity and job satisfac-

focus of this study. Although dispositionaltion over 2 years. International job satisfaction

approaches have received some attention instudies conducted by Mueller et al. (2009) also

the management field, they have not been

applied dispositional approaches. Their study

developed sufficiently (Judge et al., 2001).

particularly concentrated on national positiv-

Staw and Ross (1985) proposed dispositional

ity, which is related to positive affectivity as aapproaches, discussing that job satisfaction is

dispositional component. Their results demon-5strated that national positivity differentiatedaction needed for goal attainment (Judge etthe level of job satisfaction across more than 40

al., 1997).

countries. Their study is noteworthy in that it

2.4

clearly linked cross-national studies and indi-

A relationship between job-related

self-confidence and job satisfaction

vidual dispositional variables (i. e., positive
affectivity) as a source of job satisfaction.

This study concerns how self-confidence

Based on such empirical evidence, it isis related to job satisfaction. In order toreasonable to infer that other individual

develop a hypothesis, the study relied on thedispositions may affect job satisfaction (Judgedispositional model of job satisfaction. As

et al., 1997).

discussed, self- confidence is an individualʼ s

Early dispositional approaches mainly

perception or belief that he or she can succeed

considered the role of positive or negativein a certain effort (McCarty, 1986), so a self-

feelings or general affective disposition in

confident person tends to have a positive

relation to job satisfaction (Judge, 1992).

feeling regarding jobs assigned to him or her.

Later, dispositional approaches evolved into a

Even though a job can be difficult, the person

more comprehensive model and included otherwith self-confidence would believe that he orimportant personality traits. Judge et al.

she would be able to cope with any challenging(1997) introduced the idea of core evaluations

aspects of the job (Schwarzer & Born, 1997;of self, building on Packerʼs (1985) research.

Stumph, Brief, & Hartman, 1987) becauseCore evaluations have characteristics of being

self- confidence serves to enhance motivation

evaluative and fundamental and including

to deal with challenges (Benabou & Tirole,

broad aspects of individual personality traits

2002). Such a person would evaluate self

(Judge et al., 1997). Because of the character-highly, which tends to increase self- esteem

istics of the core evaluation, the dispositional

because general self- efficacy is closely con-model of job satisfaction not only encompasses

nected to self- esteem (Judge et al., 1997).

positive and negative affectivities as determi-

Furthermore, a person with strong self-confi-

nants of job satisfaction but also extends to thedence may be more inclined to exert effort byfour traits of self- esteem, locus of control,

employing the skills necessary for high per-neuroticism, and general self- efficacy (i. e.,formance (Bandura, 1982). As a result, theself- confidence). Judge et al. (1997) ex-

performance efforts of individuals with self-

plained that general self-efficacy is considered

confidence would lead to a greater possibility ofpart of the core evaluation because of its

attainment and success compared with thosefundamental nature and wide aspect, including

without self-confidence. Subsequently, attain-

its influence on individualsʼ evaluations of theirment is thought to arouse positive feelings forability to effectively execute the courses ofjobs in relation to effort. Luszczynska et al.

6

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21(2005) also discussed that general self-efficacy

affects job satisfaction.

leads to more effective problem solving, which

３．Methods

is followed by enhancement of positive emotions. Specifically, if people have self- confidence in a job context where they exert great

3.1

effort and complete a job, their positive

Research sites
Two Japanese MNCs participated in thisemotion about the job will be evoked, which
satisfaction.

research. Data pertaining to Japanese job

Accordingly, it is thought that self-confidence

satisfaction and self-confidence in the job were

has a positive effect on job satisfaction throughcollected from Japanese employees of ʻMNC

successful job achievement.

A,ʼ located in Tokyo, whose business involves

can

be

translated

into

job

As presented earlier, the meta-analysis

selling and servicing office machine products

by Judge and Bono (2001), as well as thedomestically in the Japanese market. MNC A

cross-national empirical study by Luszczynska

is a widely recognized firm in the officeet al. (2005), supported a strong positivemachine industry in Japan and operates incorrelation between self-confidence and job orworldwide markets. For the other Japanese

school satisfaction. Although the international

MNC, ʻMNC B,ʼ data were collected fromcomparativeby

HCNs in Malaysia and Thailand. MNC B does a

Luthans et al. (2006) reported a positive but

wide range of retail business as one of theinsignificant association between the twobiggest companies in Japan, operating inconstructs in Southeast countries, a result thatsupermarkets,might have been related to the environment ofcenters, gas stations, and drugstores and also

economic uncertainty, their study regarding

offering banking and mobile communication

the United States showed a significant relation-

services. MNC B has been strategicallyship. When the literature is taken together, it

developing in foreign countries, especially inappears that individuals with higher self-

Asian retail markets. These two Japaneseconfidence in the job experience more success-

MNCs hold dissimilar product and merchan-ful performance and achievement, which leads

dise lines, but their main business functions,to higher job satisfaction. In contrast, it isinvolving sales and service, are alike.

investigation

conducted

thought that those with lower self-confidence

3.2

would have lower job satisfaction because they

convenience

stores,home

Sampling procedures

tend to be less successful in the job.

The study sample was composed of 801

Accordingly, this study proposes the following

employees of the two Japanese MNCs. The

hypothesis:

sample of Japanese employees was relatively
equally distributed in age but tended to have

Hypothesis: Self- confidence in the job

7

longer work tenure, with 36.7% of the sample

surveyhaving over 20 years of experience in the firm.

