Diversity in the Asian Workplace1
A Comparative Case Study of Chinese and Taiwanese Managers’ Perception ofJapanese Companies
Yasuyuki Kishi
ABSTRACTThis study focuses on workplace satisfaction of Japanese companies in Taiwan and China, each ofwhich plays an important role for economic activities in East Asia today. This paper discusses andreveals what their workplace satisfaction looks like and what kind of factors have an affect on
workplace satisfaction respectively, by analyzing quantitative data. This study shows that workplacesatisfaction is quite different between Taiwanese managers and Chinese managers. Among
Taiwanese managers, they have relatively high workplace satisfaction. On the other hand, among
Chinese managers, they are not satisfied with their present workplace when compared to Taiwanesemanagers.
In this study, Taiwanese managers who think that Japanese companies’ future is bright and promisinghave relatively high workplace satisfaction. However, for Chinese managers it is important whether
they are trusted by Japanese or not. So, this paper found that workplace satisfaction for Taiwanesemanagers in Japanese companies is affected by how positively they judge the companies’ future. On
the other hand, the workplace satisfaction of Chinese managers depends on whether they feel trusted
by Japanese expatriates or not.

Keywords: Japanese companies, workplace satisfaction, Chinese managers, Taiwanese managers,
trust, future prospects

Yasuyuki Kishi is a PhD candidate in International Relations at Waseda University. He received his
B.A. (2002) and M.A. (2004) in Sociology from Chuo University in Tokyo. He is currently
working as a research associate at the institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at Waseda University. He wasalso an honorary research associate at the University of Hong Kong from Jan. 2006 to Jan. 2007.
During the summer in 2007 for one month, he was a visiting scholar at Academia Sinica in Taiwan.
His research interests are on long employed local managers working in Japanese companies in East
Asia in terms of sociological perspectives.

This paper is written for “International Joint Symposium” on February 20th to 21st.
Please note that this is a rough draft and please do not quate without the author’s
permission.
1257

1． Introduction
In recent years the Chinese economy has been getting dramatically bigger and bigger. One of themain reasons is Foreign Direct Investment to China from foreign companies. Japanese companies in
China have been increasing from 68 companies in 1986 to 2422 in 2006. It has resulted in an
increase of 40 times over these past 20 years.

Japanese companies originally started to go out to Asia, driven by the sharp appreciation of the yen,since the Plaza Accord in 1985 with the Nixon shock in 1971. In order to correspond to thissituation, Japanese companies shifted their manufacturing to Asia. In a sense, globalization of theJapanese economy can be called “Asianization.”

Generally speaking, globalization is seen as a kind of device which promotes inequality in the world,in terms of a micro perspective (Cohen & Kennedy 2000=2003). On the other hand, seen frommicro perspective, globalization is also regarded as something which produces cross-culturalcommunication in everyday life. Inside Japanese companies in Asia, there are a lot of cultural
conflicts driven by different ways of management style or different cultures between Japanese
expatriates and local employees (Sonoda, 2001). Expanding Japanese companies’ business overseas
produces so many opportunities for cross-interaction with local employees for Japanese businessmen. In a sense, inside Japanese companies in Asia, Japanese business men’s working with local
employees is a kind of international collaboration. It would not be an exaggeration to say thatpeople who have different backgrounds collaborate for “international cooperation” in the broad
sense of the term. In many cases, “international cooperation” is associated with Official
Development Assistant (ODA)2, which is economical or physical support of nation state level froma developed country to developing countries. However, “international cooperation” does not only
mean assistance for developing countries. Today, people have many chances to go beyond
boundaries and collaborate with people who have different backgrounds. Under this situation it also
must be “international cooperation” between Asia and Japan to think how to solve daily life cultural
frictions and how to create mutual understanding for global business. Of course it is not based on anation state level but it is based on economic activities. It is international cooperation throughmutual interaction of people rather than macro nation state support. It will pull the trigger to discuss
East Asian integration which is based on interaction of people who support economic activities, bydiscussing “international cooperation”.

2

for more information; please refer to www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/index.html
258

2.

