Evolving Perceptions of Japanese Workplace Motivation: An Employee-Manager Comparison

http://ccm.sagepub.com/Cultural Management

International Journal of Cross

http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/5/1/87The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1470595805050829

2005 5: 87International Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementRichard W. Brislin, Brent MacNab, Reginald Worthley, Florencio Kabigting, Jr and Bob Zukis

ComparisonEvolving Perceptions of Japanese Workplace Motivation: An Employee-Manager

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

at: can be foundInternational Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/5/1/87.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 10, 2005Version of Record >>

at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on June 7, 2014ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on June 7, 2014ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ccm.sagepub.com/

http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/5/1/87

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/5/1/87.refs.html

http://ccm.sagepub.com/content/5/1/87.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Evolving Perceptions of JapaneseWorkplace MotivationAn Employee–Manager Comparison

ABSTRACT This research effort specifically examines perceptions of workplace motivation inJapan between employees and managers while highlighting results that are somewhat counter-intuitive to the traditional western perception of Japanese ethnography. Specifically, we find someevidence for a potentially shifting movement toward a self-orientation with more emphasis onlifetime employability over lifetime employment. During a period when incremental efficiencies arearguably more important than ever for the Japanese economy, practitioners therein stand tomaintain the highest level of productivity by better understanding exactly how workforcemotivation is currently evolving rather than relying on potentially dated assumptions. Specificallythis effort advances cross cultural management studies by blending insight from past Americanresearch and theory with current research on Japan – which allows the additional benefit ofcomparing traditional Japanese cultural platforms to potentially more modern, dynamic realities.In partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Human Resource Solutions, a survey wasundertaken in the metropolitan Tokyo area that examined motivation of the Japanese workerusing the two-factor Herzberg model, which seems to be valid in Japan. The study indicates thatthere has been a movement from a more traditional, collective/company orientation toward moreself-orientation. The study also demonstrates that Japanese managers seem to have an acceptableunderstanding of what motivates employees but that there is still room for improvement.

KEY WORDS • extrinsic • Herzberg • intrinsic • Japan • lifetime employability • lifetimeemployment • motivation • workplace

Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publicationswww.sagepublications.com

DOI: 10.1177/1470595805050829

CCM International Journal of

Cross CulturalManagement2005 Vol 5(1): 87–104

Richard W. BrislinUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii

Brent MacNabUniversity of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Reginald WorthleyUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii

Florencio Kabigting JrPricewaterhouseCoopers, Tokyo, Japan

Bob ZukisPricewaterhouseCoopers, Tokyo, Japan

at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on June 7, 2014ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


In management research, motivation hasspecifically been defined as inputs that initi-ate, direct and maintain movement towarddesired work behaviors (Campbell andPritchard, 1976; Pinder, 1998). Motivation isrecognized as the driver for arousal, direction,magnitude and maintenance of the effort in a person’s (or group’s) job (Katzell andThompson, 1990) and is dependent on con-textual elements (e.g. occupational socializa-tion) combined with elements such as culturaland individual tendencies. In this manner, itcan also be defined as the willingness to exerthigh levels of effort to reach organizationalgoals, moderated by the ability to satisfy someindividual (or group) needs.

Specific to this current effort, motivationis also cited as one particular area in Japan-ese management literature that is in need ofmore research (Godkin et al., 1996). Ourresearch effort sets out to examine motiva-tional perceptions between Japanese man-agers and employees as a platform for alsodiscussing potential shifts in Japan that mightinfluence both culture and workplace moti-vation.

Culture and Motivation

A cultural system can be defined as peoplesharing similar beliefs, customs, norms and‘mental programming’ (Brislin et al., 1973;Hofstede, 2002). Triandis (1977) emphasizesa subjective context to culture by which hemeans people’s response to the ‘man-madepart of the environment, or to a group’scharacteristic way of perceiving its socialenvironment’ (p. 423). Most definitions aboutculture emphasize human-made elementsthat are shared through communication,which increase the probability for survivalresulting in greater satisfaction for those inthe community (Brislin, 1981).

Although some basic structures of moti-vation may be universal (Triandis, 1994), the fact that culture has been linked to moti-vation is well established (e.g. Aycan, 2001;

Schwalb, 1992; Super and Sverko, 1995; Yuand Yang, 1994). It is this basic link thatmakes a cultural understanding of the subjectcontext (i.e. national level, regional level)important to motivation research. Practically,transnational organizations attempting togain the highest level of workforce motiva-tion must understand what motivates their multi-cultural workforce and allow foradjustment of organizational approach. Forexample, what motivates a workforce in NewYork cannot be assumed to apply with equaleffectiveness in Tokyo. Scientifically, there isa need for non-US motivation research andexamination of motivation theory outside theUSA context (Aguinis and Henle, 2003).

Although there is a need for more specificworkplace motivation research in Japan andother non-US contexts, a useful body of liter-ature for cross cultural motivation research isavailable. One salient feature from this body of work is that culture is one of severalimportant components influencing work-place motivation (Markus and Kitayama,1991; Munro et al., 1997). Furnham et al.(1994), in a 12,000-participant study of 41countries, examined elements of both intrin-sic and extrinsic (see the following section)motivation and found both culture and stageof economic development to be significant.These findings have also been supported by awide range of additional studies within avariety of both cultural and economic con-texts (Baum et al., 1993; D’Iribarne, 2002;Erez and Somech, 1996; Hofstede, 1984).

Further cementing the dialectic relationbetween culture and motivation, models forthe development and study of cross culturalmotivational research are available (Erez,1997; Erez and Early, 1993). Osteraker(1999) develops a trichotomous model (‘thedynamic triangle of motivation’) withinwhich culture is a foundational elementdynamically relating to both organizationalculture and individual tendencies in shapingan individual or group’s perspective onaspects of motivation. The model is devel-

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 5(1)88



oped with an inherent hierarchy of influence– with culture being in a prominent positionof influence. Kanfer (1992) specifically iden-tifies three areas within which motivationtheory can be organized: personality based,decision choice and goal/self-regulation. The personality-based area is strongly anddirectly related to culture because of the cul-ture–values–personality relation (Hofstede,1997). It is in this perspective that the currenteffort specifically examines the cultural context within motivation research for adefined culture. We contend that motivationresearch has advanced to a state whereexamining the phenomena in relation to spe-cific contextual aspects is most meaningful.