Malaysian participants, and 392 were com-

Most Japanese employees were male atpeted and usable, yielding a 78.4% return

86.7%, and 38.1% were managers. For the

rate. Finally, of 350 sets provided to potential

sample of Malaysian employees, 89.2% werestudy participants of Thai employees inyounger than 40 years old, and 51.8% had

Bangkok, 199 were completed and usable forworked for MNC B for 6 years or less. Female

the analysis of this study, yielding a response

employees represented the majority of therate of 56.9%. Table 1 presents the demo-

sample, at 63.3%, and 39.5% of those in thegraphic characteristics of HCN employees fromsample were managers. Finally, the sample ofthree countries.

Thai employees was similar to that of

3.3

Malaysian employees concerning age distribu-

3.3.1

tion, but the work tenure was even shorter:

sets

were

providedtopotential

MeasuresJob satisfaction scale

44.7% of the Thais had worked for 2 years or

Judge et al. (2001) discussed a number

less at this Japanese MNC. Like the Malaysianof good job satisfaction instruments. Among

sample, most Thai participants were women atthem, this study chose the Job Satisfaction

64.3%, and 86.4% worked as nonmanagers.

Scale created by Brayfield and Rothe (1951),

The survey set consisted of question-

which takes a holistic approach to overall job

naires and a cover letter that explained thesatisfaction in workplaces. Their scale ispurpose of this research, provided instructions

characterized as being sensitive to variations infor the questionnaires, and assured strict

attitudes (Judge et al., 2001). The original

confidentiality through anonymity. The ques-

scale consists of 18 items. To decrease thetionnaires had questions for not only the key

entire workload of the questionnaires, thevariables but also for demographic factors,

original version was reduced to six items,

including age, gender, working experience inusing a 5-point Likert-type scale (1＝ strongly

the current firm, and management position.

disagree to 5 ＝ strongly agree). The six

Survey sets were forwarded to potential

questions were as follows: ʻI feel fairly satisfied

research participants by the HR managers ofwith my present job,ʼ ʻI am often bored in my

the two Japanese MNCs through in- housecurrent jobʼ (reversed item), ʻMy current

delivery systems. A total of 240 sets were sent

assignment is pretty uninterestingʼ (reversed

to Japanese employees of Japanese MNC A initem), ʻI am satisfied with my present

Tokyo, of which 210 were returned as

assignment for the time being,ʼ ʻI am disap-

completed and usable questionnaires, yielding

pointed that I took this current assignmentʼ

an overall response rate of 87.5%. With regard(reversed item), and ʻMost days, I am

to the other two countries, a total of 500

enthusiastic about my present job.ʼ In the

8

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of Japanese, Malaysian, and Thai employees
All employees(n = 801)

Malaysian(MNC B; n = 392)

Japanese(MNC A; n = 210)

Thai
(MNC B; n = 199)

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

28
138
207
179
85
80
42
42

3.5
17.2
25.8
22.3
10.6
10.0
5.2
5.2

0
27
34
36
28
32
17
36

0
12.9
16.2
17.1
13.3
15.2
8.1
17.1

13
69
126
106
36
25
14
3

3.3
17.6
32.1
27.0
9.2
6.4
3.6
0.8

15
42
47
37
21
23
11
3

7.5
21.1
23.6
18.6
10.6
11.6
5.5
1.5

404

50.4

182

86.7

144

36.7

71

35.7

397

49.6

28

13.3

248

63.3

128

64.3

Work experience at the MNC (tenure, years)
C2
170
21.2
＞2‒4
142
17.7
＞4‒6
95
11.9
54
6.7
＞6‒8
＞8‒10
51
6.4
＞10‒1259
7.4＞12‒1431
3.9＞14‒1634
4.2＞16‒1827
3.4＞18‒20
35
4.4
＞20
103
12.9

20
16
25
8
7
9
2
8
17
21
77

9.5
7.6
11.9
3.8
3.3
4.3
1.0
3.8
8.1
10.0
36.7

61
86
56
38
36
40
20
21
8
10
16

15.6
21.9
14.3
9.7
9.2
10.2
5.1
5.4
2.0
2.6
4.1

89
40
14
8
8
10
9
5
2
4
10

44.7
20.1
7.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
5.0

PositionManagement
Nonmanagement

80
130

38.1
61.9

155
237

39.5
60.5

27
172

13.6
86.4

Age
C20
21‒25
26‒30
31‒35
36‒40
41‒45
46‒50
B51
GenderMale
Female

539
262

67.3
32.7

present research, the Cronbachʼ s alpha wasdeveloped to meet these conditions. It con-

0.84 for all participants, 0.91 for the Japanesesisted of four items: ʻI have confidence in mysample, 0.80 for the Malaysian sample, andjob,ʼ ʻI am confident in myself that I will0.76 for the Thai sample.

complete my current task,ʼ ʻI donʼt have any
confidence in my present workʼ (a reversed

3.3.2

Self-confidence in job scaleitem), and ʻI am fairly confident of doing my

The present study needed to examine thejob thoroughly.ʼ The items had a 5- point

degree of employee self-confidence in the job; it

Likert-type scale (1＝ strongly disagree to 5＝

was important not to constrain the self-confi-

strongly agree).