Proposed problem

Expansion of Japanese companies in Asia promoted “international cooperation” in the space ofJapanese companies. In the space of Japanese companies, there are continuous interactions between
Japanese expatriates and local employees, resulting in local employees reconstructing their image of
not only Japanese people, but also Japanese companies or even Japan itself. Therefore, this paper
sheds light on local managers. They have many opportunities to not only observe, but also
communicate directly with Japanese expatriates. By analyzing quantitative data, this paper seeks todiscover how they think of Japanese companies and what their workplace satisfaction is like. This
paper reviews workplace satisfaction of Taiwanese and Chinese managers in Japanese companies.
By comparing Taiwanese managers and Chinese managers’ workplace satisfaction, this paper
figures out what kinds of factors have an affect on workplace satisfaction. Then finally eachmanager’s characteristics are explored. It is very important to focus on Taiwanese managers andChinese managers, because Taiwanese managers’ workplace satisfaction is quite high, but Chinese
managers’ workplace satisfaction is relatively low. Therefore, comparing Taiwanese managers to
Chinese managers provides keen perspectives for East Asian integration. Moreover it will be a very
important indicator for better relationships between Japan and East Asia in the coming decades.
３． Survey outline
This paper uses data from the questionnaire titled, “Questionnaire for Local Employees in JapaneseCompanies,” conducted by Professor Sonoda at Waseda University in Tokyo. This survey focuseson mainly large-scale Automobile companies, but also on manufacturing companies in Asia. Thissurvey covers 4 countries and 1 region, including 23 overseas subsidiary companies. The total
sample size is 3639.3 The following Table 1 displays information regarding the survey sample.

Table 1
Sample size(# of managers)

3# of companies

China

530(274)

5

Taiwan595(165)

4

Thailand1244(659)

7

Indonesia678(357)

4

Malaysia592(325)

3This figure includes both white collar employees and blue collar employees.
259

In this paper, the workplace satisfaction of 4 countries and 1 region are explored. Then after that,
Taiwanese managers and Chinese managers are focused on and discussed mainly.
４．Previous studies about Japanese companies in Asia
Many studies regarding Japanese companies in Asia have been widely done in the many fields suchas business study, economics, sociology, anthropology, and so on. It is possible to classify thosestudies into five groups. One is studies based on a historical institutional approach. These kinds ofstudies focus on how Japanese management systems went beyond to Asia and how Japanesemanagement style changed over a time span (Kobayashi, 2000, Suzuki, 1998). The second approachis called a HRM approach. Those studies mainly focus on how to train employees or how to utilize
human resources inside Japanese companies in Asia (Shiraki, 2005, Chou, 2002). Divided from a
HRM approach, there is an approach called a localization approach (Furuta, 2004, Ma, 2000).
These studies regard how Japanese expatriates evaluate local employees and their working attitudes,
or how local employees see Japanese expatriates and Japanese management practices (Imada &Sonoda, 1996, Sonoda, 2001, Wong, 1999). Finally, there are studies about inter-culturalcommunications inside Japanese companies in Asia. This approach is initially called aninter-cultural approach (Nishida, 2007, Kataoka & Mishima, 1997).

First, this paper grasps the whole picture of the evaluation of Japanese companies in China, Taiwan,
Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. After that, Taiwanese managers and Chinese managers are pickedup for further deeper analysis in terms of a sociological comparative study. It is possible to findsome studies regarding local managers in previous literature. However, it is not so easy to find acomparative study that goes beyond countries or regions. This study picks up Taiwan as one of themost pro-Japan regions and China as a relatively anti-Japan country. Therefore, this study compares
Taiwanese managers and Chinese managers’ satisfaction of workplaces in Japanese companies. In
this way, this study is significant and meaningful.
５．Workplace Satisfaction：WholeFirst of all, workplace satisfaction for 4 countries and 1 region is explored. In order to measure it,ten questions related to workplace satisfaction are picked up. These ten questions are listed in detailbelow.


Amount of salaryPaid holidays

260



Fringe benefitsPossibility of promotion

Stability of employment

Fair evaluation of personnel

Peaceful labor relations



Speed of rise of salaryCapacity of Japanese expatriates

Attitude of your supervisor

Above each question are listed 4 choices: “Very Satisfied”, “Somewhat Satisfied”, “Somewhat
Dissatisfied”, and “Very Dissatisfied.” Average scores of those ten questions are calculated for every
countries and a region, to create an indicator for measurement of workplace satisfaction. The lower
the average score means the higher the satisfaction. On contrary, a higher average score implies
lower satisfaction.
Chart 1: Satisfaction scores for workplaces4（1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied

4. Very Dissatisfied）

3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
China

TaiwanThailand

Malaysia

Indonesia（ANOVA：F＝67.991, **p<0.00）
Chart 1 shows workplace satisfaction in 4 countries and 1 region. Taiwan gets the highest score
which is 2.18848, and China gets the lowest score which is 2.51809. However, the score difference
between Taiwan and China is only 0.329612, and not so large. The average scores of Taiwan and
Score is calculated in ascending number. e.g. 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3.
Somewhat Dissatisfied, 4. Very Dissatisfied
4261

Thailand are closer to point 2, “Somewhat Satisfied,” while China, Malaysia and Indonesia’s averagescores are closer to 3, “Somewhat Dissatisfied.” Judging from those results, local employees of
Taiwan and Thailand have a similar pattern, and have relatively high workplace satisfaction. On theother hand, local employees of China, Malaysia, and Indonesia do not have high workplacesatisfaction compared to Taiwan and Thailand.

