2023 Volume 5 Issue 1 Article ID: 2023-0009-OA
Objective: The current study aimed to identify workplace stress and how stress factors differed in employees of a multinational company’s subsidiaries in Japan and Vietnam. Methods: For the study, a total of 340 Japanese and 379 Vietnamese workers were included from their corresponding subsidiaries of a multinational company headquartered in Japan. The data were anonymously collected via an online pre-administered questionnaire between November 2021 and February 2022. A brief Job Stress Questionnaire was used to assess the job stress. Doubly robust estimation combines a multivariate regression model with a propensity score model to identify the adjusted difference of job stress between workers in two companies. Results: Japanese employees included 292 males and 48 females, with an average age of 45.5 years. Vietnamese workers comprised 91 males and 288 females, with an average age of 36.5 years. Japanese workers reported higher level of job stress (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, p<.001), family dissatisfaction (OR 1.25, p<.001), and job dissatisfaction (OR 1.31, p<.001) than Vietnamese workers. Supervisor support had the lowest ranking in both countries (Mean 2.61; SD, 1.14 in Japan and mean 2.08; SD, 1.34 in Vietnam). The largest score differences between Japanese and Vietnamese workers were observed for family support (Diff=−1.25, p<.001) and colleague support (Diff=−1.20, p<.001). Conclusion: Although we have herein focused on the factors with the poorest perception and the highest gaps between the two countries, the managers in each country should be mindful of the other factors that appeared to be significant job stressors in their subsidiaries for further prevention of job stress.
In today’s globalized world, the workforce constitutes a fundamental pillar of economic and social development. The well-being and health of employees hold paramount significance, not only for the individuals themselves but also for the overall productivity and growth of corporations at large. The International Labor Organization Convention (No.161 of 1985)1) and World Health Organization (WHO) Global Strategy of 19952) identified as objectives the development of healthy work environments and practices through the principle “for all with equity”. In the Sixtieth World Health Assembly, the WHO emphasized the need for collaborative efforts from Member States in addressing the holistic well-being of workers. This transcends the prevention of occupational diseases and injuries, extending to encompass mental health, health promotion, and general wellness of workers at workplace3). However, the application of this principle has varied between and within countries, by different types of workplaces between and within private and public sectors, and between different groups of workers, creating great inequity in well-being among working people2,4). Particularly, mental health disparities, including stress levels within the workforce, persist as a challenging issue, shaped by a complex interplay of physical and non-physical working environment and personal factors (Figure 1)5). Hence, we seek to delve into the realm of disparities of stress level and its influencing factors among employees in a multinational corporation with over 200 subsidiaries across the globe. In all subsidiaries, organizational policies are held at a similar level. Therefore, by focusing on a corporation that has embraced analogous organizational policies, we intend to decipher the roles of physical and non-physical factors influencing for disparity of workers’ stress. In the current study, we selected Japanese and Vietnamese subsidiaries of a multinational corporation headquartered in Japan. Occupational stress is becoming a serious problem among Japanese workers. Previous studies found that more than 60% of Japanese workers reported experiencing work-related stress, and the number of workers with mental health problems has been rapidly increasing6). Vietnam has one of the fastest-growing economies among all countries and is on track to become a high-income country by 20457). However, along with this economic growth, Vietnam is facing issues with occupational health, such as physical and emotional burnout. A systematic review found that the prevalence of occupational stress among Vietnamese factory workers ranged from 20.7% to 89.6%8). Therefore, we believe that Japan and Vietnam are compelling cases for this comparative analysis, and we aimed to examine the inequities in occupational stress among workers in their respective subsidiaries of a multinational corporation, despite the implementation of similar organizational policies.
The data were collected at Japanese and Vietnamese subsidiaries of a multinational company headquartered in Japan. The data were anonymously collected via an online pre-administered questionnaire with the support of a professional company, between November 2021 and February 2022.
The minimum required sample size was calculated with the formula9):
where N is the minimum sample size of each group, 1.96 is the multiplier for an alpha of 0.05, 0.842 is the multiplier for a power of 0.80, δ2=4 is the population variance (square of the standard deviation), m1 is the population mean in Japan, m2 is the population mean in Vietnam, and m1−m2 (0.5) is the minimal difference of interest. Using this equation, the minimum sample size was calculated as 251 per country (251=2[(1.96+0.842)2x22 )]/0.52).