dence to a particular assignment or a limitedTodevelopandverifytheSelf-task but to ensure it was applicable to a

Confidence in Job Scale, this study used a

general, holistic view of the job. For thissample from a third Japanese MNC (ʻMNC

study, a Self- Confidence in Job Scale wasCʼ). This Japanese MNC is a leading company

9

in the living and housing products and service

and Craiger (2000) were applied to assess

industry in Japan and runs its business inmodel fit (Liu et al., 2004). The four items

several countries. Table 2 summarizes demo-

also showed an acceptable reliability (N ＝274;

graphic characteristics of the Japanese partici-

Cronbachʼs alpha ＝0.85). Table 3 illustrates

pants of MNC C. A total of 393 questionnaires

the self-confidence items with their factor

that included the Self-Confidence in Job Scale,loadings from the EFA and CFA.

together with the Career Self- Efficacy Scale

Third, to analyze the discriminant valid-for discriminant analysis, were provided toity of the Self- Confidence in Job Scale, thisJapanese employees at MNC C. A total of 274

study employed the Career Self-Efficacy

questionnaires were valid and used in analysis.

Scale, whose construct is thought to contain an

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was

analogous type of disposition but to differ due

first applied to analyze the validity andto the career focus. The Career Self-Efficacy

reliability of the Self-Confidence in Job Scale.

Scale was developed by Kossek, Roberts,

This research relied on the principal compo-

Fisher, and Demarr (1998) to measure oneʼsnent EFA on the data collected from 274

efficacy in terms of his or her career using a 7-

participants of MNC C. Analysis of the Eigen

point Likert-type scale. The original scale hasvalues with scree plot indicated that only one

11 items, while this study used a shortermain factor was dominant. The four items ofversion with five items. The results of the EFA

the Self-Confidence Scale accounted for 69.4%

showed that two factors were dominant, asof the total variance. A confirmatory factor

indicated by eigenvalues larger than 1,

analysis (CFA) was then performed with theaccounting for 58.9% of the total variance.

same data set to ensure that a single factor was

The factor loadings for four items of the Self-

identified from the EFA. The CFA results

Confidence in Job Scale ranged from 0.77 toshowed that the four items of the confidence

0.87, while those of five items of the Career

scale loaded on this factor. All loadings showed

Self-Efficacy Scale ranged from 0.59 to 0.74.

statistical significance (p ＜0.01), with 0.69 to

Further, cross- loading was lower than 0.30

0.86 standardized values. Furthermore, theamong nine items, providing initial support for

CFA results also showed acceptable validity

convergent

2

anddiscriminant

validity.

(χ ＝ 3.029, p ＞ 0.10; df ＝ 2; root mean

Subsequently, CFA was conducted to confirm

square error of approximation [RMSEA] ＝

the validity of the two factors identified from

0.043; comparative fit index [CFI] ＝ 0.998;

the EFA. The results of the CFA showed that

normed fit index [NFI]＝0.994; goodness of fit

the fit indices, except the χ2 score, fell within

index [GFI]＝0.994; and adjusted goodness ofan acceptable range (χ2＝46.609, p ＝0.008,

fit index [AGFI]＝0.972). Most of the afore-

df ＝26; RMSEA ＝0.054; CFI ＝0.975; NFI ＝

mentioned CFA indices indicated by Coovert

0.945; GFI ＝0.963; AGFI ＝0.935), suggest-

10

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of Japanese employees of Japanese MNC C for SelfConfidence Scale development
VariableAge (years)
C20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
B51
GenderMale
FemaleN％

Variable

0
5
19
46
57
68
57
22

0
1.8
6.9
16.8
20.8
24.8
20.8
8

Work experience at the MNC (years, tenure)
C5
13
4.7
＞5-10
47
17.2
＞10-1561
22.3＞15-2048
17.5＞20-25
73
26.6＞25-3023
8.4＞30-35
8
2.9
＞35
1
0.4
Position

N

194
80

70.8
29.2

Management
Nonmanagement

68
206

％

24.8
75.2

Note. N ＝274.
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis for the Self-Confidence in Job
Scale
Item

EFA

CFA

I have confidence in my job.
I am so confident in myself that I will complete my current task.
I don't have any confidence in my present work.
I don't have any confidence in my present work.

0.807
0.877
0.795
0.795

0.71
0.863
0.692
0.692

Note. N ＝ 274. The CFA indices were χ2 ＝ 3.029; p ＞ 0.10; df ＝ 2; root mean square error of
approximation ＝0.043; comparative fit index ＝0.998; normed fit index ＝0.994; goodness of fit index ＝0.994; and adjusted goodness of fit index ＝0.972.

ing that the data fit the model well withguages̶English, Japanese, and Thai. All

structural validity. Consequently, the Self-

questionnaires were originally written in

Confidence in Job Scale was acceptable regard-

English, and that version was employed for theing discriminant validity.

study of the Malaysian participants. This

Finally, in this study with 801 partici-

study followed the translation procedures forpants, the Cronbach alpha of the Self-

cross- cultural study illustrated by Brislin,

Confidence in Job Scale was 0.83 for all three

Lonner, and Thorndike (1973). The English

countries; for the subpopulations in different

questionnaires were translated into Japanesecountries, values were 0.85 for Japan, 0.81

and Thai, and then retranslated back intofor Malaysia, and 0.70 for Thailand.