Workplace satisfaction which is shown in Chart 1 is based on the average score of 10 questions
which construct a workplace satisfaction indicator. However, it is easy to assume that workplacesatisfaction will be affected by one’s status. So, local employees are divided into two groups: one isthose who are managers, and another of those who are non-managers. Chart 2 then shows managers’
workplace satisfaction and non-managers workplace satisfaction. Interestingly, the group of low
workplace satisfaction countries shown in Chart 1, China, Malaysia and Indonesia, have nosignificant difference between the workplace satisfaction of managers and non-managers. However,
the group of high workplace satisfaction countries, Taiwan and Thailand, possess significant
differences between managers and non-managers’ workplace satisfaction. Both in Taiwan and
Thailand, managers’ workplace satisfaction is relatively high and non-managers’ workplace issignificantly low.

Chart 2: Satisfaction scores for workplace: Manager / Non-Manager

2.6

No significance

2.5
2.4

Significance

2.3
2.2
2.1
2
China

TaiwanThailandnon-manager

Malaysia

managerIndonesia
whole（ANOVA Taiwan：**p<.006（Ｆ=7.608）, China：p>.868（Ｆ=.028）no significance）

262

6. Characteristics of Managers’ workplace satisfaction
Chart 2 shows that in Taiwan, workplace satisfaction is relatively high but average scores of
workplace satisfaction are significantly different between managers and non-managers. On the other
hand in China, workplace satisfaction is relatively low but average scores of workplace satisfaction
have no significant difference. Characteristics of each of the ten items which construct the workplace
indicator are explored here.

Chart 3 shows analysis results of each item which constructs the workplace satisfaction indicator ofmanagers. Judging from Chart 3, there is no significant difference among “Fair evaluation
personnel,” “Capacity of Japanese expatriates,” and “Attitude your supervisor” between managers in
Taiwan and China. However, except for those three items there are significant differences between
Taiwanese and Chinese managers. Regarding the rest of the items, Taiwanese managers answered
more positively than their Chinese counterparts.

Chart 3: Characteristics of satisfaction for ten variables: “Managers”
No significance“money” issues

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

China

Attitude of
yoursupervisor

Capacity ofJapanese
expatriates

Speed ofrise ofsalaryPeacefullaborrelationsFairevaluationof personnel

Stability of
employment

Possibilityof promotion

Fringebenefits

Paid
holidays

Amount ofsalary1

Taiwan7. Determinants for workplace satisfaction: “future oriented” of Taiwanese managers and“trust oriented” of Chinese managers
Characteristics of the ten items which construct the workplace satisfaction indicator have just seen
above. In each item, Taiwanese managers’ satisfaction is relatively high, and also higher than263

Chinese managers’ satisfaction. Especially among Chinese managers, regarding two items relatedmoney issues such as “Amount of salary” and “Speed of rise of salary,” their satisfaction of those
two items is much lower than other items.

Then, what kind of items will determine the discussed work place satisfaction? By using
regression analysis, determinants of workplace satisfaction are explored here. Four main factors
including twelve items which might affect workplace satisfaction are picked up, and listed below.










Basic Attribute:


Age



Gender

Marital status



Length of working

Language Proficiency:English proficiency

Japanese proficiency

Relation with Japanese:How often do you talk with the Japanese in your company?

I am trusted by Japanese expatriates in this company

Future Prospects:Experience in this company will be useful for my future careerI can expect that this company will develop

Meritocracy-based localization

It is difficult for local employees to be a president in Japanese company



It is necessary to advocate meritocracy to promote talented local employees

Those twelve items are independent variables and scores of workplace satisfaction are dependent
variables. By using those independent and dependent variables, regression analysis has been
conducted and factors affecting on workplace satisfaction are explored.

Both in Taiwanese and Chinese managers, basic attributes such as age, gender, length of working,marital status, Japanese and English proficiency, and talking opportunities with Japanese havenothing to do with each manager’s workplace satisfaction. Then, which items affect each manager’s
workplace satisfaction?

264

Table 2 shows that items which affect workplace satisfaction.

