Account-Giving in the Eyes of the Manager: Successful Management of Failing Events in Multinational Organizations (MNOs)

Abstract

Employees in multinational organizations (MNOs) face differences in accounts provided by other members, yet an inappropriate account could damage the account-giver’s career. This study examines account-giving in the eyes of the manager in an MNO context. A thematic analysis was conducted on the expected account-giving from 23 Japanese and 20 American managers in the United States. The results show that American managers typically view the out-of-control account as appropriate, whereas Japanese managers expect an apology in an untoward situation. In addition, this study gives insights to the apology account expected by Japanese managers. They expect an explicit apology for the lack of immediate communication rather than for the failing project. More interestingly, many Japanese managers expect an implicit form of apologies through self-reflection. Other findings including cultural amalgamation in MNOs and practical implications for MNO members are discussed along with the implications for the existing account taxonomy.

Keywords

account-giving communication in multinational organizations MNOs intercutlural communication

Along with an increasing number of multinational organizations (MNOs) around the globe, communication barriers among a diverse group of employees are often addressed today. Although many practitioners tend to attribute the cause to the lack of language skills, the barriers are not only from language skills but also from how to communicate with the diverse members. For example, some members unconsciously use the explicit, straight-forward style of verbal communication, yet the communication style may be taken as arrogant or threatening for others from different cultural backgrounds (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012). In fact, the differences in direct or indirect communication styles are identified in Hall’s (1976) high- and low-context cultures. Subsequent studies also report the consequences from the different communication styles including liking or disliking of the communicator (Bresnahan et al., 2002) and successful or unsuccessful acculturation (Kim, 2007, 2008).

Communication also takes place in an unexpected situation by giving an account, which is to “explain untoward behavior and bridge the gap between actions and expectations by social actors” (Scott & Lyman, 1968, p. 46). Such account-giving behavior is often evaluated by the receiver, which could lead to negative consequences (Byttny, 1987). For example, an inappropriate account could lower one’s credibility, goodwill, and produce long-term disengagement (Schlenker, Pontari, & Christopher, 2001). Early account researchers addressed the situational nature of accounts, and thus, the statuses and cultures of the communicators influence one’s account-giving as well as the other’s expected account behavior (Scott & Lyman, 1968). In short, it is critical for MNO members, who work for a manager from a different cultural background, to give an account appropriately to the manager. Accordingly, this study examines appropriate account-giving in the eyes of the manager in an MNO context. The findings of this study will aid MNO employees who wish to succeed under the manager who has a different cultural background.

Literature Review

Why Account-Giving?

Undesirable events happen at work. In an organization, one negative incident may affect the group’s and/or organizational goals, and the member should report to his or her superior in a timely manner. In such an undesirable situation, people engage in account-giving to protect one’s public image to cope with the failure (Schlenker et al., 2001) or social predicament in which one’s face is threatening (Cupach & Imahori, 1993). Account-giving can disengage the self from unwanted events by helping self-esteem and public image, task performance, and good social relations (Schlenker et al., 2001). In short, account-giving behavior is seen in any organization for impression management of members.

An account, however, will not be honored if it is not perceived legitimate (Scott & Lyman, 1968). Successful accounts must be credible, maintaining self-engagement for important, recurring tasks, and desirable prescriptions accompanying goodwill for the account-giver without the impression of narcissism. Otherwise, the account would damage his or her identity and punishment for failures and transgressions (Schlenker et al., 2001).

Types of Accounts

Accounts are perhaps well-known as excuses in general (Shimada, Thameling, & Takai, 2015). However, past research has identified several types of accounts. In particular, the following five types have been discussed based on a causal relation, outcome harmfulness, and personal responsibility (Itoi, Ohbuchi, & Fukuno, 1996): (a) concession/apology, (b) excuse, (c) justification, (d) refusal/denial, and (e) avoidance/silence. Concession is defined as explicit acknowledgement of own responsibility or guilt for the harmful outcome (e.g., McLaughlin, Cody, & O’Hair, 1983; Schönbach, 1980). Some scholars synonymously use an apology, which is defined as one’s admittance of the harmful outcome with the acknowledgement of own responsibility and regret for the outcome (Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Itoi et al., 1996; Takaku, 2000). Thus, it is “much like a concession” (Takaku, 2000, p. 372). Tata (2000) also notes that a concession is considered as an elaborate apology. Excuse is used when “one admits that the act in question is bad, wrong, or inappropriate but denies full responsibility” (Scott & Lyman, 1968, p. 47) to maintain a positive image of an actor and the other, lessening negative implications of the actor. Building on Scott and Lyman’s (1968) definition, Schönbach (1980) states that an excuse “admits the illegitimacy of the event but tries to minimize the agent’s responsibility for it” (p. 195). Justification is used when “one accepts responsibility for the act in question, but denies the pejorative quality associated with it” (Scott & Lyman, 1968, p. 47). Likewise, Schönbach (1980) states that justification “admits the responsibility of the agent’s for the event, but also admits full, partial, or conditional legitimacy” (p. 195). Refusal refers to denial of negative action or the speaker’s personal involvement in the action (Itoi et al., 1996; Schönbach, 1980). Finally, avoidance or silence means no engagement in account-giving (Itoi et al., 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1983; Takaku, 2000).