English. The meanings of the original English
versions were compared with those of the

3.3.3

Translation procedures

back- translated versions from the Japanese

The study used the Job Satisfaction

and Thai versions.

Scale, the Self- Confidence in Job Scale, anddemographic

questionnaires

in

four

lan-

11

Table 4. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for all key variables.
Variables

Mean

S.D.

1

2

3

4

5

1. Age2. Gender
3. Working experiences at the current MNC
4. Management position
5. Self-confidence in the job
6. Job satisfaction

3.97
0.50
4.72
0.33
3.42
3.67

1.76
0.50
3.51
0.47
0.67
0.72

0.23**
0.49**
0.18**
0.06
0.10**

0.27**
0.12**-0.10**-0.10**

0.23**-0.06-0.04-0.09*-0.09*

0.60**

Note. N ＝ 801. **p ＜ 0.01, *p ＜ 0.05. This study coded all demographic variables. Age code (1＝ C20; 2＝
21-25; 3＝26-30; 4＝31-35; 5＝36-40; 6＝41-45; 7＝46-50; 8＝ B51); gender code (0＝ female; 1＝ male); working
experience code (1＝ C2; 2＝＞2-4; 3＝＞4-6; 4＝＞6-8; 5＝＞8-10; 6＝＞10-12; 7＝＞12-14; 8＝＞14-16; 9＝＞
16-18; 10＝＞18-20; 11＝＞20); management position code (0＝ nonmanagement; 1＝ management).

satisfaction? How do HCNs in those three

４．Resultscountries compare in self- confidence in thejob? Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated

Table 4 shows the correlation matrix andthat job satisfaction varied significantly in thedescriptive statistics for all six variables used

three countries (F ＝ 42.33, p ＜ 0.01). The

in this study. Correlation analysis indicatedBonferroni analysis as a post hoc test illus-that job satisfaction was significantly associ-trated the significant differences between theated with self-confidence in the job (r ＝0.60,

three countries. Japanese employees showed

p ＜0.01) and the three demographic variables

the lowest job satisfaction; Malaysian HCNsof age (r ＝ 0.10, p ＜ 0.01), gender (r ＝ −were in the middle; and the Thai HCNs had the0.10, p ＜0.01), and management positions (rhighest job satisfaction.

＝−0.09, p ＜0.05). However, there was not

Similarly, ANOVA results illustrated

a significant correlation between job satisfac-

that self- confidence in the job significantly

tion and working experience at the present

differed in the three countries (F = 81.47, p ＜MNC (r ＝−0.04, p ＞0.10). Before further

0.01), after which the Bonferroni test de-analyzing a relationship between job satisfac-

scribed those significant differences. Japanesetion and job- related self- confidence as de-employees had the lowest self- confidence inscribed in the hypothesis, this study sought tothe job; Malaysian HCNs, the middle; and Thaianswer the two exploratory questions with

HCNs, the highest. The order of the HCNsʼ

regard to cross-national differences of HCNs.

self- confidence in the job across the three

4.1

countries was identical to that of their job

Cross-national differences in job

satisfaction. Table 5 summarizes results ofsatisfaction and self-confidence

ANOVA and Bonferroni tests concerning job

This study raised two exploratory ques-satisfaction and self- confidence in the jobtions: How do HCNs in Japan, Malaysia, andacross the three countries.

Thailand working in MNCs compare in job

12

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

Table 5. Analysis of variance and Bonferroni test results for job satisfaction and job-related selfconfidence across the three countries.
Job satisfaction
Japanese
MalaysianThai

Self-confidence

N

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

210
392
199

3.13
3.43
3.70

0.78
0.58
0.56

3.22
3.73
4.04

0.75
0.67
0.53

F
df
Bonferroni
Japanese vs. Malaysian
Japanese vs. Thai
Malaysian vs. Thai

42.33**
2,798

81.47**
2,798

M.D.

S.E.

M.D.

S.E.

-0.30**-0.58**-0.28**

0.05
0.06
0.06

‒0.52**‒0.82**-0.30**

0.06
0.07
0.06

Note. N ＝801. **p ＜ 0.01.

4.2

participants.

Hypothesis testing

As shown in Table 6, for the examination

The hypothesis predicted that self-confi-of the entire group, Model 1 produced

dence in the job affects job satisfaction. As

statistically significant results (F ＝8.86, p ＜previously presented in Table 4, job satisfac-0.01) and showed that all four demographic

tion was significantly correlated with self-

variables were significant. Compared withconfidence in the job and all demographic

Model 1, Model 2 also yielded a significant

variables except working experience at theresult (F ＝91.85, p ＜0.01) and was greatly

present MNC. To determine the main effect ofimproved with an incremental adjusted R2 (Fjob-related self-confidence on job satisfaction,change ＝405.78, p ＜0.01). It is obvious that

this study conducted a hierarchical regression

Model 2 accounted for a greater percentage ofanalysis controlling for the influence of thosethe variation (R2 change ＝0.32). Adding thefour demographic variables. Model 1 consisted

predictor of job- related self- confidence inof only the control variables, whereas Model 2

Model 2 considerably and significantly influ-

included the predictor of self-confidence in theenced job satisfaction (b ＝0.58, p ＜0.01).

job as a main influence to be estimated.