Management must understand the cul-ture and psychology of their workforce if theyare to implement the most effective motiva-tional strategy. For example, if one is manag-ing a workforce that greatly values ‘quality oflife’ aspects such as leisure time and time withfamily, attempting to increase motivationthrough increased pay might actually back-fire. One of the authors of the present articleworked for an organization that attempted to implement a pay-to-motivation policy inwhat is normally considered a high ‘quality of life’ national context (e.g. resemblingHofstede’s ‘femininity’ dimension). It moti-vated some workers to decrease hoursworked – they were able to make about thesame amount of money and work a few hoursless each month, allowing more time forother activities. A poor motivation strategy toculture match has the real risk of actuallyreducing overall motivation, leading tobehavior that can decrease productivity.

Herzberg’s Intrinsic andExtrinsic Factors

Organizational researchers have, in definingwork, tended to focus on determinants inter-nal to the individual, such as values (Dubin,1956; Roberson, 1990) or on external para-meters of the particular job, such as social

interaction (Hackman and Oldham, 1980;Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). More tra-ditionally, Herzberg’s motivation–hygienetheory explained that intrinsic factors arerelated to job satisfaction and motivation,whereas extrinsic elements are linked to job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959).Hygiene factors are elements that help elimi-nate job dissatisfaction (extrinsic elements)and motivators increase job satisfaction(intrinsic elements). Herzberg’s argument is that only intrinsic factors (e.g. challenge ofthe work, personal growth, importance ofcontribution) can actually create high levelsof motivation. Inasmuch, extrinsic factors(e.g. the working condition, compensation,company image) do not actually motivateemployees; however, not paying attention to these elements may lead to sub-optimaldevotion to one’s work (Park et al., 1988). Itis also important to keep in mind that therecan be an overlapping relation in these cate-gorizations, as observed by Wiley (1997).Compensation is normally considered anextrinsic factor. However, types of com-pensation (e.g. pay increase, bonuses), whenadministered properly, can also produce asense of employee accomplishment, creatingthe intrinsic effect of showing appreciationfor a job well done.

This two-factor motivational researchapproach is also supported by other scholars(Lawler, 1994; Rainey, 1997; Sipos, 1988;Utley et al., 1997), while others have arguedthat certain predictions of motivation basedon this model can pose empirical challenges(Wiley, 1997; Maidani, 1991). Such criticismtends to center on the clarity of a two-factormodel (extrinsic and intrinsic) and how wellsuch a model will hold in a variety of contexts.Need for salary, recognition and responsibili-ty have been shown to potentially exist as adual extrinsic and intrinsic concept. How-ever, our research seems to refute such criticism, demonstrating a strong adherenceto the extrinsic–intrinsic delineation. Ourresearch also adds to the theory, and to cross

Brislin et al.: Evolving Perceptions of Japanese Workplace Motivation 89



cultural management, by providing an im-portant context beyond the American setting.In particular, we aim at testing the generaliz-ability of the two-factor model in Japan.

Our specific research questions and theirrationale are discussed as follows.

1 Does Herzberg’s motivation theory contribute to

understanding of motivation in another culture:

the 21st-century Japanese work context? TheHerzberg two-factor motivation modelhas been used to examine the theory’sstructure and meaning in other cultures.Hines (1973) examined it in NewZealand while Park and colleagues(1988) specifically tested and supportedits validity in Korea. Huang and Van deVliert (2003) used the extrinsic/intrinsicstructure to examine the influence ofboth culture and socio-economic influ-ence on worker motivation. In this study,we attempt to test the two-factor modelin Japan, which has not been studied inthe literature.

2 Do Japanese managers understand what

motivates their employees? It is generallyviewed positively if managementunderstands what motivates theirworkers (motivators/intrinsic factors) aswell as what elements can eliminate jobdissatisfaction (hygiene/extrinsic factors).By better understanding these dynamics,an organization can craft a balance tobenefit from better worker productivity(Utley et al., 1997), as well as increasedmorale (Wiley, 1997), creativity(Basadur, 1992) and improved employeequality of life (Aycan, 2001; Luo, 1999).Thus, by better understanding thehygiene (extrinsic) and motivator(intrinsic) factors, management canpotentially create advantages vis-à-viscompetitors who do not. So it isrecognized that effectively managingworkplace motivation will have directand positive implications for bothemployee well-being and organizational

effectiveness. There is also soundevidence that a basic, two-dimensionalunderstanding of the intrinsic andextrinsic kind is the minimum requiredfor sound management (Basadur, 1992;Luo, 1999). Although Japan has recentlyencountered economic challenges inrelation to the Asian financial crisis andrecession, it is important not to forgetthe significant growth, industrialdevelopment and competitive success ithas achieved during its post-SecondWorld War era. Once fervently populartopics like ringi decision-makingprocesses, quality circles and totalquality management helped Japanachieve highly competitive environmentsof productivity, which requiredmanagement to understand how toinclude and motivate employees toparticipate and take ownership.Although this is not directly in line withsome recent research, which indicateslow manager to employee understandingof motivation in the West (Kovach,1987; Morse, 2003), it is our expectationthat the Japanese tradition hasestablished a context of meaningfulmanagement to worker correlation forunderstanding in this area.

3 Will the demographic elements of our study –

gender, age, company size and industry type –

have an impact on perception of motivation?

That a person’s demographic and company-related characteristics mightinfluence aspects of motivation is notnew. For example, Lord (2002) used theHerzberg framework to examine reten-tion of aging knowledge workers (beyondage 55). Yu and Miller (2003) examinedboth generation-related (age) differencesand industry type as potential influencesrelating to work values, work expecta-tions and work attitudes in Taiwan.Ebrahimi (1999) examined the potentialgender role differences in motivation forfuture Hong Kong executives. Although




research examining both western andnon-western aspects of gender, age andindustry in relation to motivation exists,there is a need for examination of thesequestions in both workplace andJapanese contexts together.

4 Are intrinsic and extrinsic motivational items

rated equally high by Japanese workers?

Japan’s post-Second World War‘economic miracle’ and industrialdevelopment created increased quality oflife indicators for the country and for theworkforce in general (e.g. higher percapita GNP, improvements inhealthcare, education and infrastructure,increased wages). Because of Japan’smodernization, longitudinal economicdevelopment, and traditionallycompetitive productivity, one couldargue that industry has, in general, beenable to effectively address basic hygienefactors. The fact that hygiene factors areconsidered a base requirement formotivation (see the previous section) weexpect that Japanese industry hasgenerally been successful in establishingthis in their operations, leaving workersdesiring higher order motivationalconsiderations. Recent research alsoseems to support this notion. Huang andVan de Vliert (2003) indicated thatworkers in relatively wealthier countrieswith established social welfare systemswould demonstrate a stronger relationwith intrinsic motivators to jobsatisfaction. We expect that our samplewill demonstrate this general premise.