Table 2 Determinants for workplace satisfaction ：Regression
China

TaiwanGender

-.032

-.029

Marital Status

.020

-.100

Age

-.067

-.104

Length of Working

.142

-.001

English Language Ability

-.030

.041

Japanese Language Ability

-.058

.052

How often do you talk with JPN in your company

-.159

-.156

I am trusted by JPN expatriates.504**.133

Experience in this company will be useful for my future career.113.336**

I can expect that this company will develop.070.400**

It is difficult for local employees to be a president in Japanese company-.231*-.080

It is necessary to advocate meritocracy to promote talented local employees-.004-.242*

multiple correlation coefficient （R²）.399**.506*** p<.05 ** p<.01

Among Chinese managers, being trusted by Japanese affects their workplace satisfaction. In addition,
the question of “It is difficult for local employees to be a president in Japanese company” also
affects satisfaction. The more Chinese managers think that I am trusted by Japanese, the more
workplace satisfaction rises. Also, the more Chinese managers think that it is difficult for local
employees to be a president in Japanese company, the less workplace satisfaction they feel. For
Chinese managers, both trust issues and localization issues affect their workplace satisfaction.
Localization issues can be regarded as post transfer, and it is the same as trust issues. In this sense
for Chinese managers, personal trust formation between Japanese expatriates and local managers
strongly affects workplace satisfaction. Judging from the low satisfaction of Chinese managers, it iseasy to assume that Chinese managers feel that way because they feel that they are not trusted by
Japanese.
For Taiwanese managers, on the other hand, the question of “I can expect that this company willdevelop” has an affect on workplace satisfaction. The more Taiwanese managers think that theircompany will develop, the higher the workplace satisfaction they possess. Also, the question of“Experience in this company will be useful for my future career” affects satisfaction. The more that
Taiwanese managers think that “Experience in this company will be useful for my future career,” the265higher the workplace satisfaction. As well, Taiwanese managers who negatively answered thequestion, “It is necessary to advocate meritocracy to promote talented local employees,” have higher
workplace satisfaction. For Taiwanese managers, they are different from Chinese managers in thatthey are quite future oriented. Those people who are “future oriented” have high workplacesatisfaction among Taiwanese managers. Moreover among Taiwanese managers, the more they havea negative evaluation for meritocracy, the higher their workplace satisfaction. Thus it can beconcluded that those people who are “future oriented” and “less meritocracy oriented” support
present workplace conditions in Japanese companies in Taiwan.

8. Workplace satisfaction and company preferenceThis study has so far explored that Taiwanese managers’ workplace satisfaction was relatively highand Chinese managers’ satisfaction was low. From the results of the regression, Taiwanese managers
who were “future oriented” had high workplace satisfaction. On the other hand for Chinese
managers, if they felt that they were trusted by Japanese, their workplace satisfaction was higher.

Next, the relationship between workplace satisfaction and company choice is explored. How does
work satisfaction affect one’s preference in company decision, especially between Japanese andEuro-American companies? The question is “If condition is the same, which do you prefer to work?”

The following three answers are prepared.

1. If the condition is the same, I prefer Euro-American company
2. If the condition is the same, I prefer Japanese company
3. If the condition is the same, both are acceptable
The above three choices and five scales 5 made from a score of workplace satisfaction such as“Upper group,” “Upper middle group,” “Middle group,” “Lower middle group,” and “Lower group”
are analyzed by correspondence analysis.

The following chart displays the results of the correspondence analysis.

Five scales were constructed in accordance with the percentages of each group. Eachgroup was equally balanced.
5266

q6 For which do you prefer towork, Euro-American company
or Japanese company?
Workplace satisfaction 5 scale

Chart 4: Taiwan

1.0

Dimension 2 0.5
both are acceptable
Lower
Upper middle

Upper
0.0

MiddleI prefer Japanese co-0.5

I prefer Euro-Americ

Lower middle
-1.0
-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0.0

Dimension 1

267

0.3

0.6

0.9

q6 For which do you prefer
to work, Euro-Americancompany or Japanesecompany?
Workplace satisfaction 5
scale