These accounts are also discussed based on a continuum of aggravation-mitigation. One end involves aggravating/assertive accounts, and the other end involves mitigating/nonassertive accounts depending on the level of face-threatening act. For example, excuse and apology/concession are more mitigating than justification and refusal/avoidance because excuse and apology/concession are less threatening to the other’s face than justification and refusal/avoidance (Itoi et al., 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1983; Takaku, 2000). As noted, these accounts are culturally standardized and certain accounts are commonly expected in a particular culture (Scott & Lyman, 1968). Supporting their assertion, McLaughlin et al. (1983) concluded in their study that an excuse was most often used among American college students across the contexts.

Differences in Account-Giving Between Americans and Japanese

As Scott and Lyman (1968) suggested, past studies indicated some differences in account-giving between Americans and Japanese students. For example, Japanese college students rated apology as more appropriate than did American college students in a hypothetical failing event (e.g., absence from an important presentation) at work (Takaku, 2000). In contrast, American students rated justification as a more appropriate strategy than did Japanese students. However, the literature also exhibits that the severity of situation affects their account-giving behavior. When facing a more severe event in a hypothetical situation (e.g., car accident), Itoi et al. (1996) found that both American and Japanese students selected the same apology strategy. When compared these two groups further, however, they concluded that American students preferred assertive accounts such as justification, whereas Japanese students preferred mitigating accounts such as apology to avoid direct confrontation. Likewise, Barnlund and Yoshioka’s (1990) study examined the consequences of apology and discovered that American students preferred to explain the error to justify their acts, whereas Japanese tended to offer compensation after apology.

These differences in account behavior can be explained by their facework strategies. In general, collectivists (e.g., Japanese) tend to preserve other face or mutual face, whereas individualists (e.g., Americans) are more likely to save own face (Ting-Toomey, 2005). In short, to save other or mutual face Japanese people use apology more than the Americans. In contrast, to save own face American people tend to engage in justification more than the Japanese (Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Sueda & Wiseman, 1992).

However, it should be noted that the Japanese apology has multiple meanings. For instance, using the mutual face-saving strategy, Japanese people apologize to reduce own face threats to others in addition to other face saving. In addition, they use apology in favor-asking situations in which American people use thanks (Lee, Park, Imai, & Dolan, 2012). Japanese people also consider apology more as a general expression of remorse rather than as guilty (Maddux, Kim, Okumura, & Brett, 2011). Furthermore, Japanese and American people have the same guilty meaning in different situations. According to Cupach and Imahori (1993), American people feel guilty and apologize only when they value the future relationship with the other communicator. On the other hand, Japanese feel guilty for others even who are not close. Thus, the guilty feeling for Japanese may have a lighter meaning than the one for Americans. In sum, these studies demonstrate differences in the meanings and the functions of apology between American and Japanese people.

Account-Giving in Organizational Contexts

As stated earlier, Scott and Lyman (1968) suggest that “accounts are situated according to the statuses of the interactants” (p. 46) in addition to cultures. Some studies have actually reported the significant effect of social hierarchy on account-giving behavior (e.g., Hamilton et al., 1983). Even among college students, the perceived organizational status in a hypothetical situation had an influence on the assessment of account appropriateness (Takaku, 2000).

These findings are particularly important in organizational research because one’s job position would affect his or her account-giving to another member. For example, subordinates are more likely to use justification when they make a request to their superiors than making a request to their coworkers (Kong, 2006). These studies exhibit that organizational members are most likely to give a different type of accounts depending on the position of whom they are dealing with. It would be, indeed, a good strategy because the literature discusses that supervisor and subordinate hold different expectations in communication behavior of the other (e.g., Dansereau & Markham, 1987). More importantly, as expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1978) predicts, a negative violation of manager’s expectations would damage the subordinate’s future (Foste & Botero, 2012). Thus, it is critical for organizational members to be familiar with managers’ expectations about account-giving. This would be imperative for MNO members who are more likely to work for a manager from a different cultural background. Thus, this study extends past cross-cultural account research to an organizational context and investigates expected account-giving of Japanese and American managers in MNOs. Accordingly, the following research questions are raised:

Research Question 1: What type of accounts would managers in MNOs expect from their subordinates in an untoward situation?

Research Question 2: Are there any differences in the expected type of accounts from subordinates between Japanese and American managers in an untoward situation?

Method

Participants

Japanese and American employees who work for small to midsized Japanese MNOs in the automobile industry in the southern part of the United States participated in an anonymous online questionnaire either in Japanese or in English. The questions asked several topics on cultural values and communication behaviors including account-giving. All questions were open-ended except two demographic questions that asked about the participant’s gender and age group.

A total of 32 Japanese employees participated in the online study. Five incomplete answers were excluded from the analysis. In addition, because this study focused on the managers’ perspective, four people who did not have any subordinates in the current position were also omitted. Thus, the data from 23 Japanese members were used in this study. Among them 22 were male and 1 was female. Their age was asked by selecting one of the categories: Two were 26 to 35 years old, 7 were 36 to 45 years old, 10 were 46 to 55 years old, and 3 were over 56 years old. One participant did not answer demographic questions including age. These participants have reported that they have from 1 to 41 subordinates under direct supervision. Their organizational tenure in the subsidiary in the United States ranged from 4 months to 11 years.