5 Will traditional aspects of lifelong employment

(e.g. job security, job advancement) prove signifi-

cantly less important for Japanese workers when

compared to more lifelong employability aspects

(e.g. self-growth)? First, there is evidencethat job security is clearly linked to theconcept of lifetime employment inJapan. It has been established that tradi-tionally the Japanese system of lifetimeemployment ‘provides security above all’

(Abegglen and Stalk, 1985: 210).Therefore our research establishes thatthe specific measure of job security cou-pled with a worker’s desire for advance-ment within the same organization cre-ates a meaningful measure of lifetimeemployment. The body of this workdevelops the case for a potentially shift-ing workforce adherence from the tradi-tion of lifetime employment (the securityand value of staying with the same orga-nization for an entire career) toward life-time employability – the development ofskills and attributes that allows one to bedesirable on the job market. Sullivanand Peterson (1991) hypothesized thatlifetime employment would be positivelyrelated to workplace motivation whilealso recognizing that significant pres-sures exist which threaten the practice.We surmise that Japanese workers, per-haps sensing the threats that Sullivanand Peterson pointed out (see sectiontitled ‘Current realities of the Japanesework environment’) are shifting theiremphasis in preparation. Skills that areneeded and make one more valuable inthe workplace market might becomemore important than a stable trackrecord with only one organization.

In summary, our research hypotheses exam-ine the applicability of a Herzberg, two-factor construct in a Japanese context whileexamining other meaningful context nuances:management understanding of worker moti-vation; potential demographic influences andfinally potential shifts in worker motivation.

Motivation Research –Japanese Context

Quantitative research on motivation in theJapanese workforce is an area that has beensomewhat under-represented in the litera-ture. The available research tends to followfairly predictable patterns based on the




tendency to assume homogeneous collectivepatterns for Japan, which have traditionallyadvocated group incentives over individualrewards (Weaver, 2001). Other relevantresearch includes the individualism/collec-tivism construct (Hofstede, 1997, 2002) andthe guilt/shame construct (Benedict, 1946/1989), demonstrating that Japanese workerswould be more prone to self-criticism(ashamed to accept personal praise) com-pared to self-enhancement (willing to acceptpersonal praise) that is more common inNorth America (Kitayama et al., 1997). The propensity for self-criticism within theJapanese workforce would potentially createan environment where sharp criticism fromone’s manager could have a profound,demoralizing influence that could createenough stress to negatively impact motiva-tion and productivity.

Research also suggests that the Japaneseworkforce may develop higher degrees of per-sonal motivation in the face of failure thantheir North American counterparts (Heine etal., 2001). Specifically, the findings demon-strate that North Americans who failed on atask had lower motivation on follow-up taskscompared to those who had initial success. Bycontrast, Japanese who initially failed weremore motivated during follow-up tasks com-pared to those who initially succeeded. Kuboand Saka (2002) examined knowledge workermotivation within the Japanese financial services industry and found an interestingmismatch between the factors that currentlymotivate workers (monetary incentives,human resource development and job autonomy) and what the traditional Japanesemanagement system is providing. Yamaguchi(2001) suggests that there is an emergent shifttoward a higher autonomy need for Japanesewhite-collar workers and a related shift in cultural disposition toward a less collectiveperspective.

The western propensity to display fervortoward consumption of Japanese manage-ment practices seems to be correlated with

the country’s economic success. However, inlight of current challenges exemplified by theAsian financial crisis, more and more out-spoken critics give a different perspectiveregarding the very aspects of the Japaneseeconomy that were once credited, in part, forthe ‘economic wonder’. Abegglen and Stalkproposed in 1985 that since the SecondWorld War, the primary competitive focus ofleading Japanese firms and strategic manage-ment had changed no less than four times.Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997, onecould argue that financial reform is clearlyanother strategic shift which these sameorganizations have been required to come to grips with and adapt (Posen, 1998) asexemplified by efforts like the ‘big bang’1.This builds a more rounded explanation ofJapanese business success, reflecting a com-bination and adaptation of economic, politi-cal, cultural and other social elements. It alsobegins to build a solid foundation to ourresearch approach which suggests the tradi-tional explanations of Japanese managementstyle and related motivational tools that tendto advocate a static position with ‘given’practices such as lifetime employment andjob security for motivating workers might bemore dynamic.

Also of growing importance are part-timeand semi-regular workers (arubaito), often students, who are not extended the same levels of commitment and are a departurefrom stereotypical ‘lifetime employment’.2

Given the realities of current economic pres-sure and increased competition, Japanesefirms are incorporating downsizing policiesfrom direct layoffs to attrition and increasedunemployment is a reality now at a record5% and rising.3 Of this figure roughly onethird, or about one million workers, wererecently forced to leave their positions bydirect downsizing and layoffs (Mano, 2001).Clearly, these indications demonstrate thateven the strongly held, and arguably cultur-ally based labor practices in Japan, are sub-ject to adjustment given external environ-




mental pressures – something supported byRalston et al. (1997). There is specific evi-dence of external pressure creating the needfor management style shifts – Nissan plannedto remove 21,000 workers from its payrolland close up to five plants with productioncapacity cuts of over 30% by the end of 2002.With an aging population and declining birthrates4 for Japan, in the long term, corpora-tions may need to retain workers morestrongly than ever before – this long-termtrend is not to be confused with more short-term realities (e.g. corporate layoffs). In orderto keep scarce and quality employees,embracing familiar strategies like lifetimeemployment may be maintained, but theenvironment may also require institutingnew practices like hiring more women5

(Renshaw, 1999; Strober and Chan, 1999;Taylor, 2000) and foreign workers (Tsuda,1999). The more crucial element will be thatJapanese corporations clearly understandand implement strategies that address therealities of what actually does motivate con-temporary employees and not simply whathas traditionally been effective.

As culture is linked to motivation, itstands to reason that dynamic cultural shiftsmay have an important influence on evolvingworkplace motivation. The idea that culturecan be a dynamic system affected by externalenvironmental influences is supported by theidea of crossvergence (Ralston et al., 1997;Ralston et al., 1993). Crossvergence suggeststhat as nations develop economically theywill also integrate new cultural characteristicswhile simultaneously adhering to traditionalaspects of their culture – thus creating a newhybrid reality. The idea is supported by otherresearchers who have suggested organiza-tional culture is subject to certain externalenvironmental pressures (Negandhi, 1973).The concept of crossvergence suggests thatmanagement must be proactive in under-standing potential shifts in workforce motiva-tion that can occur longitudinally. Our studyaccomplishes this in part by examining

current indications for Japanese organiza-tional motivation and comparing this tomore traditional perspectives.