For the study, a total of 340 Japanese workers and 379 Vietnamese workers were included.
Assessment toolThe Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) was used to measure occupational stress in both countries. The BJSQ instrument is free for use, not copyrighted, and does not require permission for use or licensing fees. The BJSQ uses 57 items to assess job stressors (Part A, 17 items: eg, psychological job demands, job control), stress responses (Part B, 29 items: eg, psychological and physical stress reactions), and buffering factors (Parts C and D, 11 items: eg, social support at work) (eTable 1). We followed the stress-check manual developed by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan10) to identify the level of overall stress and level of job stressors. All items were measured with scores from a four-Likert scale (from 1=low stress to 4=high stress) and we summed the item scores to calculate the overall stress level. The scores ranged from 29 to 116 for stress reactions (Part B) and from 26 to 104 for job stressors (Parts A and C). The presence of high stress was defined as follows: i) total score of Part B ≥77; or ii) total score of Part B ≥63 or sum of total scores of Parts A and C ≥76. If criterion (i) or criterion (ii) was met, the participant was classified as high stress. To calculate the level of job stressors, the four-point Likert scale (from 1=low stress to 4=high stress) was reversely converted to the five-point Likert scale (from 1=high stress to 5=low stress), such that that highest score indicated the lowest stress in accordance with the scoring guideline of BJSQ provided by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan10).
We downloaded the Vietnamese version of BJSQ that had been translated and confirmed by the multiple experts in occupational diseases research group of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan11). After that, the back translation was performed by a native Vietnamese-speaking researcher to ensure the equivalence between the original Japanese version and the translated Japanese version. No conceptual and contextual differences from original Japanese version were found. The reliability and validity of the BJSQ was previously confirmed for Japanese workers12,13), and this scale has been used in international contexts14,15).
Data analysisSociodemographic variables, including sex, age, education level, marital status, and annual income, as well as work related variables, including work type, number of working years, and type of work contract, were descriptively analyzed for Japanese and Vietnamese workers. Means and standard deviations (SDs) of scores for job stressors were calculated, and independent t-test was used to compare the means of job stressors between the two countries. A chi-square test was used to examine the differences among overall stress levels, family satisfaction, and job satisfaction. The doubly robust estimation method was applied to infer the independent association between countries and outcome variables, including the presence of stress, job stressors, and dissatisfaction with family and work. Doubly robust estimation combines a multivariate regression model with a propensity score model to estimate the association and casual effect of an exposure on an outcome. This method aims to mitigate potential biases arising from model misspecification and confounding variables, providing more reliable causal effect estimates16,17). The treatment effect function of STATA (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used for doubly robust estimation. The country entered as a treatment variable, and age, sex, and type of work were entered as treatment independent variable. For binary outcome variables, such as presence of stress and family/work dissatisfaction, the logit function was employed for outcome modeling. For numerical outcome variables, such as job stressors, a linear function was employed. Age, sex, and type of work were adjusted in the outcome model. The covariate balance was assessed with an overidentification test, confirming that the treatment model balanced the covariates (p>0.05). Significance was set at the 5% level (p<0.05). STATA version was used to analyze the data.
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. The Vietnamese workers were predominately female (76.0%), while the Japanese workers were predominantly male (85.9%). The Vietnamese employees were considerably younger than the Japanese workers; the average age was 36.5 and 45.5 years, respectively, and the proportion of workers aged >50 years was 4.2% and 40.9%, respectively. Desk workers made up the majority of Japanese participants (68.5%), while labor workers made up the majority of Vietnamese participants (69.1%). The average number of working years was 22.7 and 12 years in the Japanese and Vietnamese companies, respectively.