A total of 20 American participants consisted of 12 males and 4 females excluding 4 participants who reported no subordinate under direct supervision. The rest of 4 participants left the gender question blank. Among them, 1 was 26 to 35 years old, 3 were 36 to 45 years old, 8 were 46 to 55 years old, 3 were older than 56 years old, and the rest of 5 did not respond about their age groups. Their tenure with the current organization ranged from 2 to 27 years. These participants reported that they supervise from 3 to 170 subordinates. Similar to Japanese participants, all American participants were full-time employees (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Participants by Nationality.

Japanese participant	Gender	Age, years	American participant	Gender	Age, years
J1	M	36-45	A1	F	36-45
J2	M	46-55	A2	M	36-45
J3	M	>55	A3	M	46-55
J4	M	46-55	A4	—	—
J5	M	36-45	A5	M	46-55
J6	M	36-45	A6	F	46-55
J7	M	26-35	A7	M	46-55
J8	M	36-45	A8	M	36-45
J9	M	46-55	A9	M	>55
J10	M	46-55	A10	M	46-55
J11	M	36-45	A11	—	—
J12	M	46-55	A12	M	46-55
J13	M	46-55	A13	F	46-55
J14	M	46-55	A14	M	—
J15	M	36-45	A15	—	—
J16	M	36-45	A16	F	>55
J17	M	46-55	A17	M	>55
J18	F	46-55	A18	M	46-55
J19	M	46-55	A19	—	—
J20	M	>55	A20	M	26-35
J21	M	>55
J22	—	—
J23	M	26-35

Note. M = male; F = female.

Procedures

To collect data from both Japanese and American managers, the identical online site was set up in Japanese and English languages, respectively. First, the author contacted a local Japanese business association in the southern part of the United States to ask for their assistance to make an announcement of the website to their members. The business association was formed with 13 Japanese MNOs in the area. With their support, the network sampling method was used. First, the author e-mailed the links to the two websites (i.e., one in Japanese, and another in English) to the administrator of the association. The administrator then forwarded the links to each representative of the 13 MNOs of the association. Finally, the representative members distributed either one of the links to their organizational members (i.e., the Japanese site to Japanese members and the English site to American members).

To ask the participants’ expected account-giving by their subordinates in an untoward situation, the following hypothetical vignette was given in the online questionnaire in either Japanese or English:

Assume you have asked your new member (American subordinate) to complete a project in 3 weeks, and he/she has agreed to do it. Today is a day before the deadline. Your member has just asked for a two-day extension. You would not see any serious problem by extending the deadline for two days.

The participants were first asked if they would ask for the reason for the extension request. Those who answered yes to this first question were then asked to provide the most appropriate reason from the subordinate with a specific example in their own words. To investigate expectations toward a subordinate from both American and Japanese managers in a comparable manner, the vignette specified the “American” subordinate in both languages because this was the most realistic situation for managers who work for Japanese MNOs in the United States.

Data Analysis

All participants answered that they would ask for the reason for the extension request from their subordinates in the hypothetical last-minute situation. Thus, 23 accounts expected by Japanese managers and 20 accounts expected by American managers were coded by the bilingual researcher based on Owen’s (1984) three criteria of recurrence (i.e., salient theme in the given accounts), repetition (i.e., words repeated in the given accounts), and forcefulness (i.e., accents in the given accounts). The identified themes and subthemes after careful refinements were then attempted to sort into one of the four accounts (i.e., concession/apology, excuse, justification, and refusal/denial) of the account taxonomy (e.g., Itoi et al., 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1983; Schönbach, 1980; Takaku, 2000; Tata, 2000), yet, the ambiguous distinction between the excuse and justification accounts made the classification incomplete. Thus, the following findings are discussed with the dominant themes along with the subthemes emerged in this study, and the implications of the existing taxonomy is discussed later.

Findings

Two common key themes emerged from the participants’ responses: out of control and appeal for better outcomes. The out of control theme was then categorized into three subthemes: (a) unexpected priority task, (b) unexpected issues in the process, and (c) unexpected personal issues. All of these subthemes emerged from both American and Japanese responses. In addition to these common themes and subthemes, some distinct themes also emerged. The detailed findings in each theme were introduced in the following section. Japanese responses were translated into English. The number in parentheses indicates the frequency of the theme appeared in the responses.

Themes Emerged From Managers of MNOs

Out of Control (25)

This theme emerged across managers, but it was the most frequently appeared theme from American managers. As stated above, this theme was divided into three subthemes: (a) unexpected priority task, (b) unexpected issues in the process, and (c) unexpected personal issues. Among these subthemes, the most frequently raised subtheme from American managers was unexpected priority task.

Unexpected priority task (12)

This subtheme was raised by eight American managers and four Japanese managers as an appropriate reason for the extension request. Examples are as follows:

Diverting time to a higher priority activity would be a logical reason. (A3)

If they are pending some final information from other resources and/or another assignment/priority had been given since initial assignment. (A6)

The subordinate may have been too busy with other work that someone else asked him/her to do or that simply took priority due to the company’s operational needs. (A13)

If the subordinate had other tasks that were of equal or higher priority. (A20)

Based on the client’s need, a priority has been given to another task. (J13)

Unexpected issues in the process (8)

Six American managers and two Japanese managers reported this emergent subthemes. Examples are as follows:

I would think appropriate reasons would be something that changed that was out of their control . . . the information, data or situation had changed quickly without advanced notice. (A4)

Team member did not have enough time to gather enough data and analyze in the time frame given. (A2)

The subordinate should be able to clearly explain the root cause of the delay, whether it be from outside influences, not enough original lead-time provided (and why), or unforeseen problems that arose with the project. (A6)

Production lines shut down, or company asked for them to focus on something else. (A10)

Not enough resources or getting help from coworkers. (A12)

Delay of the original lead-time. (J5)

The unexpected trouble yesterday. (J18)

Unexpected personal issues (5)

Three Japanese and two American managers included unexpected personal issues such as one’s long illness, family member’s illness, and family emergency as reasonable examples of unexpected personal issues. It was identified as the third subtheme of the out of control theme.