Methodology

Participants

The data for this article came from a surveyundertaken by the firm of Pricewater-houseCoopers Global Human ResourceSolutions (GHRS) in Tokyo. The survey was conducted in January 2002 using anindependent mailing list and survey vendorchosen after passing through a rigorous vendor audit. The survey included a total of623 respondents, with 209 of them belongingto the managerial level (i.e. kacho and bucho

levels) and the remaining 414 to the employeelevel. The survey was entirely web-enabled tofacilitate data manipulation and to targetrespondents located in the Greater TokyoMetropolitan area with company size of atleast 500, belonging to one of the followingindustries: Manufacturing, Service, Financial,Transportation, Construction, Wholesale/Retail, Utility (electricity, gas, water), andMining. (See Table 1 for a profile of therespondents.) In terms of gender, malerespondents dominated both the managers’and employees’ groups (98% and 75%, respec-tively). The top three industries includedmanufacturing, services, and the banking/finance/insurance industries, which repre-sent critical industries of today’s Japan. Sincethe survey was done online, it did have somepotential selection bias for web-savvy respon-dents. This was done intentionally to betterrepresent a leading indicator of motivationsfor the progressive element of the Japaneseworkforce. These restrictions effectively cre-ated an emphasis on the computer andInternet-competent respondents as well asthose employees belonging to large com-panies in Japan. Thus the results herein mayor may not represent the entire Japaneseworkforce across all industries, company sizes,and job classifications. Additionally, Tokyo is




a regionally-specific sample. However, webelieve that the survey results do representthe progressive element of the current Japanese workforce. Independent samplingwas done among the respondents; that is, theemployees may not be matched to theirrespective managers from the same company.

Survey Instrument

In keeping with the Herzberg model, themain part of the questionnaire (in Japanese)was prepared to identify the items (extrinsicand intrinsic) that motivate employees. Thesame sets of questionnaires were adminis-tered to the managers’ and the employees’groups. Employees were asked to assess theimpact of the identified items on their level ofmotivation. On the other hand, managerswere asked to assess these items according to

what they thought the impact would be ontheir employees. The scale was numbered 1to 7, with the following descriptors; 1 = Notat all, 2 = Almost not at all, 3 = Low, 4 =Indifferent/neutral, 5 = Medium, 6 = High,7 = Extremely high. There were a total of 16 motivating items based on Herzberg’stwo-factor motivation theory and tailor-fittedto the Japanese environment by Pricewater-houseCoopers GHRS directors and consul-tants. Although several of the items stemdirectly from the two-factor motivation theory, some items were added that were notoriginally included, but were felt by Price-waterhouseCoopers GHRS directors andconsultants to fit the spirit of the theory in theJapanese cultural context. (See Appendix 1for descriptions of the motivation items forthe survey.)


Table 1 Demographics of respondents

Employees ManagersNumber percent Number percent

Gender

309 75 Male 205 98105 25 Female 4 2

Age

136 33 Under 30 5 2213 51 30–39 37 1856 14 40–49 116 569 2 50 and over 51 24

Company Size

93 22 Under 1000 31 1577 19 1000–2000 43 21

133 32 2001–10000 78 37111 27 Over 10000 57 27

Industry

175 42 Manufacturing 87 4289 21 Services 39 1940 10 Financial 25 1236 9 Transportation 10 532 8 Construction 23 1142 10 Other 25 12



Results

Herzberg’s Motivational Theory

To address the first research question ofwhether Herzberg’s motivational theory isvalid across another culture, the 16 moti-vating items were analysed using the princi-pal components factor analysis method withvarimax rotation. A scree test suggested twomeaningful factors, thus only these two wereretained. The first two eigenvalues explained98% and 92% of the variance respectively forthe employees and managers samples. Therotated factor pattern is shown in Table 2.The survey items split fairly cleanly into theintrinsic and extrinsic groupings that weredeveloped based on Herzberg’s motivationaltheory and adapted for the Japanese culture.Using a rule of thumb of 0.4 as a meaningfulloading, only item 6 (Company brand) of thefirst eight items did not load on Factor 1 forboth the employee and manager data sets.All of the items in the second set of eight

items either exceeded or came very close to0.4 for loadings. It is apparent that Herz-berg’s designation of intrinsic and extrinsicfactors has retained its meaning within the Japanese workforce represented by thisstudy. However, since the one item is ques-tionable, we omit it from the remainder ofthe analysis.

Japanese Managers’Understanding of EmployeeMotivation

The second research question concernswhether managers understand what moti-vates their employees and this question isaddressed by examining Table 3, whichshows both employee mean rating and therelative ranking based on the means. Forcomparison purposes, similar responses aregiven for the managers who were asked topredict what would motivate their employ-ees. Sense of achievement had the highestmean for employees, with salary, job recog-


Table 2 Rotated factor patterns from varimax rotation with final communality estimates

Employees ManagersMotivating item Factor 1 Factor 2 h2 Factor 1 Factor 2 h2

1 Company’s growth prospects 49 26 31 49 31 342 Job advancement 58 20 37 63 10 413 Amount of responsibility 75 –1 57 65 12 444 Challenging work 68 20 47 54 13 315 Sense of achievement 61 21 42 74 12 566 Company brand 36 35 25 35 44 327 Work/job recognition 49 31 33 67 16 478 Self-growth 53 19 32 61 29 469 Interpersonal relationship 8 61 38 28 54 37

10 Quality of supervision and leadership 25 51 32 32 45 3111 Company policy and administration 38 44 3 35 56 4412 Employee empowerment 33 43 30 36 43 3113 Job security –1 58 34 3 70 4914 Salary 25 44 25 11 45 2115 Working conditions 5 64 41 –3 65 4316 Fair evaluation 29 52 36 42 45 38

Note: Decimal points are omitted in the factor loadings.



nition/status, and fair evaluation followingclosely. These top four factors were equallysplit among intrinsic and extrinsic items.

The results from managers who areattempting to predict what motivates theiremployees fall close to the employee ratings,thus generally supporting the idea thatJapanese managers demonstrate a significantawareness of what motivates their workforce.