| Japan (N=340) | Vietnam (N=379) | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 292 | 85.9% | 91 | 24.0% | <.001 |
| Female | 48 | 14.1% | 288 | 76.0% | |
| Age, years, mean | 45.5 | 36.5 | <.001 | ||
| Age group, years | |||||
| 10–19 | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 0.8% | <.001 |
| 20–29 | 19 | 5.6% | 67 | 17.7% | |
| 30–39 | 81 | 23.8% | 176 | 46.4% | |
| 40–49 | 101 | 29.7% | 117 | 30.9% | |
| 50–59 | 124 | 36.5% | 16 | 4.2% | |
| ≥60 | 15 | 4.4% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Education level | |||||
| Junior high school | 2 | 0.6% | 38 | 10.0% | <.001 |
| High school | 188 | 55.3% | 192 | 50.7% | |
| College | 21 | 6.2% | 73 | 19.3% | |
| University | 127 | 37.4% | 56 | 14.8% | |
| Others | 2 | 0.6% | 20 | 5.3% | |
| Marital status | |||||
| Single | 68 | 20.0% | 47 | 12.4% | <.001 |
| Married | 247 | 72.6% | 317 | 83.6% | |
| Divorced | 24 | 7.1% | 10 | 2.6% | |
| Widow | 0 | 0.0% | 5 | 1.3% | |
| Other | 1 | 0.3% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Annual income (in million JPY)a | |||||
| 1,50–3,99 (≤1,50) | 35 | 10.3% | 297 | 78.4% | |
| 4,0–7,9 (1,50–1,99) | 166 | 48.8% | 65 | 17.2% | |
| 8,00–9,99 (2,00–2,50) | 67 | 19.7% | 5 | 1.3% | |
| ≥10,00 (≥2,50) | 72 | 21.2% | 12 | 3.2% | |
| Work type | |||||
| Desk work | 233 | 68.5% | 117 | 30.9% | <.001 |
| Service work | 4 | 1.2% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Laborous work | 103 | 30.3% | 262 | 69.1% | |
| Working years, mean | 22.7 | 12 | <.001 | ||
| Working years | |||||
| 0–4 | 18 | 5.3% | 105 | 27.7% | <.001 |
| 5–9 | 29 | 8.5% | 31 | 8.2% | |
| 10–19 | 103 | 30.3% | 161 | 42.5% | |
| 20–29 | 63 | 18.5% | 80 | 21.1% | |
| >30 | 127 | 37.4% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Type of work contract | |||||
| Regular | 318 | 93.5% | 374 | 98.7% | <.001 |
| Non-regular (temporary labor, contract employees) | 15 | 4.4% | 2 | 0.5% | |
| Part time workers | 2 | 0.6% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Freelancer | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Contract (outsourcing) | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | |
| Commissioned work | 4 | 1.2% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Others | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.5% | |
JPY- Japanese Yen
Table 2 shows the results for the stress levels, job stressors, mental and physical reactions caused by stress, and family and job satisfaction of workers in the two companies, and unadjusted differences of all job stressors between the two countries. In Japan, the quantity workload (Mean 2.86; SD, 1.04), physical work environment stress (Mean 2.76; SD, 0.70), and supervisor support (Mean 2.61; SD, 1.14) shows to be highest stress factor, while in Vietnam the workload quality (Mean 2.22; SD, 0.93), physical burden (Mean 2.36; SD, 1.02), and supervisor support (Mean 2.08; SD, 1.34) shows to be highest stress factor.
| Japan | Vietnam | Mean difference | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean or % | SD | Mean or % | SD | |||
| % of workers with stress | 28.24% | NA | 4.22% | NA | <.001 | |
| Causes of stress | ||||||
| Quantity workload | 2.86 | (1.04) | 2.95 | (1.08) | −0.09 | .296 |
| Quality workload | 2.98 | (0.87) | 2.22 | (0.93) | 0.76 | <.001 |
| Physical burden | 3.06 | (0.83) | 2.36 | (1.02) | 0.70 | <.001 |
| Degree of control | 2.91 | (0.82) | 3.98 | (1.05) | −1.08 | <.001 |
| Skill utilization | 2.99 | (0.80) | 2.88 | (1.13) | 0.12 | .112 |
| Interpersonal stress | 3.47 | (0.95) | 3.99 | (0.97) | −0.52 | <.001 |
| Physical work environment | 2.76 | (0.70) | 2.87 | (0.97) | −0.10 | .107 |
| Job fitness | 2.99 | (0.97) | 4.20 | (1.15) | −1.20 | <.001 |
| Sense of reward | 2.98 | (1.01) | 4.03 | (1.17) | −1.05 | <.001 |
| Mental and physical reactions caused by stress | ||||||
| Vigor | 2.99 | (1.10) | 3.86 | (0.97) | −0.87 | <.001 |
| Irritation | 3.25 | (1.09) | 3.97 | (0.92) | −0.72 | <.001 |
| Fatigue | 3.12 | (1.05) | 3.96 | (0.99) | −0.83 | <.001 |
| Anxiety | 3.19 | (1.06) | 4.01 | (0.90) | −0.82 | <.001 |
| Depression | 3.33 | (1.18) | 4.20 | (0.93) | −0.87 | <.001 |
| Physical complaints | 2.96 | (1.06) | 3.49 | (0.89) | −0.53 | <.001 |
| Other factors that affect stress response | ||||||
| Supervisor’s support | 2.61 | (1.14) | 2.08 | (1.34) | 0.53 | .002 |
| Colleagues’ support | 3.07 | (1.12) | 4.43 | (0.78) | −1.35 | <.001 |
| Families’ support | 3.36 | (1.33) | 4.73 | (0.61) | −1.37 | <.001 |
| Satisfaction | ||||||
| Job satisfaction | ||||||
| Satisfied | 70.29% | NA | 95.51% | NA | <.001 | |
| Dissatisfied | 29.71% | NA | 4.49% | NA | ||
| Family life satisfaction | ||||||
| Satisfied | 79.12% | NA | 98.94% | NA | <.001 | |
| Dissatisfied | 20.88% | NA | 1.06% | NA | ||
NA, not applicable; SD, standard deviation.