Apology (12)

Apology, which was defined in this study as the admittance of own responsibility for the failing event, was the most frequently appeared theme from the Japanese responses, and none appeared from the American managers. This theme was classified into two subthemes: (a) explicit apology (i.e., direct admittance of own responsibility for the failing event) and (b) implicit apology (i.e., indirect admittance of own responsibility for the failing event).

Explicit apology (3)

The following examples of an explicit apology used subordinates’ voice, which was not seen in any American responses. These examples show the direct admittance of own responsibility, but they address the failure of timely communication:

I am deeply sorry to ask you in the last minute. Would it be a problem for our business if I ask for an extension of the deadline? If not, please give me an extension. Please let me explain the reason. . . . (J1)

I regret not having consulted with you sooner. The project has been taking longer than I originally expected. (J16)

The admittance of own responsibility for the task failure was directly addressed by self-humiliation in subordinate’s voice in the following example.

I will not be able to complete the task due to my bad planning. Please give me a two-day extension. (J22)

Implicit apology (9)

Interestingly more Japanese managers responded that they specifically expect self-reflection from the subordinate. This is considered as an implicit form of apologies because the subordinate has to admit own responsibility for the failing event through the self-reflection report to the manager. A typical response from these managers was:

First of all, my subordinate needs to report how much he/she has done compared to his/her original plan. I would also expect my subordinate to report the reasons for the delay and specific plans for the extended two days. (J6)

Likewise, eight other Japanese managers answered that they expect their subordinates to report the cause(s) of the delay with self-reflection and specific future plans so that they would not repeat the same error. For example,

I would expect my subordinate to show me his/her original plan and the detailed progress so far. The subordinate should then explain when he/she had to spend more time than expected, and why it happened. (J11)

Furthermore, one manager expects his or her subordinate to report own efforts in order to ask for an extension:

My subordinate should explain own efforts toward his/her original plan in the past weeks. (J10)

Furthermore, five managers expect a future plan in the self-reflection report to avoid the same error. For example, one respondent stated:

I would my subordinate to explain his/her original plan, the reason for the delay, and strategies in the future to avoid the same delay. (J15)

In addition, the following response displays the manager’s expectation on frequent communication initiated by the subordinate in order to avoid the same error. This manager also expects remorse for the lack of immediate communication in the self-reflection report, which indicates that self-reflection serves as a tool of admittance of own responsibility:

I would expect a report on the original plan and the current status. I would also expect explanation on when the project started delaying and why. He/she should consult with me and (later) report how he/she can prevent the same error. He/she should also include remorse for the last minute request. (J19)

Appeal for Better Outcome (3)

This theme emerged from both American and Japanese managers. One American manager answered the subordinate’s extension request should be due to a quality problem (and thus, the manager expects that he or she would like to improve the quality by the extension). A very specific response appeared from a Japanese manager:

I would expect my subordinate to explain how the outcome can be improved with the two-day extension. Specifically, I’d like to know what information can be obtained by the extension to improve the outcome. (J9)

Miscellaneous (3)

Furthermore, two American managers reported, despite any reasons, they expect the fact/truth from their subordinates. For example,

What’s most important is to know the facts so that we can adjust, recover and get back on track. (A4)

A similar response was reported by a Japanese manager, which implies the significance of honesty by denying dishonesty, but the response also includes inappropriateness of an excuse in the untoward situation:

I would accept any reason as long as it is legitimate in the situation; however, if my subordinate tells a lie or makes an excuse for the delay, I would need to correct his/her behavior. (J3)

Discussion

This study has extended past account research (e.g., Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Itoi et al., 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1983; Tata, 2000) to an MNO context and investigated appropriate subordinate’s account-giving in the eyes of the manager. The findings describe the details of expected accounts by managers in MNOs, who have similar or different cultural backgrounds from the subordinate.

First, the findings of this study exhibit that managers expect particular types of accounts from their subordinates in an untoward situation. They are (a) out-of-control (e.g., unexpected priority task, unexpected issues in the process, and unexpected personal/family illness); (b) apology (e.g., explicit, implicit); (c) appeal for better outcomes; and (d) miscellaneous (e.g., honesty, avoidance of excuse). Some accounts, such as out-of-control and an appeal for better outcomes, are viewed as legitimate by both American and Japanese managers.

One important finding was that Japanese participants in this study also listed family’s illness as a legitimate account. This is noteworthy because Japanese people traditionally prioritize work over family (Yanadori & Kato, 2009). For example, some expatriates take an oversea assignment to prioritize work, even if they have to be away from family and live alone in the host country (Furusawa & Brewster, 2016). A possible reason is that those who have listed family’s illness have been in the U.S. for more than three years, and they might have learned the significance of the family value among American members. Consequently, this finding demonstrates cultural amalgamation in MNOs through the acculturation of Japanese managers into the American workplace.

