电络联

2010第13屆科際整合管理研討會June 26, pp391-400Econometrical Analysis of Multinational Corporations Cross-cultural Satisfaction among Industries in Thailand施正屏Cheng-ping Shih1張純真Carline Chang2AbstractIn an increasingly global business environment, Taiwanese multinational companies expand the market to Thailand, thus cross-cultural management became issues. Satisfaction is an important subject in international management literature, also a positive effect on individual performance in cross-cultural working environment. Therefore, the purpose of present study is three-fold: (1) supplementing intercultural management field by exploring Taiwanese management in Thailand; (2) adopt three-factory model (Shih & Chinerawat, 2009) to explore factors will impact satisfaction among two different industries in cross-cultural working environment; (3) suggesting different approaches on management to fulfill a high level of satisfaction for their employees. Finding of present study are (1) revising and improving three-factor model more reliable; (2) the value of R-square of company A and B are .966 and .964 respectively, which means the model is appropriately explaining the results; (3) Motivation factor, Hygiene factor, and Demographic factor have impacted work satisfaction of both companies.Keywords:Cross-cultural satisfaction, Motivation factor, Hygiene factor, Demographic factor1. IntroductionIn an increasingly global business environment, investors in Taiwan expanded their markets in Southeast Asia in the late 1980s, especially in Thailand. The past few years in the amount of trade between Taiwan and Thailand has increased dramatically to more than US$9 billion, (The Thailand Board of Investment, 2008) it has created a large numbers of job opportunities for Thai (Institute of Asia Study, 2005). Hence, cross-cultural management and diversity management (Lau, Nicholas, O Flynn, Ricciotti & Sammartino, 2001) between Taiwanese and Thai has become a very important issue. Managers should be aware of the cross-cultural differences in working environment in order to facilitate a mutual adjustment in1國立臺灣師範大學國際人力資源發展研究所副教授(聯絡地址：24449台北縣林口鄉仁愛路一段2號，聯絡電話：02-77148660，E-mail: tony031960@)。

2國立臺灣師範大學國際人力資源發展研究所研究生(聯絡地址：24449台北縣林口鄉仁愛路一段2號，聯絡電話：02-77148660，E-mail: romancer0312@)。

2010第13屆科際整合管理研討會cross-cultural gaps (Hofstede, 2001). Many companies dispatch their employees overseas to implement global corporate strategies and manage subsidiaries (Windham International, 1998), and it was found that the managers from a parent culture have difficulties fit into the host culture (Kim. Y. Y., 2004), the local staff also has difficulties adapting to their managers (Bennett, Aston, & Colquhoun, 2000). This can cause problems of performance which can affect the company profit directly (Kim, 2008).Selmer (2000) found that satisfaction has a positive effect on individual performance, and the two-factor theory established by Herzberg (1959) states that Motivational Factors increases satisfaction on the job. Hygiene Factors ensures that an employee is not dissatisfied. However, two-factor theory has its limitations in explaining satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment. Thus, this study adopted Shih and Chinerawat’s econometric model (2009), which incorporated Demographic factors into the preexisting two-factor theory to explore the cross-cultural working satisfaction and how this affecting multinational companies’ performance.According to Ministry of Economic Affairs (R.O.C.), the weight of Manufacturing Production Index by product group in Thailand is following, Textile Products industry (16.16%), Food and Beverages industry (15.76%), Electronic Products industry (13.62%), Furniture and fixtures (1.51%). Thus researchers choose companies from Electronic Products industry and Furniture and fixtures to find what factors will influence satisfaction.Most of researches study cases are on American managers in Latin America, China (Gao, 2005) and Korea (Kim, 2008), few studies focus on multinational companies in Thailand (Shih & Chinerawat, 2009) Consequently, the purposes of the study are, (1) supplementing cross-cultural management field by exploring Taiwanese management in Thailand; (2) applying the econometric model to find which factors will impact cross-cultural working satisfaction; (3) based on the empirical results to suggest different approaches on managing employees and assisting managers to fulfill a high level of satisfaction for their employees.2. Methodology2.1 SamplesThis questionnaire was conducted at two selected companies. Company A is an electronic manufacturer with more than 8,000 Thai staff and over 50 Taiwanese managers, and company B is a modern house wares designer with 90 Thai workers and 5 Taiwanese managers. Totally 400 questionnaires were distributed to the research participants, out of which were collected 216. The valid response rate is 54%.Econometrical Analysis of Multinational Corporations Cross-culturalSatisfaction among Industries in ThailandOf the 216 participants, there were 145 participants from company