Furthermore, the separate investiga-

Furthermore, because both job satisfaction

tions of each of the three countries also

and self-confidence in the job differed signifi-

indicated that Model 2, which included thecantly among the three countries, as pre-variable of self- confidence in the job, wassented in results for the two exploratory

better than Model 1. Model 1ʼ s showed

questions as shown in Table 5, this study

significant results; adjusted R2 values ranged

examined the impact of job-related self-confi-

from 0.04 (Thais) to 0.07 (Japanese anddence on job satisfaction for each of the three

Malaysians). However, all Model 2ʼs yieldedcountries as well as for the entire group of HCN

results at the 0.01 significance level in terms of13

Table 6. Regression analysis of the effect of job-related self-confidence on job satisfaction
Dependent variables:
Job satisfaction

All participants
Model 1Model 2

Japanese
Model 1b
Demographic variables
Age

Model 2

Malaysians
Model 1

0.11**

Gender

-0.11**†-0.05

Working experiences attheir MNC
Management positions
Predictors
Self-confidence in job-0.08*-0.04-0.09**

-0.05

F
df
Adjusted R2
R2 change
F change

8.86**
4,796
0.04

91.85**
5,795
0.36
0.32
405.78**

0.14

Thais
Model 1bb

0.19**

Model 2Model 2b

0.123

0.16**

0.13**-0.05-0.088

-0.03

-0.04

0.09

0.02

-0.01

-0.081

0.04

0

-0.03

-0.03

0.19†

0.159

-0.17**-0.06-0.20**-0.09

4.88**
4,205
0.07

10.28**
5,204
0.18
0.11
29.17**

8.23**
4,387
0.07

51.12**
5,386
0.39
0.32
205.27**

2.97*
4,194
0.04

33.13**
5,193
0.45
0.40
144.96**

0.58**

0.36**

0.15*

0.58**

00.66**

Note. N ＝801; **p ＜0.01, *p ＜0.05, †p ＜0.1.

Figure 1. Cross-national differences in job satisfaction and job-related self-confidence. Both variables havescales that range from 1 to 5. The mean scores of the three countries are shown.

F

results(Japanese,

10.28;

Malaysians,

plained a higher percentage of the variance.

51.12; Thais, 33.13) ; b results (Japanese,

This cumulative evidence̶for not only the

0.36; Malaysians, 0.58; Thais, 0.66), andentire group of HCN participants but also for2

incremental R change compared with Model 1each of the three country subgroups̶sup-(Japanese, 0.11; Malaysians, 0.32; Thais,

ported the hypothesis. Figure 1 shows a0.40). As was the case for Model 2 with thecross- national comparison using job satisfac-

full group, Model 2 for the Japanese,tion and job- related self- confidence for the

Malaysian, and Thai HCN subgroups ex-

three countries. All of the aforementioned

14

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

evidence of not only the entire group of HCN

confidence on job satisfaction can be character-participants but also each of the three country

ized as universal rather than culturally contin-

subgroups supported the acceptance of thegent.

hypothesis.

5.2

５．Discussion

Theoretical implications
This study offers three theoretical impli-

cations. The first implication relates to the

5.1

cross- national generalizability of job satisfac-

Reviewing results and conclusions

tion discussed by Judge et al. (2001). As

This study provided three important

noted, the present study found a strong

findings. First, job satisfaction of HCNs

relationship between job- related self- confi-

differed among the three countries, in thedence and job satisfaction through dispositional

order (from lowest to highest score) of Japan,

approaches, assuming that self- confidence is

Malaysia, and Thailand. The difference in job

analogous with general self- efficacy. Thissatisfaction among those three countries wasstudy has led to the notion that the impact ofsignificant. Second, self-confidence in the job

job-related self-confidence on job satisfactionof HCNs also significantly differed among thecan be considered a universal phenomenon. In

three countries, in the order (from lowest to

this regard, the present study is thought tohighest score) of Japan, Malaysia, andhave importantly contributed to the cross-

Thailand. The order of country scores for self-

national generalizability of job satisfaction.

confidence was identical to that for job

Second, this study has supported thesatisfaction. Third, HCNsʼ self- confidence indispositional approach and model proposed by

the job significantly influenced their job

Judge et al. (1997) to explain cross- national

satisfaction when determined by the full groupjob satisfaction. Because the dispositionalof the HCN participants as well as for eachmodel of satisfaction includes self-efficacy andcountry subgroup. The results are largely

the factors of self-esteem, locus of control, andcongruent with the findings of meta-analysis

neuroticism, these other key factors might also

by Judge and Bono (2001) and those of cross-be a potential source to explain cross-national

national empirical research on U. S. partici-

job satisfaction. In fact, the study by Mueller

pants by Luthans et al. (2006). Based on the

et al. (2009) found a strong connection

findings, this study has concluded that regard-

between national positivity and positive affec-

less of country, an individualʼ s level of job

tivity as an individual disposition, supporting

satisfaction tends to be determined by his or

the dispositional approach and model of job

her self-confidence in the job. The study alsosatisfaction. Accordingly, one promising fu-

suggests that the influence of job-related self-

ture study is to examine such factors in relation15

to job satisfaction across countries.