Another amalgamation is seen in the accommodation of an appeal for better outcomes by both American and Japanese managers. It can be interpreted that those who answered the legitimacy of this account might seek to develop the subordinate’s ability. Indeed, Cheung, Wu, and Wong (2013) report that one of the critical responsibilities of Japanese managers is to serve as a mentor of a subordinate, and to provide training to enhance the follower’s work skills. Thus, these managers may think that the deadline extension would provide another training opportunity to develop the subordinate’s ability. The supporting attitude for subordinate’s growth may have become a norm through the acculturation of American managers into the Japanese MNOs.

However, cultural distinctions are also acknowledged in this study. The most conspicuous difference is that American managers typically expect the out-of-control account, whereas Japanese managers expect an apology most in the failing event. Unlike past findings that showed an apology from both Americans and Japanese in a harmful event (e.g., Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Itoi et al., 1996), the apology account appeared only from Japanese managers in this study. The perceived low level of severity in the situation of this study may have contributed to the distinction between Japanese and American responses in the first place.

More importantly, this study provides insights regarding the apology account expected by Japanese managers. First, Japanese managers tend to expect an explicit apology for the lack of immediate communication in the process. This result supports past findings that Japanese people are process oriented (Choi & Liker, 1995; Onishi, 2006), and their apologies are expected to maintain relational harmony (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990).

This study indicates, however, more Japanese managers expect an implicit form of apologies through self-reflection. As noted earlier, the self-reflection report provides an opportunity of admittance for own responsibility for the untoward situation. Interestingly, their responses also highlight the process-oriented nature (Choi & Liker, 1995; Onishi, 2006) indicating that they expect to see the subordinate’s progress in the original plan and own efforts in the process along with the reason(s) for the delay as well as the specific future plans in the report.

Their self-reflection emphasis can be explained primarily by three reasons. First, self-reflection may stem from their implicit and indirect communication style (Hall, 1976; Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012). That is, self-reflection for Japanese managers is associated with apologies in an implicit manner by admitting a responsibility for the failure. For instance, by writing a specific plan for the future in the self-reflection report, these managers would try to enforce the subordinate’s full responsibility for the project. They may believe that the subordinate can avoid the same error in the future by making a commitment in writing. In sum, consistent with Hall’s (1976) high-context communication style, it appears that their self-reflection emphasis contains multiple meanings in the context.

Second, the self-reflection emphasis can be explained by a unique supervisor-subordinate relationship formed among Japanese people. As introduced earlier, the literature suggests that the major role of Japanese managers is to help their subordinates learn a particular job and social behavior, but they are also expected to take a responsibility for their subordinates’ errors (Cheung et al., 2013; Cole, 1971). Furthermore, Japanese managers like to learn through reflecting (Yamazaki & Kayes, 2010). Thus, modifying subordinate behavior through self-reflection is plausible for Japanese managers. Although face negotiation theory suggests collectivists like Japanese are more concerned for the other and mutual face than own face (Ting-Toomey, 2005), these findings can be interpreted that Japanese managers may try to save own face equally or more than the other face in the organizational context. It appears that these possible reasons support the notion that an apology in organizational contexts is different from the one in interpersonal contexts (e.g., Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Bisel & Messersmith, 2012).

Third, Japanese people work to improve the present situation as a continuous process (Yoshimura & Anderson, 1997). Indeed, a well-known Japanese term, Kaizen, refers to continuous improvement and is practiced in automobile manufacturers in the U.S. (Cheser, 1998). This Kaizen philosophy (Macpherson, Lockhart, Kavan, & Iaquinto, 2015) may have influenced the expectation of self-reflection for future from the participants who are in the automobile industry.

When looking into the detail of the out-of-control account, some differences are also manifested. For example, many American managers perceive an unexpected priority task as appropriate, and this subtheme also emerged from Japanese responses. However, these two groups pay attention to the task giver differently. For instance, American participants refer to internal authority. In contrast, one Japanese participant addresses the needs of clients. This difference in the internal or external attention may be explained by the discrepancy in their job responsibilities. Although the details of their job responsibilities were not asked, the Japanese participant who addresses client’s needs might be directly dealing with clients on a daily basis, whereas the Americans might be dealing with other internal members under a hieratical structure in their daily tasks. Another possible reason is that all American participants in this study work for a subsidiary of Japanese MNOs, and they might be experiencing the imbalance of power within the organization. Sweeney and Hua (2010) discover that Chinese local employees in a Dutch-owned MNO in China feel powerless than Dutch expatriates due to the ownership of their organization. Thus, American employees may be more conscious about internal authority than Japanese members in their Japanese-owned MNOs.

Another remarkable difference is exposed by a Japanese manager who has viewed the out of control account as legitimate, but she has assumed the unexpected situation happened yesterday, and the subordinate immediately asked for the deadline extension. As discussed earlier, more managers expressed a negative view toward the last-minute report, when they expected an explicit or implicit apology. In short, they expect an immediate report from the subordinate in the failing event. While the literature suggests that subordinates tend to avoid a negative report to the supervisor (e.g., Tesser & Rosen, 1972), particularly in person (Sheer & Chen, 2004), this finding suggests the significance of immediate communication with manager. In addition, the finding can be explained by a unique Japanese supervisor-subordinate relationship, which traditionally involves dependence (e.g., Clark, 1979) for a close relationship. In addition, Japanese managers are willing to protect their subordinates once the subordinates are accepted as important members (Cheung et al., 2013). These studies suggest that frequent open communication is also important with Japanese managers, which leads to successful impression management by turning the failing event to a positive impression.