The only item that is more than two positions in ranking different for means is‘quality of supervision and leadership’ (sixthhighest item for employees but only ninth onthe managers’ list). Since relative rankingscould be very similar but managers’ percep-tions could be different from those of theemployees, an independent-sample t-test wasconducted to compare the two groups. Inthree cases the manager’s perceptions of howmuch an item motivates employees exceededthe employee’s actual value. These itemswere the company’s growth prospects, jobadvancement, and company policy and

administration. On the other hand, the manager’s perception of how much the item‘working conditions’ motivates employeeswas less than the employee’s actual value. Itshould be noted that these differences wereall less than 0.4 on a 1 to 7 scale, so eventhough there were four significant differ-ences, it seems that collectively managershave a fairly accurate view of what motivatestheir employees. These areas of difference,although relatively modest, could hold somevalue for managers seeking to create poten-tial improvements in employee motivation.

Gender, Age, Company Sizeand Industry Type

Question 3 regarding whether the demo-graphics may impact motivation levels callsfor analyses broken down by gender, age,company size and industry. Table 3 providesgender differences within the employee ranks (as noted previously, only three of themanagers were female and so no gender


Table 3 Mean rating and ranking for motivating items for managers and employees

Mean rating and rank Employee mean ratingsMotivating item Managers Employees Males Females

1 Company’s growth prospects 5.69 6 5.37 7 5.44 6 5.18 112 Job advancement 5.71 5 5.36 8 5.37 7 5.34 93 Amount of responsibility 5.41 7 5.30 9 5.27 10 5.39 84 Challenging work 5.16 12 5.29 10 5.28 9 5.30 105 Sense of achievement 6.07 1 5.97 1 5.97 1 5.97 27 Work/job recognition 6.04 2 5.84 3 5.80 3 5.97 28 Self-growth 5.54 7 5.63 5 5.58 5 5.78 59 Interpersonal relationship 5.05 13 5.24 11 5.12 12 5.60 7

10 Quality of supervision and leadership 5.38 9 5.42 6 5.33 8 5.69 611 Company policy and administration 5.30 11 4.99 13 4.99 13 4.99 1512 Employee empowerment 5.34 10 5.18 12 5.19 11 5.14 1213 Job security 4.76 14 4.80 15 4.72 15 5.01 1414 Salary 5.80 3 5.91 2 5.90 2 5.94 415 Working conditions 4.70 15 4.96 14 4.91 14 5.12 1316 Fair evaluation 5.80 3 5.82 4 5.76 4 5.99 1

Note: Bold numbers indicate significant differences at a .01 level of significance using a two-sample t-test.Numbers to the right of the means in each column are rankings.



differences are provided for the managerialgroup). Although the Pearson correlation of0.89 is also very strong for the male/femalemeans there are several differences in bothlevel and ranking that are notable. Fair eval-uation appears as the number one motivatorfor females and it is fourth highest for males.The item ‘interpersonal relationships’ is alsorelatively higher for females than males with a ranking of 7 compared to 12 for males.On the other hand, the company’s growthprospects item, which was number 6 in rank-ing for male respondents, falls to 11th forfemale respondents. In terms of the magni-tude of responses for individual items, theinterpersonal relationships item is about 0.5 higher for females than males, and thequality of supervision and leadership item isalso significantly higher for females. Malesrate the company’s growth prospects signifi-cantly higher than females do.

For this analysis of the impact of demo-graphics we have created two new variablesnamed ‘Intrinsic’ and ‘Extrinsic’. The Intrin-sic variable was formed by averaging theseven items that loaded highly on Factor 1 in the exploratory factor analysis and theExtrinsic variable was formed by averagingthe eight items that loaded highly on Factor2. All the items that were developed fromHerzberg’s two-factor theory loaded on theappropriate factor. The Cronbach alpha forthe seven Intrinsic scale items was 0.80 andfor the eight Extrinsic scale items it was 0.78.Table 4 summarizes the results of testing fordemographic impact on these two variables.Two-sample t-tests were conducted forwhether gender has any effect on the meanlevel of the Intrinsic or Extrinsic variable, asingle factor ANOVA was used to test for differences between the six industry cate-gories, and correlations were computed tosee if any relationship exists between age orcompany size and either of the two variables,Intrinsic or Extrinsic. The results in Table 4show no significant differences between anyof the means, and no significant correlation

with either age or company size, indicatingthat the findings hold consistently across gender, industry, age, and company size.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Items

The fourth research question deals withwhether intrinsic and extrinsic items arerated equally high by the employees. Anexamination of Table 3 would seem to indicate mixed results for our last researchquestion. There is some evidence that intrinsic motivators have higher motivational value for Japanese workers than extrinsicmotivators. Three of the top five employee-motivating items are from the intrinsic factor,while four of the bottom five come from theextrinsic factor. While intrinsic motivatorsare clearly perceived as important by Japan-ese workers, some are evidently less so thanothers. It is also clear that some extrinsicmotivators rank higher and would be signifi-cant in the organization’s worker motivationefforts.

Table 5 examines this issue in a slightlydifferent way using the two new scales created by averaging the seven intrinsic andeight extrinsic items identified by theexploratory factor analysis. A paired-samplet-test was conducted for the set of all em-ployees and then also broken down by gender and industry. A difference scoreIntrinsic–Extrinsic was also calculated andcorrelated with age and company size. Table5 points to a small but very significant differ-ence between the intrinsic and extrinsicitems. The intrinsic average is significantly (p < .001) higher for the entire sample ofemployees but the mean difference is only0.23 in magnitude. These results are dupli-cated in the main when broken down by sex and industry. Only in the constructionindustry is the direction reversed, but the difference is not significant. The two numeri-cal demographic variables, age and companysize, are correlated with the Intrinsic–Extrinsic difference, with neither showingany significant relationship. The implication




is that neither age nor company size changesthe basic difference we see in all employees.

Lifelong EmploymentCompared to LifetimeEmployability

The survey results cast some light on this veryimportant distinction (organizational securityvs. employability), but do not provide defini-tive answers. Two of the motivating factors,job security and job advancement, speak tothe issue of lifelong employment and the self-growth item speaks to the issue of lifetimeemployability. The means for these threeitems for employees are as follows: self-growth (5.63), job advancement (5.36) andjob security (4.80). All three means are signif-icantly different (p < .001) using a pairedsample t-test. For managers, the items wererated in a different order than for employees,with job advancement (5.71) the highest fol-lowed by self-growth (5.54) and job security

(4.76). The job security item was ratedsignificantly lower than both of the otheritems using a paired sample t-test.