one, 80% (n=116) were Thai, 20% (n=29) were Taiwanese. The mean of age was 33-year-old and age range is 20-57 years old. The mean year of service of participants is 9.18 years (range=4 month to 35 years). There are 71 participants from company two, 92.9% (n=66) were Thai, 7.1% (n=5) were Taiwanese. The mean of age was 29-year-old and age range is 18-45 years old. The mean year of service of participants is 3.96 years (range=1 month to 22 years).2.2 MeasuresResearchers used the questionnaire developed by Shih and Chinerawat (2009) to assess the satisfaction of Taiwanese and Thai in two multinational companies. The questionnaire consisted of 25 items which a 6 point Likert scales was applied to measure in order to avoid midpoint answering of Asian people (Spreitzer et al., 2005).The questionnaire was translated into two versions. A bilingual Chinese-English language questionnaire was developed for Taiwanese managers, and a Thai language questionnaire was developed for Thai staff. The data was collected from June 2008 to January 2009 in Thailand. Researchers collected data on-site in order to increase respondents’willingness to reply.2.3 Econometric ModelThe Econometric model developed by Shih and Chinerawat (2009) is an expanded framework based on Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory (1959). The model extended cross-cultural satisfaction by adding Demographic factors into Motivation and Hygiene factors. The model found that Demographic factors, such as people from different regions of host country, impacts cross-cultural satisfaction. Hence, researchers adopted Shih and Chinerawat’s model (2009) to explore the issue of satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment.The equation of the model below shows the self-assessment of satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment. It measures Thai staff and Taiwanese managers’ self-evaluation of their own working satisfaction. The equation is written as below:Y= ƒ(x) = ß1*Xi+ ß2*Xj+ ß3*Xk + εDependent variable measures self-assessment on cross-cultural working satisfaction; independent variables are categorized into Motivation Factor group, Hygiene Factor group, and Demographic Factor group:First, Motivation Factor variables (X i) include Challenge, Recognition, Personal growth, Achievement, and Career Advancement.Second, Hygiene Factor variables (X j) include Job security, Status, Pay competitiveness,2010第13屆科際整合管理研討會Fringe benefits, Safety, Working condition, Quality of supervision, and Interpersonal Relations.Third, Demographic Factor variables (X k) include Age, Gender, Education, Years of service, Training days, Working hours, Salary rate, and Income package.2.4 HypothesesBecause of the different working environment in company A and B, thus following hypothesis was developed:Hypothesis 1: There is a difference in self-assessment of satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment in company A and B.Satisfaction has a positive effect on individual performance, thus following hypothesis explored the factors impacting satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment:Hypothesis 2.1: Motivation factors, Hygiene factors, and Demographic factors have significant impact on satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment in company A.Hypothesis 2.2: Motivation factors, Hygiene factors, and Demographic factors have significant impact on satisfaction in cross-cultural working environment in company B.2.5 Reliability & ValidityThe bilingual questionnaire was revised by experts from National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) and subjects from host country. Changes were made according to the suggestions given and the instrument was subsequently validated.Then this study used Cronbach Alpha to test the reliability. For company A, with n=145, the value of Cronbach Alpha of 0.883 was found for all items of the questionnaire (excluding demographics). Researchers tested variables which were scale questions, including variables of Challenge, Recognition, Personal growth, Achievement, Career advancement, Job security, Status, Pay competitiveness, Fringe benefits, Safety, Working condition, Quality of supervision, and Interpersonal relations. For company B, with n=71, the value of Cronbach Alpha was 0.87. These mean the measure for internal consistency of the instrument was high, which made the instrument reliable.2.6 AnalysesBefore analysis, the data was coded using number sequences, and dummy variables for nationality, company, and region. The independent sample t-test was used to test hypotheses involving the mean difference in self assessment of cross-cultural working satisfaction between company A and company B.Econometrical Analysis of Multinational Corporations Cross-culturalSatisfaction among Industries in ThailandNext, a multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate whether the independent variables have statistical significance as predictor variables. Researchers used the backward elimination procedure, examining the p-values for the 21 independent variables, and