Furthermore, this study demonstrated some interesting voices from the participants. Some American managers expect the subordinate’s moral rectitude by providing the truth. Based on the subordinate’s honesty these managers state that they would be willing to accept any reasons. Likewise, the significance of honesty was raised by a Japanese manager, but this manager linked dishonesty to an excuse. As described earlier, some researchers suggest that excuses and apologies are more mitigating than justifications because they are less threatening to the other face than justifications, and the mitigating strategies are preferred by collectivists like Japanese (Itoi et al., 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1983; Takaku, 2000). However, similar to Crossman and Noma’s (2013) finding, excuses may be viewed negatively by Japanese. Their study discovers that “no false” promotes interpersonal harmony as well as trust, and, thus it is a critical value in Japanese MNOs.

Implications for MNO Members

These findings are valuable for MNO members who would like to succeed under a manager who has a different cultural background. First, those who work for a Japanese manager should realize that he or she would favorably view an apology in an untoward situation. Giving an apology may be a challenge for members who view the apology as an acceptance of guilty, which is a sign of low self-esteem to them (Sugimoto, 1997). However, they should note that Japanese people do not perceive apology as a sign of low self-esteem. As discussed earlier, apologies for them may be used for face-threatening reduction, favor-asking, or a general expression of disgrace (Lee et al., 2012; Maddux et al., 2011). In addition, as this study provides another evidence, Japanese people tend to apologize to maintain relationships (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992), which will build trust (Crossman & Noma, 2013). Thus, their apologies have multiple layers with a wide range of meanings. American subordinates and/or other non-Japanese members may alter the way they view an apology in order to accommodate the Japanese style by paying attention to the context in which communication takes place. In addition, they should be aware that Japanese managers most likely to expect an apology connecting to ethics (Crossman & Noma, 2013). Furthermore, it should be noted that making an excuse may be viewed negatively by Japanese managers (Crossman & Noma, 2013; Shimada et al., 2015). For some Japanese managers, excuses may be judged as unethical or unprofessional equally to dishonesty. Members who work for Japanese should be aware of these findings so that the “inappropriate” account will not damage their career.

More importantly, it should be noted that Japanese managers expect subordinates to learn through self-reflection. Members should also prepare a detailed self-reflection report showing acknowledgement of own responsibility. The report should include the progress toward the original plan, the reason(s) for the untoward situation, and specific future plans. In addition, the report should include own efforts in the process and an appeal to the success in the future.

In addition, Japanese managers expect immediate communication initiated by the subordinate in the form of consultation even in the undesirable situation. As noted earlier, Japanese managers are willing to protect the subordinate’s failure, once the relationship is bonded (Cheung et al., 2013). From the subordinate’s perspective, an immediate report of the unfavorable event may be a good strategy for impression management, as discussed. American and other non-Japanese members should not be afraid to report any unfavorable event to Japanese managers. Rather, subordinates should report the negative event immediately to create a positive impression from the timely action.

The findings of this study also provide some implications for Japanese managers. First, Japanese managers should realize that many American subordinates are hesitant to report undesirable incidents because they perceive the negative report could damage their evaluations. Unlike the Japanese people, individualists such as American members tend to save their own face (Ting-Toomey, 2005). To facilitate open communication with subordinates, it is important to build a strong relationship (e.g., Bakar, Dilbeck, & McCroskey, 2010). This is particularly critical for managers who work with individualists because those members would most likely to avoid to report any information that threatens own face. If Japanese managers expect an immediate report from their subordinates, particularly about a failing event, the development of a high quality of relationship with each subordinate is inevitable (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Furthermore, Japanese managers tend to keep a distance from subordinates (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), and as this study shows, Japanese managers expect subordinate’s consultation with them. However, Japanese managers should also actively approach to their subordinates in order to develop a close relationship. Essentially, the development of the reciprocal relationship is critical for open communication (McCroskey & Richmond, 2000).

Additionally, Japanese managers should be aware that American members may not engage in an apology in the same way as do the Japanese. In some situations they would give an expressive apology, but they are more likely to justify their behavior after the apology (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Itoi et al., 1996).

Furthermore, although this study discovered cultural amalgamation in some account behavior, Thomas and Toyne’s (1995) study indicated that the moderate level of adaptation to American behavior had a better effect than did either the high level of adaptation or no adaptation. Japanese managers should also respect the subordinate’s behavior in a productive manner for effective management. For instance, after listening to the subordinate’s excuse or justification, Japanese managers can ask for self-reflection with future plans so that the subordinate can avoid the same error in the future. However, the literature suggests that such self-management is effective for professional development, but not for short-term efficiency (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1980). Japanese managers should also investigate the effectiveness of self-reflection for non-Japanese members.