Discussion

Our research findings demonstrate that it isimportant for organizations to periodicallyreview their policy toward workforce motiva-tion as the results indicate a picture that issomewhat different from more traditionalviews of worker motivation in Japan. Theresults of our study indicate what elementsemployees report would motivate them themost. Thus a low score on a particular item(like job security) does not necessarily indi-cate that this is not important because itcould demonstrate that this need is currentlyfilled and therefore the employees do notview or report it as important relative toother items they might perceive as missing. Itis therefore important to caution against


Table 4 Tests for demographic effects on intrinsic and extrinsic variables

Demographic Intrinsic mean Extrinsic mean

Gender

Male 5.56 5.30Female 5.41 5.26Two-sample t-test t(412) = 1.62 t(412) = 0.50

Industry Intrinsic mean Extrinsic meanManufacturing 5.52 5.30Services 5.46 5.22Financial 5.81 5.32Transportation 5.33 5.17Construction 5.43 5.59Other 5.64 5.21One way ANOVA F(5,408) = 1.90 F(5,408) = 1.51

Demographic Intrinsic correlation Extrinsic correlationSubject age r = .003 r = .059

p-value = .96 p-value = .23Company size r = –.024 r = .006

p-value = .62 p-value = .89

Note: None of the tests above were significant at the .05 level



radical reconstruction of current HRM poli-cies based on the results of this study. A moreprudent approach is to implement incre-mental changes that blend new elements ofcurrent findings with more traditionalaspects. In general, the study accomplishesthe following.

• Provides some evidence that theHerzberg, two-factor (intrinsic/extrinsic)model holds meaning in Japan.

• Identifies areas where managementmight stand to gain the most incremental

effect in worker motivation.• Indicates some movement from a more

traditional, collective/companyorientation toward more self-orientation.

• Demonstrates that the sample managersgenerally have an acceptable under-standing of what motivates employeesbut that there is still room for improve-ment.

Specifically, in relation to blending newapproaches with more traditional aspects ofHRM management, organizations mightwant to explore the following in more pro-gressive segments of the Japanese workforce:

• Create some individual, performance-based incentives and remuneration.

• Blend together both individual and teamreward systems.

• Establish skill and competencydevelopment programs that providelifetime employability training as one keyelement to overall job security.

• Develop fair and transparent employeeevaluations and working environmentsthat link individual employee growth tothe growth of the company.

Generally, these indications seem to sug-gest movement from what some might terman ‘old Japanese HR style’ toward a more‘current Japanese HR style’; some of the differences are exemplified in Table 6.

These trends do not suggest an abandon-ment of more traditional HR practices, butincremental movements. Prudent managerswill examine their immediate context andconsider how their workers might relate andrespond to less traditional methods. Addi-tionally, meaningful information could bedeveloped to examine not only the under-standing of motivation between manager and


Table 5 Tests for differences between intrinsic and extrinsic variables

Intrinsic–Extrinsic mean p-value

All employees 0.23 < .001By gender

Male 0.26 < .001Female 0.16 .043

By industryManufacturing 0.21 .001Services 0.23 .005Financial 0.48 < .001Transportation 0.16 .117Construction –0.17 .140Other 0.42 .004

Demographic Intrinsic–extrinsic correlation p-value

Subject age –.026 .594Company size –.024 .627



employees, but also the organization’s effec-tiveness in developing worker motivation.For example, managers may have an under-standing of what motivates employees, yetthey could lack the organizational support toactually implement meaningful programsthat carry out the task of motivating. In otherwords, there could potentially be a gap in theunderstanding to implementation process.Examining this final element would be animportant exercise to the HRM practitionerin Japan.

Future Studies

Although this current effort fills some gaps in literature covering topics of motivationresearch in Japanese organizations outside awestern perspective, more is needed. Longi-tudinally, replicating this research in thefuture would add further strength to thecrossvergence aspect of dynamic shifts inworkforce motivation (Ralston et al., 1997).Our research subjects participated from anonline survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers in Japan. Because of this data collection avenue, respondents could repre-sent a unique group with unique associationeffects (more progressive and technologicallysavvy). Although these respondents representa robust group of different industries (seeTable 1), comparing the current results withmore traditional data sampling techniquescould further enhance the overall ecologicalvalidity of the findings. Additionally, the survey asked both managers and employees

to rank items based on what impact theintrinsic and extrinsic factors would have onmotivation (managers were asked to identifywhat would motivate their employees). Thesurvey did not ask either group what theirorganizations are currently implementing to enhance worker motivation and thus pro-ductivity. Meaningful information and valuecould potentially exist between the ideal(employees ranking the most meaningful)and the reality (what is actually being used inthe organization today).

Notes1 Implemented in 1998, Big Bang policies are

intended to address the Asian financial crisisin Japan by organizing financial industryreforms and encouraging more market-driven lending policies.

2 Japan Institute of Labor, Japanese Working LifeProfile: Statistical Aspects (1989).

3 BBC News 29 November 2001, ‘JapaneseOutput at 13-year Low’.

4 Economist Intelligence Unit reports a decliningbirth rate of children per family in Japan of1.34, which is well below the 2.1 levelrequired to maintain the current population.

5 The total number of women in Japan’s laborforce grew from 19 million in 1965 to 23.7million in 1985. In 1994, there were 27million women in the workforce. Japan’sfemale labor-force participation rate is ratherhigh even compared with other industrializednations. In 1994 it was 50.2%, which washigher than that in Germany, Spain, Italy,and France and was comparable to rates inthe UK (52.9%) and Australia (52.7%),although considerably lower than in the USA(58.2%) and Canada (57.6%) (Tsuda, 1999).


Table 6 From old Japanese HR style to new Japanese HR style

Old Japanese HR style Future Japanese HR style

• group/collective orientation → • individual orientation• activity-oriented → • accomplishment-oriented• individual development repressed → • individual development desired• individual needs suppressed → • individual needs expressed• lifetime employment → • lifetime employability

Source: Zukis et al. (2002)



ReferencesAbegglen, J. and Stalk, G. Jr (1985) Kaisha – The

Japanese Corporation. New York: Basic Books.Aguinis, H. and Henle, C. (2003) ‘The Search for

Universals in Cross-cultural OrganizationalBehavior’, in J. Greenberg (ed.) OrganizationalBehavior: The State of the Science, 2nd edn, pp.373–411. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aycan, Z. (2001) ‘Whatever Happened toIndividual-level Studies of Work Motivation?’,Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin 35(2): 7–13.

Basadur, M. (1992) ‘Managing Creativity: AJapanese Model’, Academy of ManagementExecutive 6(2): 29–36.

Baum, R., Olian, J., Erez, M. and Schnell, E.(1993) ‘Nationality and Work RoleInteractions: A Cultural Contract of Israeliand U.S. Entrepreneurs’ v. Managers’ Needs’,Journal of Business Venturing 8(6): 499–513.