The quantity workload, skill utilization, and working environment did not significantly differ between the two countries. The highest score differences between Japanese and Vietnamese employees were observed in family support (Diff=−1.37, p<.001), colleague support (Diff=−1.35, p<.001), and job fitness (Diff=−1.20, p<.001). Japanese employees (28.24%) were much more likely than Vietnamese workers (4.22%) to report feeling stressed at work. Job dissatisfaction was higher among Japanese workers (29.71%) than Vietnamese workers (4.49%). Japanese employees (20.88%) expressed more dissatisfaction with family life than Vietnamese workers (1.06%).
In doubly robust estimation, the largest score differences between Japanese and Vietnamese workers were observed for family support (Diff=−1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.48 to −1.02; p<.001) and colleague support (Diff=−1.20; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.94; p<.001). Compared to Vietnamese workers, Japanese workers had greater odds of having job stress (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; 95% CI, 1.24–1.51), job dissatisfaction (OR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13–1.39), and family dissatisfaction (OR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17–1.47) (Table 3).
| Coefficient/ORa | 95% CI (LI, UI) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Job stress | |||
| Existence of job stress† | 1.37† | (1.24, 1.51) | <.001 |
| Causes of stress | |||
| Quantity workload | 0.14 | (−0.15, 0.43) | .332 |
| Qualitative workload | 0.84 | (0.68, 1.01) | <.001 |
| Physical burden | 0.29 | (0.10, 0.48) | .003 |
| Degree of control | −0.93 | (−1.18, −0.68) | <.001 |
| Skill utilization | −0.19 | (−0.41, −0.03) | .090 |
| Interpersonal stress | −0.74 | (−0.98, −0.49) | <.001 |
| Workplace stress | −0.21 | (−0.38, −0.04) | .018 |
| Job fitness | −1.14 | (−1.38, −0.90) | <.001 |
| Sense of reward | −1.11 | (−1.37, −0.85) | <.001 |
| Mental and physical reactions caused by stress | |||
| Vigor | −0.99 | (−1.23, −0.74) | <.001 |
| Irritation | −0.73 | (−1.04, −0.41) | <.001 |
| Fatigue | −1.05 | (−1.27, −0.83) | <.001 |
| Anxiety | −0.82 | (−1.04, −0.59) | <.001 |
| Depression | −0.97 | (−1.22, −0.72) | <.001 |
| Physical complaints | −0.78 | (−1.03, −0.53) | <.001 |
| Other factors that affect stress response | |||
| Supervisor’s support | 0.71 | (0.40, 1.02) | <.001 |
| Colleagues’ support | −1.20 | (−1.46, −0.94) | <.001 |
| Families’ support | −1.25 | (−1.48, −1.02) | <.001 |
| Satisfaction | |||
| Job dissatisfaction† | 1.25† | (1.13, 1.39) | <.001 |
| Family dissatisfaction† | 1.31† | (1.17, 1.47) | <.001 |
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; LI, lower interval; UI, upper interval.
Coefficient is calculated from doubly robust estimation with a linear function and all coefficients indicate the adjusted differences of items between two countries unless indicated as†
Vietnam is taken is a reference in treatment variable in doubly robust estimation.