eliminated the highest insignificant variable in each equation. This process was repeated until all remaining independent variables reach at least 10% level of significance.Descriptive statistic analysis was also used to show the mean of satisfaction of all data. This analysis helped researchers to arrange the data into a more interpretable form, to summarize data more easily and to examine which factors were important.3. Empirical ResultsIn order to know whether there is a difference in self-assessment of satisfaction in company A and B; researcher firstly did the independent sample t-test. The Levene's Test for Equality of Variances was significant, (F=4.705, p=.031), thus researcher used the result of equal variances not assumed one (see table 1). The results of independent sample t test show that there is a significant difference in self-assessment of cross-cultural working satisfaction between Company A and B (t= 2.467, p = .015.)The mean of cross-cultural working satisfaction of company B is 3.760, which was lower than the mean of company B (4.1301.) Hypothesis 1 is accepted. Since the difference of cross-cultural working satisfaction between Company A and B, researchers were going to explore what factors impact satisfaction in these industries.By using the backward elimination process, the process is repeated 12 and 14 times respectively, until all remaining independent variables reach at least the 10 % level of significance. R square of 12th model for company A stands at .966. Therefore the model can explain 96.6% of the variance. The hypothesis 2.1 is accepted, that is, Motivation factor, Hygiene factor, and Demographic factor have significant impact on cross-cultural working satisfaction.Table 1. T-test of self-assessment of satisfaction between company A and BF t df Sig. (2-tailed) Std. Error Equal variances assumed 4.705 2.576 215 .011 .14349 Equal variances not assumed 2.467 124.433 .015 .14983The Motivational factors of Recognition and Advancement were the most significant at 1% level. The value of the parameter of Recognition was 0.213 with t-ratio 2.646; and the value of the parameter of Advancement was 0.267 with t-ratio 2.987. Growth was significant at 10% level (β= 0.203, with t-ratio 1.837). Achievement was a negative factor, which was significant at 1% level (β= -0.331, with t-ratio -3.101). About Hygiene factor, Working conditions2010第13屆科際整合管理研討會variable was significant at 5% level. The value of the parameter was 0.128 with t-ratio 2.335. In Demographic factor, there are three positive parameters, which were Age (β= 0.41, with t-ratio 3.87 and significant at 1% level) Working hour (β= 0.186, with t-ratio 2.046, significant at 5% level), and Income package (β= 2.476, with t-ratio 2.102, significant at 5% level). Negative parameters were Year of service (β= is -0.164, with t-ratio -4.5 significant at 1% level), and Salary rate (β= is -2.408, with t-ratio -2.049 significant at 5% level) See table 2.R square of 14th model for company B stands at .964. Therefore the model can explain 96.4% of the variance. The hypothesis 2.2 is accepted. Motivation factor, Hygiene factor, and Demographic factor have significant impact on cross-cultural working satisfaction.The Motivational factors of Growth and Advancement were negative and significant at 5% level. The value of the parameter of Growth was -0.318 with t-ratio -2.143, and the value of the parameter of Advancement was 0.344 with t-ratio 2.588. About Hygiene factor, Job security was significant at 1% level. The value of the parameter is 0.547 with t-ratio 5.457. Benefits was a negative factor and significant at 5% level (β= -0.186, t =-2.281). In Demographic factor, the positive parameters were Gender (β= 0.185, t =2.773), Working hour (β= 0.405, t =3.235), and Income package (β=0.084, t =2.202). The parameter for Year of service was negative (-0.078), with t ratio -2.503. It is significant at 5% significance level.Descriptive statistic analysis shows the mean of satisfaction of company A and B (see table 3). The values of mean of Motivation factors of company A in descending orders were Growth, Challenge, Achievement, Recognition and Advancement. For company B in descending orders were Growth, Achievement, Challenge, Advancement and Recognition. The values of mean of Hygiene factors of company A in descending orders were Relationship, Supervision, Respect status, Safety, Job security, Working condition, Pay competitiveness and Benefits. For company B in descending orders were Relationship, Working condition, Supervision, Respect status, Benefits, Job security, Pay competitiveness and Safety.Table 2. Empirical results of self-assessment on cross-cultural satisfaction Model Company A Company BCoefficientβtβt Motivation factorRecognition 0.213 2.646***Growth 0.203 1.837* -0.318 -2.143** Achievement -0.331 -3.101***Advanced 0.267 2.987*** 0.344 2.558** Hygiene factorJob security0.547 5.457***Benefits-0.186 -2.281**Econometrical Analysis of Multinational Corporations Cross-culturalSatisfaction among Industries in Thailand Model Company A Company