Benedict, R. (1946 – revised 1989) TheChrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of JapaneseCulture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Brislin, R., Loaner, W. and Thorndike, R. (1973)Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Brislin, R. (1981) Cross-cultural Encounters: Face-to-face Interaction. New York: Pergamon.

Campbell, J. and Pritchard, R. (1976)‘Motivation Theory in Industrial andOrganizational Psychology’, in M. Dunette(ed.) Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

D’Iribarne, P. (2002) ‘Motivating Workers inEmerging Countries: Universal Tools andLocal Adaptations’, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior 23(3): 243–56.

Dubin, R. (1956) ‘Industrial Workers’ Worlds: AStudy of Central Life Interests of IndustrialWorkers’, Social Problems 3: 131–42.

Ebrahimi, B. (1999) ‘Managerial Motivation andGender Roles: A Study of Females and Malesin Hong Kong’, Women in Management Review14(2): 44–53.

Erez, M. and Early, P. (1993) Culture, Self-identityand Work. New York: Oxford University Press.

Erez, M. and Somech, A. (1996) ‘Is GroupProductivity Loss the Rule or Exception?Effects of Culture and Group-basedMotivation’, Academy of Management Journal39(6): 1513–38.

Erez, M. (1997) ‘A Culture-based Model of WorkMotivation’, in P. Earley and M. Erez (eds)New Perspectives on InternationalIndustrial/Organizational Psychology. SanFrancisco: The New Lexington Press.

Furnham, A., Kirkaldy, B. and Lynn, R. (1994)‘National Attitudes toward Competitiveness,Money and Work among Young People:First, Second and Third World Differences’,Human Relations 47(1): 119–33.

Godkin, L., Endoh, M. and Cahill, M. (1996)‘Japanese-focused Organizational BehaviorResearch: Contents and Concerns1981–1993’, International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis 4(1): 5–20.

Hackman, J. and Oldham, D. (1980) Work Design.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Heine, S., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D., Takata,T., Ide, E., Leung, C. and Matsumoto, H.(2001) ‘Divergent Consequences of Successand Failure in Japan and North America: AnInvestigation of Self-improving Motivationsand Malleable Selves’, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 81(4): 599–615.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.(1959) The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.

Hines, G. (1973) ‘Cross Cultural Differences inTwo-factor Motivation Theory’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 58(3): 375–7.

Hofstede, G. (1984) ‘The Culture Relativity ofthe Quality of Life Concept’, Academy ofManagement Review 9(3): 389–99.

Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2002) Culture’s Consequences, 2ndedn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Huang, X. and Van de Vliert, E. (2003) ‘WhereIntrinsic Job Satisfaction Fails to Work:National Moderators of Intrinsic Motivation’,Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(2): 159.

Kanfer, R. (1992) ‘Work Motivation: NewDirections in Theory and Research’, in C.Cooper and I. Robertson (eds) InternationalReview of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,vol. 7. London: Wiley.

Katzell, R. and Thompson, D. (1990) ‘WorkMotivation: Theory and Practice’, AmericanPsychologist 45: 144–53.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Matsumoto, H. andNorasakkunkit, V. (1997) ‘Individual andCollective Processes in the Construction ofthe Self: Self-enhancing in the U.S. and Self-criticism in Japan’, Journal of Psychology andSocial Psychology 27(6): 1245–67.

Kovach, K. (1987) ‘What Motivates Employees?Workers and Supervisors Give DifferentAnswers’, Business Horizons 30(5): 58–66.

Kubo, I. and Saka, A. (2002) ‘An Inquiry intothe Motivations of Knowledge Workers in theJapanese Financial Industry’, Journal ofKnowledge Management 6(3): 262–72.




Lawler, E. III (1994) Motivation in WorkOrganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lord, R. (2002) ‘Traditional Motivation Theoriesand Older Engineers’, Engineering ManagementJournal 14(3): 3–8.

Luo, L. (1999) ‘Work Motivation, Job Stress andEmployee’s Well-being’, Journal of AppliedManagement Studies 8(1): 61–72.

Maidani, E. (1991) ‘Comparative Study ofHerzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Job Satis-faction among Public and Private Sectors’,Public Personnel Management 20(4): 441–8.

Mano, T. (2001) ‘Getting a Positive Grip onJapanese Unemployment’, The Japan Times 22October.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Cultureand the Self: Implications for Cognition,Emotion and Motivation’, Psychological Review98: 224–53.

Morse, G. (2003) ‘Why We Misread Motives’,Harvard Business Review 81(1): 18–19.

Munro, J., Schumacher, J. and Carr, S. (1997)Motivation and Culture. London: Routledge.

Negandhi, A. (1973) ‘Cross-cultural Studies: TooMany Conclusions, Not EnoughConceptualization’, in A. Neghandi (ed.)Modern Organizational Theory. Kent, OH: KentState University.

Osteraker, M. (1999) ‘Measuring Motivation in aLearning Organization’, Journal of WorkplaceLearning 11(2): 73–7.

Park, C., Lovrich, N. and Soden, D. (1988)‘Testing Herzberg’s Motivation Theory in aComparative Study’, Review of Public PersonnelAdministration 8(3): 40–61.

Pinder, G. (1998) Work Motivation in OrganizationalBehavior. London: Prentice Hall.

Posen, Adam. (1998) Restoring Japan’s EconomicGrowth. Washington, DC: Institute forInternational Economics.

Rainey, H. (1997) Understanding and Managing PublicOrganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ralston, D., Gustafson, D., Cheung, F. andTerpstsra, R. (1993) ‘Differences inManagerial Values: A Study of US, HongKong and PRC Managers’, Journal ofInternational Business Studies 24: 249–75.

Ralston, D., Holt, D., Terpstra, R. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997) ‘The Impact of NationalCulture and Economic Ideology onManagerial Work Values: A Study of theU.S., Russia, Japan and China’, Journal ofInternational Business Studies 28: 177–207.

Renshaw, J. (1999). Kimono in the Board Room.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberson, L. (1990) ‘Functions of Work

Meanings in Organizations: Work Meaningsand Work Motivation’, in A. Brief and W.Nord (eds) Meanings of Occupational Work: ACollection of Essays, pp. 107–34. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

Schwalb, D. (1992) ‘Personal Investment inJapan and USA: A Study of WorkerMotivation’, International Journal of InterculturalRelations 16: 107–24.

Sipos, A. (1988) ‘Organizational Climate andEmployee Involvement: Assessing theClimate’, The Journal for Quality and Participation11(3): 62–6.