to Hofstedeʼ s (1997, 2014) study, theThird, the present study focused on job-

Japanese have the highest score of individual-

related self-confidence as a predictor to explainism (46), followed by the Malaysians (26) andcross- national differences in job satisfaction

then the Thais (20). Yet, this studyʼs results

but did not explore why job- related self-

on self-confidence showed the opposite order,

confidence varies among countries. This

with the Japanese having the lowest self-

inquiry would be an important area for

confidence, followed by the Malaysians andsubsequent research in the domain of interna-

Thais. This empirical evidence calls fortional management. In fact, Schwarzer anddistinct explanations concerning what differs in

Born (1997) and Scholz et al. (2002) ad-

job-related self-confidence across countries.

dressed why the Japanese had the lowest self-

The process of developing self- efficacy

efficacy while the Costa Ricans had thebeliefs may provide a useful insight. Self-

highest. Scholz et al. (2002) argued that self-

confidence in the job is thought to be formed

efficacy may be evaluated higher in individual-

and developed through positive emotions whenistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures.

individuals consciously or unconsciously evalu-

Klassen (2004) also mentioned that some

ate their successful performance and achieve-

collectivistic groups like Asians exhibit a lower

ment. Bandura (1997) discussed enactive

level of self-efficacy, but that did not always

mastery experience as the most influential

translate into a lower level of performance.

source of efficacy information. In this respect,

Does a cultural dimension related to individual-

if some countries tend to allow more mistakes

ism and collectivism explain cross- nationalfrom individuals who perform difficult or

differences in self- confidence? Or, does achallenging tasks, these individuals may havegroup of individualist countries show a higher

more opportunities to have successful experi-

self-confidence level than a group of collectivist

ences, yielding higher self- confidence in the

countries? If a cross- national study of self-

job. Thus, such aspects of a countryʼs culture

confidence included Western or Anglo-Saxon

might relate to differing job-related self-confi-

countries like the United States and Asiandence across countries. However, this notion

countries like Japan, which are exemplars ofis speculative, and further investigation will be

individualist and collectivist countries, it may

necessary.

show a clear difference in self- confidence

5.3

between those two countries. However, based

Practical implications

on the present study, it is difficult to support

This study offers two practical implica-

the perspective that job- related self- confi-

tions. The first implication concerns how todence relates to the cultural dimension ofmanage cross- national job satisfaction ofindividualism versus collectivism. According

HCNs. Although MNCs pursue systematic

16

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

control and coordination in an effort to align thehire employees who exhibit a positive prefer-attitudes and behaviors of employees (Welch

ence for an assigned job, because lack of job& Welch, 2006), HR professionals should

satisfaction is an important predictor of absen-

recognize that HCNsʼ job satisfaction varies

teeism (Tharenou, 1993), sabotage (Chen &among countries and avoid drawing an immedi-

Spector, 1992), and counterproductive behav-

ate conclusion that a low level of job satisfactioniors (Gottfredson & Holland, 1990). Although

among HCNs of a particular country relates tothe level of job satisfaction is also contingent on

their working environment or job context.

situational factors and job characteristics

Rather, they need to identify how HCNs feel

(Judge et al., 2001), HR professionals should

confident in their job and then strive to manage

investigate how confident candidates feel in a

HCNs who show a low level of job-related self-

job in order to predict their job satisfaction.

confidence. One possible HR strategy to

However, for international candidates, HRenhance self-confidence is to provide learning

professionals would need to carefully interpretandthrough

results of the examination of self-confidence,

which HCNs can grow. Another possible

because job- related self- confidence differs

strategy involves the effective use of expatria-

among countries.

developmental

opportunities

tion, if possible and beneficial to the firm,

5.4

which tends to enhance skill development andLimitations

job satisfaction overseas (Yamazaki, 2010).

A major limitation of this study is that

For example, Japanese expatriates increased

two different Japanese MNCs were used forknowledge and skills during their expatriate

data collection. Although their business areas

experience compared with home Japanese

were relatively similar in sales and service

counterparts. Furthermore, their expatriate

markets, using a single Japanese MNC would

experiences also raised job satisfaction so thathave allowed for a better comparison between

it was similar to that of their Americancountries. Another limitation of the study

counterparts (Yamazaki, 2010). It is reason-concerns a job- related self- confidence scaleable to infer that Japanese expatriates mustthat is different from the general self-efficacy

have increased self- confidence. The knowl-scale used by the cross- cultural study byedge acquisition and skills development for

Luthans et al. (2006). The self- confidence

cross- cultural adaptation through expatriate

scale in this study that was developed for aexperiences would enhance job- related self-

focus on jobs in general might have had aconfidence.

unique result different from their study.

Second, the findings of this study can beapplied to a selection process in organizations.

References

HR professionals in any firm would prefer toAgho, A. O., Muller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993)17

“Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An

Processes, 95, 140-155.

empirical test of a causal model.” Human Relations,

Cropanzano, R., & James, K. (1990) “Some methodo-46(8), 1007-1027.

logical considerations for the behavioral genetic

Bandura, A. (1982) “Self- efficacy mechanism inanalysis of work attitudes.” Journal of Applied

human agency.” American Psychologist, 37 (2),Psychology, 75(4), 433-439.

122-147.

DeNisi, A. S., Toh, S. M., & Connelly, B. (2006)

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of“Building effective expatriate-host country nation-

control, New York: Freeman.

al relationships: The effects of human resources

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing acrosspractices, international strategy and mode ofborders: The transnational solution, Boston, MA:

entry.” in M. J. Morley, N. Neraty, & D. G. Collings

Hutchinson Business Books.