B Working Condition0.128 2.335**Demographic factorAge 0.410 3.870 ** *Gender 0.185 2.773*** Year of service -0.164 -4.500 ** * -0.078 -2.503**Working hour 0.186 2.046 ** 0.405 3.235***Salary Rate -2.408 -2.049 **Income package 2.476 2.102 ** 0.084 2.202** R square .966 .964Note. * ૉ൏0.1; **ૉ൏0.05; ***ૉ൏0.01.4. DiscussionResearchers adopted Shih and Chinerawats’ Econometric model (2009) to find that what kind of factors impacting cross-cultural working satisfaction among different industries. The result showed that 10 of the variables were significant at least at 10% level and impacted satisfaction on company A, and 8 variables impacting company B.For company A, the significant variables are Recognition, Advancement, Growth and Achievement in Motivate factors; Working conditions in Hygiene factors; Age, Working hour, Income package, Salary rate and Year of service in Demographic factor. That means if employees feel they can gain competency and own recognition from colleagues, also if they contribute a lot during job and can be promoted, they will gain satisfaction and this will motivate them to a higher performance in a cross-cultural working environment. Employees were demoralized by feeling that their works were not achievable. Company need to pay attention on achievement, thus will increase their satisfaction and encourage them to work with moral support. If Companies could provide a suitable working circumstance, which will maintain employees’ satisfaction and ensure that they are not dissatisfied in a cross-cultural working environment.For company B, there were 8 variables significant at least at 10% level, which were Growth and Advancement in Motivate factors; Job security and Benefits in Hygiene factors; Gender, Year of service, Working hour and Income package in Demographic factor. Different from company A, employees in company B did not feel they gain competency through work. Suggestion is providing more challenge in work to enhance employees’ capability. A buddy system which can pass experience is also suggested. Result also shows that employees did not satisfaction with fringe benefit policy. A suitable policy of compensation package and job security will maintain employees’ satisfaction and ensure that they are not dissatisfied in a cross-cultural working environment.2010第13屆科際整合管理研討會Table 3.Descriptive statistic of satisfactionCompany A(n=145) Company B (n=71)Mean Std. Mean Std. Challenge 4.6986 .96397 4.4789 1.15708 Recognition 4.1301 1.01209 4.2535 1.13034 Growth 4.8630 .84388 4.8028 .93533 Achievement 4.3630 1.12575 4.4930 1.08065 Advancement 4.0822 1.12958 4.4366 1.11781 Job security 3.8219 1.20164 3.8028 1.20261 Respect status 4.0548 1.11899 4.0563 1.05407 Pay competitiveness 3.6301 1.23743 3.7746 1.24438 Benefits 3.3904 1.25051 3.8592 1.32337 Safety 3.9041 1.17637 3.4930 1.35091 Working Condition 3.7055 1.22710 4.5775 1.02347 Supervision 4.3082 1.12382 4.2394 1.24745 Relationship 4.8767 .74176 5.0282 .87785After the independent sample t-test of satisfaction of each variable among company A and B, the result shows that there are three variables were significant difference, which are Benefits (t= -2.542, p= .012), Safety (t= 2.299, p= .022) and Working condition (t= -5.174, p= .000). In Motivate factors, companies seem to have higher satisfaction, all variables were above four-point, but in Hygiene factors, there seem to have lower satisfaction. In company B, employees seem to have higher satisfaction on compensation package and suitable working condition (e.g. working environment, suitable working hour per day). The result surprised researchers because researchers assumed that human resource department in big company work better and has superior design in compensation package and proper working circumstance. In company A, the average working hour was more than 8.73 hour, the range of salary plus fringe benefits was between 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 Thai baht. In company B, the average working hour was 8.27 hour, the range of salary plus fringe benefits was between 500,000 to 1,000,000 Thai baht. Employees in company A have longer working hour then company B, even though they have higher salary rate, they still not satisfy with the income package. According to these result, researchers propose to improve Hygiene factor to maintain satisfaction for both company, especially benefit package and suitable working condition in company A.5. ConclusionComparing cross-culture working satisfaction among two different industries, there are differences between the results of Motivate, Hygiene and Demographic factors.Econometrical Analysis of Multinational Corporations Cross-culturalSatisfaction among Industries in ThailandEmployees in both companies have a high level satisfaction in Motivate factor, though employees in bigger company tend to feel more challenge and achievement in their job will increase their satisfaction. They prefer the work that can gain their competency and own recognition from colleagues, and care about their effort can let them be promoted. Therefore, big