Dimension 2

Chart 5: China

0.6
Lower middle
0.3

both are acceptable
Middle0.0

I prefer Euro-Americ

Upper middle
Lower

-0.3

Upper

I prefer Japanese co
-0.6

-0.6

-0.3

0.0

0.3

0.6

Dimension 1

Both for Taiwanese and Chinese managers, those who are in an upper group (high workplacesatisfaction group) prefer to work for Japanese companies, but on the other hand, those who are in alower group (low workplace satisfaction group) prefer to work for Euro-American companies. In
addition, those who are in a middle group, upper middle group, or lower middle group have nopreference and accept both of them. There is no special difference between Taiwanese managers andChinese managers regarding company choice of either Japanese companies or Euro-Americancompanies. It becomes obvious that those who have high workplace satisfaction choose Japanesecompanies and those who have lower workplace satisfaction choose Euro-American companies
9. Diversity in the East Asian workplace
This study focused on workplace satisfaction of Taiwanese and Chinese managers working inJapanese companies. At first glance, people seem to think East Asia is all similar. However, it has

268been proven that managers’ evaluation for workplace satisfaction is so diverse between Taiwaneseand Chinese managers. There are a full variety of differences in satisfaction in Japanese companies
in East Asia. Taiwanese managers are relatively satisfied with the present workplace. However,
Chinese managers’ satisfaction is not as high as the Taiwanese. This study revealed that Taiwanesemanagers’ workplace satisfaction was affected by perceived future prospects of Japanese companies.
On the other hand for Chinese managers, workplace satisfaction was affected by whether they felt
they were trusted by Japanese or not.

Even though it seems that Japanese companies in East Asia are similar at first glance, local
employees’ perceptions of Japanese companies are different by country and region. Local
employees’ perceptions partly depend on the relationship between Japanese expatriates and local
employees. That is why Japanese companies and expatriates should pay serious attention to the local
situation. That will definitely lead to the workplace satisfaction of local managers. Analysis in thisstudy also found that workplace satisfaction is directly connected to company preference. Thus it isalways very important to pay attention to workplace satisfaction of local employees.

This study implies that in Taiwan it will be very important to explain the future vision of thecompany, as well as clearly tell local employees their individual career paths after they enter thecompany. On the other hand in China, “trust” from Japanese expatriates is extremely important andit will be essential to create good human relationships between them and local managers. Of course
to construct trust, it will be necessary to promote post transfer. In other words, it is very important topromote human resource localization. Otherwise, Chinese managers will keep thinking that they are
not trusted by Japanese, and it will be difficult to elevate their workplace satisfaction.

Local managers whom this study focused on support present Japanese companies in East Asia. Now
it will be very important to pay attention to their voices and discuss the future visions of Japanesecompanies. This kind of discussion has the possibility of accommodating real international
cooperation, in terms of economic activities between Japan and East Asia. Shifting from bilateral tomultilateral cooperation, with multinational enterprises as an economic actor, improved inter-cultural
collaboration is possible within East Asia. Therefore promoted by expanding Japanese businesses
overseas, the possibility of East Asian integration is further aspired towards.

269

REFERENCES
Cohen, Robbin & Kennedy, Paul, Global Sociology, New York University Press, 2000
Furuta,Akitarou,

Chugokuniokeru

NIkkeikigyou

noKeieigenchika(LocalizationofJapanesecompnaies in China), Zeimukeirikyoukai, 2004
Hideo, Kobayashi, Nihonkigyou no Ajiatenkai (Japanese companies on abroad), Nihon keizai
hyouron sha, 2000
Ktaoka, Nobuyuki & Mishima, Rinpachi, Ajia Nikkei kigyou ni okeru ibunka komyunikeshon(Inter-cultural Communicataion in Japanese Companies in Asia), Bunshindou, 1997
Ma, Seisan, Chugoku Shinsitsu kigyou no Roudou mondai (Problems of Workplace in JapaneseCompanies in China), JETRO, 2000
Nishida, Hiroko, Beikoku, Chugoku shinsitsu Nikkei kigyou niokeru ibunka komyunikeshon masatsu(Inter-cultural communication conflict in Japanese companies in America and China) ,Kazamashobou, 2007
Shiraki, Mitsuhide, An Analysis of International Human Resource Management, Yuhikaku, 2006
Sonoda, Shigeto, Asiabound of Japanese Company, yuhikaku, 2001
Sonoda, Shigeto & Imada, Takatoshi, Ajia karano Shisen (Perception from Asia), Tokyo University
Press, 1995
Suzuki, Shigeru, Ajia niokeru Nikkei kigyou no keiei (Management of Japanese Companies in Asia),
Zeimukeiri kyoukai, 2000
Wong Heung Wah, Japanese Bosses, Chinese Workers, Curzon Press, 1999
Zhao, Xiaoxia, Chugoku niokeru nikke ikigyou no jintekisigenkanri nitsuiteno bunseki (Human
Resources Management in Japanese companies in China) Hakutou shobou, 2002

270