Implications for Account Research

The findings of this study also provide implications for account research. First and foremost, the definitions of excuse and justification need to be polished to make a clearer distinction. In fact, the ambiguous distinction has been raised in the past, and some scholars have attempted to differentiate excuse from justification in terms of the strength of mitigating effect of account and the level of accountability (e.g., Itoi et al., 1996; Schönbach, 1980; Tata, 2000). However, the revised distinction still needs further clarification in applying them to organizational contexts, as shown in this study. For example, “out-of-control,” one of the major themes emerged in this study, can deny the subordinate’s full responsibility or minimize his/her responsibility, but the subordinate can also appeal to legitimacy. According to Schönbach (1980), an appeal to the external circumstances of the situation such as out-of-control contains both justificatory and exculpatory. Due to the overlapping categories, this study was unable to completely apply the findings to the five classifications, which were introduced earlier, and was unable to demonstrate how this study has exactly advanced this research area. In addition, the honesty theme may not be applied to any of the five account types. Some may consider honesty as concession because it “admits causality, responsibility, and blameworthness” (Tata, 2000, p. 1138). However, according to McLaughlin et al. (1983), concession is “not necessarily isomorphic with the actor’s true attitudes toward a reproach” (p. 209).

Some scholars discuss another account of refocusing, which refers to reframing of the content for the purpose of the reader’s attention shift (e.g., Sandell & Svensson, 2016; Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Based on this definition, an appeal for better outcomes can be categorized into this “refocusing” account because the account-giver may be reframing the content to shift the manager’s attention. However, it can also be interpreted that the account-giver is appealing to the positive value of the act, which refers to justification (see Sandell & Svensson, 2016). Thus, the distinction between these categories also needs further clarification.

To sum, the findings of this study call into question about the effectiveness of the account taxonomy discussed in the past (e.g., Itoi et al., 1996; Schönbach, 1980; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Tata, 2000) and suggest a review in organizational contexts. The update of the taxonomy is critical to advance account research, particularly in MNO contexts.

Limitations and Future Research

The ultimate goal of this study was to assist the increasing number of employees in MNOs for their success. To achieve this goal, it is recommended that future research should investigate actual consequences from the account violations in MNO contexts because expectancy violations theory also posits different reactions to the violation across cultures (Burgoon, 1978; Burgoon & Hubbard, 2005). In addition, extant studies have exhibited that Japanese students tend to perceive their offense more severely than Americans (Itoi et al., 1996; Shimada et al., 2015). Although those authors attributed the result to the translation issue, the difference in their perceptions may be another critical reason why Japanese engage in apologies more than Americans. Furthermore, the integration of facework strategies in account-giving in organizational contexts would provide more concrete explanation to the differences. Future research should also examine these issues to advance the account research.

The use of the anonymous online questionnaire in this study has contributed to obtain responses from a reasonable number of managers of MNOs while protecting their identity, yet it has limited the interpretations of their responses because it did not allow follow-up questions to obtain additional information. In addition, an unequal number of females as well as subordinates in American and Japanese participants in this study should be altered in future research. This study, however, sheds light on one of the critical communication issues in MNOs by providing evidence for similar and dissimilar expectations toward subordinate’s account-giving between American and Japanese managers.

To conclude, the findings of this study have contributed to amend incomplete understanding about communication barriers in MNOs among many practitioners. The barriers are not only from language issues but also differences in how to communicate appropriately among members of MNOs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Brenda Berkelaar and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Kumi Ishii (PhD, Kent State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Western Kentucky University. Her research focuses on communication in multinational organizations and with technology.

References

Bakar

H. A.

Dilbeck

K. E.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2010). Mediating role of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77, 637-656. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.499104

Barnlund

D. C.

Yoshioka

(1990). Apologies: Japanese and Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193-206. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(90)90005-H

Bisel

R. S.

Messersmith

A. S.

(2012). Organizational and supervisory apology effectiveness: Apology giving in work settings. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 425-448. doi:10.1177/1080569912461171

Bresnahan

J. B.

Shearman

S. M.

Lee

S. Y.

Park

C. Y.

Mosher

Ohashi

(2002). Responding to a friend: Social appropriateness and liking in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 127-145.

Burgoon

J. K.

(1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129-142.

Burgoon

J. K.

Hubbard

A. S. E.

(2005). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory. In Gudykunst

W. B.

(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication theory (pp. 149-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Byttny

(1987). Sequence and practical reasoning in accounts episodes. Communication Quarterly, 35, 67-83.

Cheser

R. N.

(1998). The effect of Japanese kaizen on employee motivation in U.S. manufacturing. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6, 197-217.

Cheung

F. Y.

W. P.

Wong

M. L.

(2013). Supervisor–subordinate kankei, job satisfaction and work outcomes in Japanese firms. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13, 265-278. doi:10.1177/1470595813501477

10.

Choi

T. Y.

Liker

J. F.

(1995). Bringing Japanese continuous improvement approaches to U.S. manufacturing: The roles of process orientation and communications. Decision Sciences, 26, 589-620.

11.

Clark

(1979). The Japanese company. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

12.

Cole

R. E.

(1971). Japanese blue collar: The changing tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

13.

Crossman

Noma

(2013). Sunao as character: Its implications for trust and intercultural communication within subsidiaries of Japanese multinationals in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 543-555. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1321-7

14.

Cupach

W. R.

Imahori

T. T.

(1993). Managing social predicaments created by others: A comparison of Japanese and American facework. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 431-444.

15.