(eds.), International human resource management
and international assignments (pp. 114-134) .

Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2002) “Self-confidence andpersonal

motivation.”

Quarterly

JournalHampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

of

Dormann, H., & Zapf, D. (2001) “Job satisfaction: A

Economics, 117(3), 871-915.

meta-analysis

Blunt, P. (1973) “Cultural and situational determiSouth

Africa̶aresearchnote.”

Journalstabilities.”

JournalofDoz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. (1986) “Controlled variety:of

A challenge for human resource management inManagement Studies, 10(2), 133-140.

the MNC.” Human Resource Management, 25(1),Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951) “An index of

55-71.

job satisfaction.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 35

Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. (1995) “Seasickness as a self-(5), 307-311.

fulfilling prophecy: Arising self- efficacy to boost

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

Organizational Behavior, 22, 483-504.

nants of job satisfaction among management inhumanresource

performance at sea.” Journal of Applied Psychology,

management:

80, 628-635.

Policies and practices for multinational enterprises

Gerhart, B. (1987) “How important are dispositional(3rd ed.), London, UK: Routledge.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. (1973)

factors as determinants of job satisfaction?

Cross-cultural research methods, New York: John

Implications for job design and other personnel

Wiley and Sons.

programs.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3),366-373.

Clark, A. W., & McCabe, S. (1972) “The motivationandsatisfactionofAustralian

Gist, M. (1987) “Self-efficacy: Implications for

managers.”

organizational behavior and human resource

Personnel Psychology, 25(4), 625-638.

management.” Academy of Management Review,

Coovert, M., & Craiger, P. (2000) “An expert system

12, 472‒485.

for integrating multiple fit indices for structural
equation models.” New Review of Applied Expert

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976) “Motivation

Systems and Emerging Technologies, 6, 39-56.

through the design of work: Test of a theory.”

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

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
16, 250-279.

self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The
self-confidence.”

Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. F., & Porter, L. W. (1966)

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Managerial thinking: An international study, New

moderating

role

of

leader18

経営論集Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

York: Wiley.

review.” in N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinagil, &Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the nature of man,

C. Viswesvaran (eds.) , Handbook of industrial,

Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.

work

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959)&

organizational

psychology.

Vol.

2,

Organizational psychology (pp. 25-52) , London:Sage.

The motivation to work (2nd ed.) , New York:

Klassen, R. M. (2004) “Optimism and realism: A

Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and organizations:review of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural

Software of the mind, New York: McGraw-Hill.

perspective.” International Journal of Psychology,
39(3), 205-230.

Hofstede, G. (2014) Country comparison in cultural

Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B.

tools, Retrieved from http://geert-Hofstede.com/(1998) “Career self-management: A quasi-experi-countries.html. Accessed 26 August 2014.
Hollenbeck, G. P., & Hall, D.T. (2004) “Self-confi-

mental assessment of the effects of a training

dence and leader performance.” Organizational

intervention.” Personnel Psychology, 51 (4) , 935-

Dynamics, 33(3), 254-269.

962.
(2007)

Krant, A. I., & Ronen, S. (1975) “Validity of job facet“Constructive thought strategies and job satisfac-

importance: A multinational, multicriteria study.”tion: A preliminary examination.” Journal of

Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 671-677.

Houghton,

J.

D.,

&

Jinkerson,

D.

L.

Lincoln, J. R., Hanada, M., & Olson, J. (1981) “CulturalBusiness Psychology, 22(1), 45-53.
Huang, X., & Van de Vliert, E. (2004) “Job level andorientations and individual reactions to organiza-

national culture as joint roots of job satisfaction.”tions: A study of employees of Japanese-owned

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53

firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1),(3), 329-348.

93-115.
Lincoln, J. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1990) Culture,

Judge, T. A. (1992) “The dispositional perspectiveincontrol, and commitment: A study of work organi-

Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10,zation and work attitudes in the United States and

in

human

resources

research.”ResearchJapan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31-72.

Liu,

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001) “Relationship of

C.,

Borg,

I.,

&

Spector,P.

E.

(2004)

core self- evaluation traits̶self- esteem, general-“Measurement equivalence of the German job

ized self- efficacy, locus of control, and emotional

satisfaction survey used in a multinational organi-stability̶with job satisfaction and job perform-

zation: Implications of Schwartzʼ cultural model.”ance:

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1070-1082.

A

meta-analysis.”

JournalofAppliedLocke, E. A. (1976) “The nature and causes of job

Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997)

satisfaction.” in M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook“The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A coreof industrial and organizational psychology (pp.

evaluations approach.” in L. L. Cummings & B. M.

1297-1349), Chicago: Rand McNally.

Staw (eds.), Research in organizational behavior

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

(Vol. 19, pp. 151-188), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

(2005) “General self-efficacy in various domains ofJudge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., &human functioning: Evidence from five countries.”

Ilies, R. (2001) “Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural

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

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

London: Cambridge University Press.

“Positive psychological capitals: Beyond human

Scholz, U., Gutierrez-Dona, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer,

and social capital.” Business Horizon, 47(1), 45-50.

R. (2002) “Is general self-efficacy a universal

Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2006) “Theconstruct? Psychometric findings from 25 coun-

impact of efficacy on work attitudes acrosstries.”