Table 4 shows the significant factors influencing workers’ job stress in both countries’ workers. Among Japanese workers, colleague support, job satisfaction, and family satisfaction had preventive effect for job stress. Among Vietnamese workers, increase of working years, family support, and job satisfaction had preventive effect for job stress.
| Factors | AOR | 95% CI (LI, UI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | |||
| Colleague support | 0.57 | (0.83, 2.27) | <.001 |
| Job satisfaction (Ref: Job dissatisfaction) | 0.38 | (1.37, 4.90) | .001 |
| Family satisfaction (Ref: Job dissatisfaction) | 0.46 | (2.70, 6.70) | .015 |
| Vietnam | |||
| Working year | 0.90 | (0.24, 1.75) | .012 |
| Supervisor support | 1.77 | (0.08, 0.34) | .012 |
| Family support | 0.49 | (0.42, 2.37) | .014 |
| Job satisfaction (Ref: Job dissatisfaction) | 0.19 | (0.28, 7.33) | .017 |
AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; LI, lower interval; Ref, reference; UI, upper interval.
OR (odds ratio) was calculated from logistic regression and adjusted (AOR)with age, sex, physical health and other stress factors.
Dependent variable is dummy variable: Stress and No stress
Probability modeled is “Being stressed” with reference to “No stress”.
The current research delved into the disparities in occupational stress experienced by employees in the Japanese and Vietnamese subsidiaries of a multinational corporation, even in light of the implementation of the same organizational policies. The study revealed a notable divergence in the levels of job-related stress and the underlying factors shaping this stress among the workforce in these two subsidiaries. In general, Japanese workers were more prone than Vietnamese workers to reporting higher levels of job stress, family dissatisfaction, and job dissatisfaction.
Stress cannot be defined by a single item, and even the relevant items can vary depending on contextual factors, such as the country and work type. Therefore, after adjusting these factors in the doubly robust estimation model, the quantity workload and skill utilization were found to be similar between the two countries. Overall, compared to Vietnamese workers, Japanese employees had less favorable perceptions of all studied factors except for supervisor support, physical burden, and qualitative workload.
Here, we will discuss the factors with similar perceptions, factors with the least favorable perception in both countries, and those with the highest gap between countries. We will then address possible policy implications.
The workers of both countries had similar perceptions of quantity workload. Globalization has led to a developing concern for work overload stress in developing countries18,19,20). While people in developed nations are used to dealing with work overload stress, those in developing nations are deficient in this18). Previous studies found that Vietnamese people are more prone to workload stress than those of developed countries, including Germany, Oman, and Japan18,19,20). However, the current study found that the Japanese and Vietnamese participants perceived their workload quantities similarly. This could reflect that the Vietnamese and Japanese subsidiaries involved in the current study had better task management and legal compliance with working hours compared to local Vietnamese companies and other small- and medium-sized Japanese enterprises, respectively.
Among the studied factors, supervisor support showed the least favorable perception in both countries. According to Putter, supervisor support can be emotional or instrumental21). The BJSQ used in the current study primarily assesses how an employee perceives their supervisor’s level of emotional support, including whether the employee can speak freely, the supervisor’s reliability, and how well the supervisor listens when the employee asks for advice. The poor perception of supervisor support in both countries could be explained in several ways. For example, Japanese stoicism, which would likely prevent people from seeking help22), could contribute to the poor perception of supervisor support among Japanese employees. Furthermore, both countries are considered to be very hierarchical20,23), and this structure could contribute to the poor perception of supervisor support. The employer-employee relationship is acknowledged more formally in hierarchical countries compared to non (or less)-hierarchical countries24). Employees also tend to feel more distant from their employers when there is more a power distance25). Hierarchy can make people afraid to speak out, lessen management’s empathy toward employees, and distort communication patterns26).
Although workers in both countries appeared to have poor perceptions of supervisor support, our study revealed that Vietnamese workers had a considerably worse perception than Japanese workers. A previous study from Vietnam found that many employees felt the most stress around their relationships with senior counterparts, reflecting the Vietnamese cultural emphasis on hierarchy27). Although both Japanese and Vietnamese people respect hierarchical positions in society, Vietnam has a higher level of hierarchy than Japan20). This may contribute to the disparity in perceived supervisor support observed herein. Increased awareness of supervisor support for subordinates is essential because it is related to the intention to leave job28). Naturally, it is difficult to alter the cultural context to enable workers of both countries to have a more favorable perception of supervisor support. However, the late Robert Blake, who was a pioneer in the field of conflict management, pointed out that having both production- and employee-centered leadership is highly rated by employees29). Thus, managers may seek to improve their supervision and leadership through combining these two leadership styles.