Dansereau

Markham

S. E.

(1987). Superior-subordinate communication: Multiple levels of analysis. In Jablin

E. M.

Putnam

L. L.

Roberts

K. H.

Porter

L. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 343-388). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

16.

Foste

E. I.

Botero

I. C.

(2012). Personal reputation: Effects of upward communication on impressions about new employees. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 48-73. doi:10.1177/0893318911411039

17.

Furusawa

Brewster

(2016). IHRM and expatriation in Japanese MNCs: HRM practices and their impact on adjustment and job performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 54, 396-420. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12106

18.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

19.

Hall

E. T.

(1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.

20.

Hamilton

V. L.

Hagiwara

(1992). Roles, responsibility, and accounts across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 157-179.

21.

Hamilton

V. L.

Sanders

Hosoi

Ishimura

Matsubara

Nishimura

. . .Tokoro

(1983). Universals in judging wrongdoing: Japanese and Americans compared. American Sociological Review, 49, 199-211.

22.

Hofstede

G. J.

(2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

23.

Itoi

Ohbuchi

Fukuno

(1996). A cross-cultural study of preference of accounts: Relationship closeness, harm severity, and motives of account making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 913-934.

24.

Kim

Y. S.

(2007). Communication experiences of Korean expatriates in the U.S.: A study of cross-cultural adaptation. Human Communication, 10, 213-230.

25.

Kim

Y. S.

(2008). Communication experiences of American expatriates in South Korea: A study of cross-cultural adaptation. Human Communication, 11, 511-528.

26.

Kong

K. C.

(2006). Accounts as a politeness strategy in the internal directive documents of a business firm in Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16, 77-101.

27.

Lee

H. E.

Park

H. S.

Imai

Dolan

(2012). Cultural differences between Japan and the United States in uses of “apology” and “thank you” in favor asking messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 263-289. doi:10.1177/0261927X12446595

28.

Macpherson

W. G.

Lockhart

J. C.

Kavan

Iaquinto

A. L.

(2015). Kaizen: A Japanese philosophy and system for business excellence. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(5), 3-9. doi:10.1108/JBS-07-2014-0083

29.

Maddux

W. W.

Kim

P. H.

Okumura

Brett

J. M.

(2011). Cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies. International Negotiation, 16, 405-425. doi:10.1163/157180611X592932

30.

Manz

C. C.

Sims

H. P.

(1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361-368.

31.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

(2000). Applying reciprocity and accomodation theories to supervisor/subordinate communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 278-289. doi: 10.1080/00909880009365575

32.

McLaughlin

M. L.

Cody

M. J.

O’Hair

H. D.

(1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208-224.

33.

Onishi

(2006). The transferability of Japanese HRM practices to Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44, 260-275.

34.

Owen

W. F.

(1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287. doi: 10.1080/00335638409383697

35.

Sandell

Svensson

(2016). The language of failure: The use of accounts in financial reports. International Journal of Business Communication, 53, 5-26. doi:10.1177/2329488414525452

36.

Schlenker

B. R.

Pontari

B. A.

Christopher

A. N.

(2001). Excuses and character: Personal and social implications of excuses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 15-32.

37.

Schönbach

(1980). A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 195-200.

38.

Scott

M. B.

Lyman

S. M.

(1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.

39.

Sheer

V. C.

Chen

(2004). Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task complexity in manager-subordinate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 76-93. doi:10.1177/0893318904265803

40.

Shimada

Thameling

C. L.

Takai

(2015). Everyday experiences of account-giving from victims’ and offenders’ perspectives: A comparison of U.S. American and Japanese students’ perceptions. Intercultural Communication Studies, 24, 82-102.

41.

Sitkin

S. B.

Bies

R. J.

(1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflicts. Human Relations, 46, 349-370.

42.

Sueda

Wiseman

R. L.

(1992). Embarrassment remediation in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 159-173.

43.

Sugimoto

(1997). A Japan-U.S. comparison of apology styles. Communication Research, 24, 349-369.

44.

Sweeney

Hua

(2010). Accommodating toward your audience: Do native speakers of English know how to accommodate their communication strategies toward nonnative speakers of English? Journal of Business Communication, 47, 477-504. doi:10.1177/0021943610377308

45.

Takaku

(2000). Culture and status as influences on account giving: A comparison between the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 371-388.

46.

Tata

(2000). She said, he said: The influence of remedial accounts on third-party judgments of coworker sexual harassment. Journal of Management, 26, 1133-1156.

47.

Tesser

Rosen

(1972). Similarity of objective fate as a determinant of the reluctance to transmit unpleasant information: The mum effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 46-53.

48.

Thomas

D. C.

Toyne

(1995). Subordinates’ responses to cultural adaptation by Japanese expatriate managers. Journal of Business Research, 32, 1-10.

49.

Ting-Toomey

(2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In Gudykunst

W. B.

(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

50.

Ting-Toomey

Chung

L. C.

(2012). Understanding intercultural communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

51.

Yamazaki

Kayes

D. C.

(2010). Learning and work satisfaction in Asia: A comparative study of Japanese, Chinese and Malaysian managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2271-2289. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.509628

52.

Yanadori

Kato

(2009). Work and family practices in Japanese firms: Their scope, nature and impact on employee turnover. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 439-456. doi:10.1080/09585190802673494

53.

Yoshimura

Anderson

(1997). Inside the kaisha: Demystifying Japanese business behavior. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.