European

Journalcultures.” Journal of World Business, 41(2), 121-

Assessment, 18, 242-251.

ofPsychological

Schwarzer, R., & Born, A. (1997) “Optimistic self-132.
Maurera, T. J. (2001) “Career-relevant learning andbeliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-

development, worker age, and beliefs about self-

efficacy in thirteen cultures.” World Psychology, 3

efficacy for development.” Journal of Management,(1-2), 177-190.
Slocum, J. W., Jr., & Topichak, P. M. (1972) “Do

27, 123-140.

cultural differences affect job satisfaction?” Journal

McCarty, P. (1986) “Effects of feedback on the self-of Applied Psychology, 56(2), 177-178.

confidence of men and women.” Academy ofSpector, P. E., & Wimalasiri, J. (1986) “A cross-Management Journal, 29(4), 840-847.
Mowday, R. T. (1979) “Leader characteristics, self-

cultural comparison of job satisfaction dimensions

confidence, and methods of upward influence inin the United States and Singapore.” Appliedorganizational decision situations.” Academy of

Psychology: An International Review, 35(2), 147-

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

158.

Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., & Hausmann, N. (2009) “An

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, L. (1998) “Social

investigation of cross-national differences in posi-

cognitive theory and self- efficacy: Going beyond

tivity and job satisfaction.” Journal of Occupational

traditionaland Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 551-573.

proaches.” Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 62-74.

Packer, E. (1985) “Understanding the subconscious.”

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985) “Stability in the midst of

motivational

andbehavioral

ap-change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes.”The Objectivist Forum, 6(1), 1-10.
Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2009) “What are theJournal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 469-480.

reasons for differences in job satisfaction across

Stumph, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987)

Europe? Individual, compositional, and institution-“Self-efficacy expectations and coping with ca-

al explanations.” European Sociological Review, 25

reer-related(5), 535-549.

Behavior, 31, 91-108.

events.”JournalofVocational

Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, L. A.

Swan, J. F., & Futrell, C. M. (1990) “Does clear(1999) “Employee attitude surveys in a multina-

communication relate to job satisfaction and self-

tional organization: Considering language andconfidence

culture in assessing measurement equivalence.”

Business Communication, 15(4), 40-52.

amongsalespeople?”

Journalof

Watson, D., & Slack, A. K. (1993) “General factors of

Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 37-58.
Sanches-Runde, C., Lee, S. M., & Steers, R. M. (2009)

affective temperament and their relation to job“Cultural drivers of work behavior: Personal

satisfaction over time.” Organizational Behavior

values, motivation, and job attitudes.” in R. S.

and Human Decision Processes, 54, 181-202.

Bhagat & R. M. Steers (eds.), Cambridge handbook

Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2006) “Commitment forof culture, organizations, and work (pp. 305-333),

hire? The viability of corporate culture as a MNC

20

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2(2016) pp.1-21

controlmechanism.”International

Business

Review, 15(1), 14-28.
Wiggins, J. D., & Moody, A. (1983) “Identifying
effective counselors through client-supervisor
ratings and personality-environment variables.”Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 31, 259-269.
Yamazaki, Y. (2010) “Expatriate adaptation: A fit
between skills and demands among Japanese
expatriates in USA.” Management International
Review, 50(1), 81-108.
Yamazaki, Y. (2014) “Using a competency approachto understand host country national managers in
Asia.” International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25(1), 2103-2128.

21

Journal of Public and Private Management
Vol.2, No.2, March 2016, pp.1-21
ISSN 2189-2490

The impact of job-related self-confidence on job satisfaction
among host country nationals of Japan, Malaysia, andThailand: A dispositional approach1）
Yoshitaka Yamazaki
Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
yyama@shonan.bunkyo.ac.jp
Recieved 24 October 2015

Abstract

This study examined how job satisfaction relates to self-confidence in the job in Asia through adispositional approach to job satisfaction. A total of 801 host country nationals from two Japanesemultinational corporations participated in this study, including 210 Japanese, 392 Malaysians, and 199
Thais. Initially, analysis of variance results indicated that both work satisfaction and job-related
self-confidence significantly differed among those three countries. The Japanese scored lowest in bothvariables, followed by the Malaysians and Thais. Results of regression analysis illustrated that
job-related self-confidence significantly affected job satisfaction not only in the whole group of the hostcountry nationals but also in the subgroups for each of the three Asian countries. Based on the findings,
this study supports a view that regardless of country, job satisfaction tends to be influenced by an
employeeʼs self-confidence in the job. Accordingly, it is thought that the generalizability of the job
satisfaction construct across countries has been strengthened by this study, which used a dispositional
approach to job satisfaction. Theoretical as well as practical implications are discussed.
Keyword：Job satisfaction, self-confidence in job, dispositional approaches, host country nationals,
Asia, Japanese multinationals
1)

Note: An early version of this paper was presented at the 15th Hawaii International Conference on
Business, October 2015.

Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
1100 Namegaya, Chigasaki, Kanagawa 253-8550, JAPANTel +81-467-53-2111, Fax +81-467-54-3734
http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

経営論集

Vol.2, No.2

ISSN 2189-2490
2016年３月28日発行
発行者

文教大学経営学部

坪井順一

編集

文教大学経営学部

研究推進委員会

編集長

鈴木誠〒253-8550 神奈川県茅ヶ崎市行谷1100
TEL：0467-53-2111

FAX：0467-54-3734

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