Support from colleagues and family were the factors perceived most positively in both countries, but these factors also had the biggest perception gap between employees in the two countries, with Vietnamese workers having a better perception than Japanese workers.
According to Hofstede30), a nation tends to define its society either as a group (ie, as a collectivized society) or an individual (ie, as an individualist society). In general, Vietnam and Japan both demonstrate many traits of a collectivistic society, such as an “in-groups” thinking style, a preference for group activities, and decision making that benefits the group rather than personal goals31,32). However, Japan is not as collectivistic as Vietnam20). Japanese people tend to be more private and reserved than most other Asians. Vietnamese society, meanwhile, places strong stress on cooperation and unity within groups33). These cultural contexts might have helped Vietnamese employees perceive their colleague support more favorably.
The perception of family support was generally positive in both countries, but Vietnamese workers had a significantly greater perception of family support and a higher family satisfaction than Japanese workers. There could be several explanations for why Japanese people perceive less support and satisfaction related to their families. In Japan, the man’s family role is almost exclusively that of the breadwinner34); as a result, rather than placing strong emphasis on romance and happiness, Japanese men frequently view marriage as a means to achieve economic and social prestige35,36). Additionally, “tanshin funin”, a practice whereby workers are required to reside away from their families because they have been transferred to a different office, is quite common among Japanese people, especially in large companies. Numerous reports indicate that living a “tanshin funin” lifestyle causes loneliness and feelings of unhappiness37) and has a detrimental effect on families38). In contrast, familial ties remain a very strong element of Vietnamese society. Families in Vietnam can live apart while still participating in a variety of supportive activities, such as sharing work and resources39).
Degree of control, which was defined in the BJSQ as being able to work at one’s own pace, choose the work order, and provide input on workplace policy, was among the factors that differed widely between workers of the two countries: Japanese workers perceived themselves as having a much lower degree of control than Vietnamese workers. Japanese society is characterized by the desire to avoid uncertainty, whereas Vietnamese society does not exhibit a high degree of avoiding uncertainty. While Japanese people have a culture of obedience and relative passivity, which has evolved as a result of people being accustomed to having their lives governed by rules20), Vietnamese people tend to have a more relaxed attitude, and deviance from the norm is more readily tolerated. These cultural traits might have contributed to the disparity in the level of job control between the two nations.
Japanese participants expressed considerably more job dissatisfaction than Vietnamese people. The potential causes of job satisfaction were not thoroughly examined in the present research. However, a previous study found that workers in foreign-invested companies in Vietnam reported greater job satisfaction than employees of domestic companies40). This could potentially contribute to the higher level of job satisfaction among Vietnamese employees of the Japan-headquartered corporation studied herein.
Although we have herein focused on the factors with the poorest perception and the highest gaps between the two countries, the managers in each country should be mindful of the other factors that appeared to be significant job stressors in their subsidiaries irrespective of the results for these factors among the other respondents.
The current study has strengths and limitations. Regarding strengths, this is the first cross-country comparison between two subsidiaries of a multinational company. Regarding limitations, the BJSQ has not been validated in Vietnamese workers. However, it was previously found to be valid for use in international contexts in several other languages, including in China14) and Indonesia15). Also, we note that the current research was conducted during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is likely to have impacted the results.
The findings of the current research provide a compelling basis for the individual subsidiaries to initiate tailored management strategies on occupational stress within their respective workplaces. By tailoring this strategy, the potential to improve employees’ overall mental health becomes more attainable.
Furthermore, on a broader scale, this research offers valuable insights to the multinational corporation as a whole. It serves as a wake-up call, highlighting the existence of significant disparities in job-related stress levels among their employees across different global locations. Armed with this knowledge, the corporation gains the opportunity to take a more proactive and inclusive stance toward employee well-being on a global level. In addition, by fostering a culture of awareness and support, the corporation can work towards achieving a more equitable distribution of job stress and, subsequently, an enhanced quality of work life for all employees, regardless of their geographical location. Future research could involve more cross-cultural comparisons of employees from other subsidiaries of the company to determine their occupational stress and whether it may be due to unequal management and to learn more about how cultural differences affect occupational stress.