company may provide more challenging work and a stable promotion to gain satisfaction of employees and this will motivate them to a higher performance in a cross-cultural working environment.In Hygiene factor, Benefits, Safety and Working condition variables are significant difference between two companies. Employees in big company have a tendency that dissatisfy with working condition. Result shows that they have longer working hour then company B. Even though they have higher salary rate, they still not satisfy with the income package. Employee with longer years of service especially not satisfy with the wage they had been paid.A suitable performance evaluation and salary pay will sustain employees’ satisfaction and ensure that they are not dissatisfied in a cross-cultural working environment.To maintain the competitive advantages for multinational companies, cross-cultural working satisfaction should be considered particularly in the era of globalization. When looking at cross cultural environments not only Motivation and Hygiene factors should be considered, but also Demographic factors as well. People with different culture would be driven by difference factors; in other words, the findings in this paper provide a new perspective on categorized factors to improve or maintain, and increasing the competitive advantages in the future.6. LimitationThe limitation of this study included limited access to multinational company respondents, time and failure of getting permission from other parties in Thailand to join this academic research project. If more multinational companies understand the importance of cross-cultural satisfaction to their employees and company performance, they will be able to customize their policies to adjust the local culture.Another limitation of this study is that researchers found the factors impacting cross-cultural working satisfaction and suggest that companies improving these factors, however this paper does not give practical suggestion for company policies. An extension of present study could focus on changes that can be made for practical improvements.2010第13屆科際整合管理研討會REFERENCESBennett, R., Aston, A., & Colquhoun, T. (2000). Cross-cultural Training: A Critical step in ensuring the success of international assignments. Human Resource Management, Summer/Fall, 39 (2 & 3), 239-250.Chinerawat V. (2009). “An econometrical Three Factor Model of Cross-cultural Adaptability”: A case study of Taiwan companies in Thailand. Graduate Institute of International Workforce Education and Development, National Taiwan Normal University, R.O.C. Taiwan. Copeland, L. & Griggs, L. (1985). Going International. New York: Random House.Gao, Q., Fjelkner, V., & Lange, G. (2005). Preventing expatriate failure- A research on the expatriates selection and training. Retrieved November 3, 2009, fromHerzberg F. (1959). Herzberg’s theory. . Retrieved February 23, 2010, from Hofstede, G., (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Hsu, S. P., & Lee Li. (2003) Taiwan Business Alliance Conference, 10, 19-22.Institute of Asia Study. (2005). Thai workers Protest in Taiwan. Retrieved February 23,2010 from /th/include/answer_search.php?question_id=184Kim, Y. Y. (2004 ), Long-term cross-cultural adaptation: Training implications of an integrative theory, In D. Landis, J. Bennett & M. Bennett (Eds.). Handbook of Intercultural Training.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kim, Y. S. (2009) A Study of Cross-Cultural Adaptation Communication Experiences of American Expatriates in South Korea. Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 11(4), 511-528.Lau, K., Nicholas, S., O Flynn, J., Ricciotti, A., & Sammartino, A. (2001) Expatriate Management :A Business Model for diversity management. (No journal name), 1-18. Retrieved from.au/mcib/include/diversity/EXPATRIATE% 20MANAGEMENT%20-%20A%20BUSINESS%20MODEL%20FOR%20DIVERSITY%2 0MAN.pdfLittrell, R. (2002). Desirable leadership behaviors of multi-cultural managers in China. Journal of Management Development, 21(1), 5-74.Pang, C., Sutton, J., & Roberts, D. (1998). Doing business in China - the art of war. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(7), 272-282.Selmer, J. (2000). A quantitative needs assessment technique for cross-cultural work adjustment training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 269-281.Spreitzer, G., Perttula, K., & Xin, K. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of transformational leadership. Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 205-228.Suutari, V., & Burch, D. (2001). The role of on-site training and support in expatriation: existing and necessary host-company practices. Career Development International, 6(6), 298-311. The Thailand Board of Investment (2008). Investment Direction in Thailand 2008. Thailand Investment Revie w, 18(2), 9-10.Windham International and National Foreign Trade Council, Inc. (1998). Global relocation trends: 1998 survey report. New York: Windham International.經濟部全球台商服務網(2009). Retrieved June 1,2010 from.tw/countryPage.do?id=11&country=TH。