Strober, M. and Chan, A. (1999) The Road WindsUphill All the Way: Gender, Work and Family in theUnited States and Japan. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Sullivan, J. and Peterson, R. (1991) ‘A Test ofTheories Underlying the Japanese LifetimeEmployment System’, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 22(1): 79–97.

Super, D. and Sverko, B. (1995) Life Roles, Valuesand Careers: International Findings of the WorkImportance Study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, Sully. (2000) ‘Review of Kimono in theBoard Room: The Invisible Evolution ofJapanese Women Managers’, The Academy ofManagement Review 25(3): 670–2.

Triandis, H. (1977) ‘Subjective Culture andInterpersonal Relations across Cultures’, in L.Loeb-Adler (ed.) ‘Issues in Cross-CulturalResearch’, Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences 285, pp. 418–34.

Triandis, H. (1994) Culture and Social Behavior.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tsuda, T. (1999) ‘The Motivation to Migrate:The Ethnic and Socio-cultural Constitution ofthe Japanese–Brazilian Return MigrationSystem’, Economic Development and CulturalChange 48(1): 1–31.

Utley, D., Westbrook, J. and Turner, S. (1997)‘The Relationship between Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory and Quality ImprovementImplementation’, Engineering ManagementJournal 9(3): 5–13.

Weaver, G. (2001) ‘Ethics Programs in GlobalBusiness: Culture’s Role in Managing Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics (30): 3–15.

Wiley, C. (1997) ‘What Motivates EmployeesAccording to Over 40 Years of MotivationSurveys’, International Journal of Manpower 18(2):263–80.

Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J. (2001) ‘Craftinga Job: Revisioning Employees as ActiveCrafters of Their Work’, The Academy ofManagement Review 26(2): 179–201.




Yamaguchi, I. (2001) ‘Perceived OrganizationalSupport for Satisfying Needs of JapaneseWhite-collar Workers: A Comparisonbetween Japanese and US-affiliatedCompanies’, Journal of Managerial Psychology16(5/6): 434–49.

Yu, A. and Yang, K. (1994) ‘The Nature ofAchievement Motivation in CollectivistSocieties’, in U. Kim, H. Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon (eds)

Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method andApplications. London: Sage.

Yu, H. and Miller, P. (2003) ‘The GenerationalGap and Cultural Influence: A TaiwanEmpirical Investigation’, Cross-CulturalManagement 10(3): 23–41.

Zukis, B., Maeda, T., Kabigting, J., Nozaki, Y.and Suzuki, A. (2002) Understanding EmployeeMotivation in Japan. Tokyo:PricewaterhouseCoopers GHRS KK.


Appendix 1: Description of the Questionnaire Items• Amount of responsibility. The relative weight or importance of job responsibility being given to the

employee.• Challenging work. The nature of the work itself, whether it is bringing out the best of the employee or

not.• Company brand. The status or name recognition of the company within and/or outside the industry

to which it belongs.• Company policy and administration. The soundness of the organization’s policies and the fairness of its

implementation across the entire organization.• Employee empowerment. The ability of the employee to make decisions when needed in a certain

defined situation and established control limits.• Fair evaluation. The ability of the organization or managers to fairly evaluate employees based on

established performance and evaluation standards, processes or systems without regard to race, gender, age, and other discriminatory parameters.

• Growth prospects of the company. The potential of the company to continuously grow in the future interms of brand, employee size, profitability, etc. Also means the stability of the company to be in thebusiness for a long time.

• Interpersonal relationships. Refers to the health of the relationship of the employee to his/her peers(horizontal) or superiors (vertical).

• Job advancement. The ability of the employee to grow (in terms of promotion) within the organization.• Job recognition/status. The status symbol or image of the job of the employee.• Job security. The assurance of the company given to the employees for continued employment.• Quality of supervision and leadership. The ability of the employee’s superiors to guide him/her in

carrying out the job properly or guiding the organization to a brighter future.• Salary. The amount of remuneration given to the employees in exchange for the services rendered to

the company.• Self-growth. Relates to the personal development of the employee while in the company.• Sense of achievement. The sense of doing something worthwhile. That is, work that is done for the

benefit of the greater good or for a worthy cause.• Working conditions. The physical condition of the workplace in terms of safety, convenience, provision

of proper work equipment, etc.

RICHARD W. BRISLIN is in the University ofHawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.[email: [email protected]]

BRENT MaCNAB is in the University ofSydney, New South Wales, Australia.[email: [email protected]]

REGINALD WORTHLEY is in the University

of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.[email: [email protected]]

FLORENCIO KABIGTING JR is based inPricewaterhouseCoopers, Tokyo, Japan.

BOB ZUKIS is based inPricewaterhouseCoopers, Tokyo, Japan.




Richard W. Brislin, Brent MacNab, Reginald Worthley, Florencio Kabigting, Jr. and BobZukis

Résumé

L’évolution des perceptions de la motivation au travail au Japon : une comparaison entre employés et cadres (Richard W. Brislin, Brent MacNab,Reginald Worthley, Florencio Kabigting, Jr. and Bob Zukis)Cette recherche étudie spécifiquement les perceptions de la motivation au travail des employéset cadres japonais. Elle souligne certains résultats contre intuitifs par rapport aux perceptionsoccidentales traditionnelles de l’ethnographie japonaise. Les résultats suggèrent en effet unmouvement d’évolution potentielle en faveur d’une orientation au travail plus individuelle, quimet davantage l’accent sur l’employabilité à vie que sur l’emploi à vie. Dans une période oùl’efficacité incrémentale est plus importante que jamais pour l’économie japonaise, les entre-prises cherchent à maintenir le plus haut niveau de productivité en comprenant mieux ce quimotive leurs employés aujourd’hui. Plus précisément, le mélange entre les apports passés de larecherche et de la théorie d’origine américaine avec la recherche contemporaine japonaisepermet de comparer les voies traditionnelles japonaises avec les réalités plus modernes et defaçon dynamique. En partenariat avec PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Human ResourceSolutions, une enquête a été réalisée dans le métro de Tokyo et de ses environs sur la motiva-tion des travailleurs japonais en utilisant le modèle à deux facteurs de Herzberg qui sembleaussi valide au Japon. L’étude indique qu’il y a eu un mouvement d’évolution depuis le modèlede l’entreprise traditionnelle collectiviste vers une orientation plus individualiste. L’étudedémontre aussi que les cadres japonais ont une compréhension satisfaisante de ce qui motiveles employés, bien que des améliorations sont encore possibles.



Documents

Evolving Perceptions of Japanese Workplace Motivation: An Employee-Manager Comparison