The investigation of the workplace stress, the causes of workplace stress, and how these factors differed in employees of a multinational corporation’s subsidiaries in Japan and Vietnam found that Japanese workers were more prone than Vietnamese workers to reporting higher levels of job stress, family dissatisfaction, and job dissatisfaction. Supervisor support had the lowest ranking in both countries. Although we have herein focused on the factors with the least favorable perception and the highest gaps between the two countries, the managers in each country should be mindful of the other factors that appeared to be significant job stressors in their subsidiaries for further prevention of job stress. This research not only empowers individual subsidiaries to craft targeted solutions for their employees’ mental health challenges, but also empowers the multinational corporation to adopt a comprehensive approach in addressing global job stress disparities.
This research was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI 20K10520.
The study was approved by the Epidemiological Research Ethics Review Committee of Hiroshima University, Japan (E-2602) on 17 September 2021.
As stated in the questionnaire’s background information, the data was gathered anonymously, and respondents were taken to have consented to taking part in the survey.
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
OC collected, analyzed the data and wrote manuscript; TK and YF provided critical feedback on the analysis; OB contributed to writing the manuscript; TM and FM collected the data and reviewed the manuscript; KM, YY and NL reviewed the manuscript.
| Part A | Quantity workload |
| 1 | I have an extremely large amount of work to do |
| 2 | I can’t complete work in the required time |
| 3 | I have to work as hard as I can |
| Quality workload | |
| 4 | I have to pay very careful attention |
| 5 | My job is difficult in that it requires a high level of knowledge and technical skill |
| 6 | I need to be constantly thinking about work throughout the working day |
| Physical burden | |
| 7 | My job requires a lot of physical work |
| Degree of control | |
| 8 | I can work at my own pace |
| 9 | I can choose how and in what order to do my work |
| 10 | I can reflect my opinions on workplace policy |
| Skill utilization | |
| 11 | My knowledge and skills are rarely used at work |
| Interpersonal stress | |
| 12 | There are differences of opinion within my department |
| 13 | My department does not get along well with other departments |
| 14 | The atmosphere in my workplace is friendly |
| Physical work environment | |
| 15 | My working environment is poor (e.g. noise, lighting, temperature, ventilation) |
| Job fitness | |
| 16 | This job suits me well |
| Sense of reward | |
| 17 | My job is worth doing |
| Part B | Vigor |
| 1 | I have been very active |
| 2 | 19. I have been full of energy |
| 3 | 20. I have been lively |
| Irritation | |
| 4 | I have felt angry |
| 5 | I have been inwardly annoyed or aggravated |
| 6 | I have felt irritable |
| Fatigue | |
| 7 | I have felt extremely tired |
| 8 | I have felt exhausted |
| 9 | I have felt weary or listless |
| Anxiety | |
| 10 | I have felt tense |
| 11 | I have felt worried or insecure |
| 12 | I have felt restless |
| Depression | |
| 13 | I have been depressed |
| 14 | I have thought that doing anything was a hassle |
| 15 | I have been unable to concentrate |
| 16 | I have felt gloomy |
| 17 | I have been unable to handle work |
| 18 | I have felt sad |
| Physical complaints | |
| 19 | I have felt dizzy |
| 20 | I have experienced joint pains |
| 21 | I have experienced headaches |
| 22 | I have had a stiff neck and/or shoulders |
| 23 | I have had lower back pain |
| 24 | I have had eyestrain |
| 25 | I have experienced heart palpitations or shortness of breath |
| 26 | I have experienced stomach and/or intestine problems |
| 27 | I have lost my appetite |
| 28 | I have experienced diarrhea and/or constipation |
| 29 | I haven’t been able to sleep well |
| Part C | Support from supervisor |
| 1 | How freely can you talk with the Superiors? |
| 4 | How reliable are the Superiors when you are troubled? |
| 7 | How well will the Superiors listen to you when you ask for advice on personal matters? |
| Support from co-workers | |
| 2 | How freely can you talk with the Co-workers? |
| 5 | How reliable are the Co-workers when you are troubled? |
| 8 | How well will the Co-workers listen to you when you ask for advice on personal matters? |
| Support from friends, family | |
| 3 | How freely can you talk with the Spouse, family, friends, etc? |
| 6 | How reliable are the Spouse, family, friends, etc when you are troubled? |
| 9 | How well will the Spouse, family, friends, etc listen to you when you ask for advice on personal matters? |
| Part D | Job satisfaction |
| 1 | I am satisfied with my job |
| Family satisfaction | |
| 2 | I am satisfied with my family life |
