國際化與自由化為現代企業經營發展之重要趨勢，而近年來國際保護主義之盛行及地區性聯盟之成立均迫使企業前往海外投資，以減經關稅或非關稅障礙所帶來的壓力。然而，投資於國外之企業，面對不同之政經情勢，文化背景及法令限制時，其經營管理之模式必然與國內企業有所不同。國內企業之經營管理多半以學習美日兩國之經驗為主。因此，在國內企業邁向國際化的過程中，若能先行瞭解美日兩國在台企業在企業文化、管理風格、組織結構及經營績效等方面之特性，必能有所借鏡，進而使企業國際化成功之機率大為增加。 透過中美日企業經營者訪談及問卷調查，本研究之結論如下：一、中美日企業在公司目標、組織結構、競爭策略與經營績效等構面因素上具有顯著之差異。二、在公司目標方面，日本企業重視員工之培訓與組織之發展，美國企業重視短期之利潤目標。在組織結構方面，美國企業之授權及正式化程度遠較日本及台灣企業為高。在經替策略方面，美國企業普遍重視產品差異化及成本領導策略，日本企業與台灣企業較重視製程創新策略及產品發展策略。三、採用製程創新及產品差異化策略之廠商較強調組織發展及成長兩目標，且重視所屬產業的發展潛力。採行成本領導策略的廠商則較重視成長目標，且其組織的正式化及標準化程度較高。

Internationalization and liberalization of business activities have become two of the most significant phenomena for the successful operations of contemporary enterprises. Recently, the prevalence of national protectionism and the establishment of regional eco-nomic communities, have further enhanced many companies to engage in overseas in-vestments so that the tariff and non-tariff barriers of the products could be reduced or eliminated. Yet, firms operate in different countries with different political, legal, economic, and social cultural environments might have different management styles and strategic operating patterns. Traditionally, the Japanese and the U.S. management patterns are two of the most important reference models for the operations of domestic enterprises. Thus, to promote the success of business internationalization activities, it would be very helpful for the domestic firms in Taiwan to evaluate the similarities and differences of the characteristics of business operations for the U.S. and the Japanese firms, especially on management styles, organizational structures, competitive strategies, and business performances. Through a series of personal interview and mail survey, this study concluded the following findings: (1) Finns with different investment origins ( i.e., Taiwanese, American, and Japa-nese firms) tended to operate differently on constructs of corporate objectives, organiza-tional structures, competitive strategies, and management performances. (2) For corporate objectives, Japanese firms tended to emphasize organizational development objectives through educating and activating human resources, while Ameri-can firms favor financial objective such as improving cash flow and profitability. For organizational structures, American firms achieved higher levels of delegation authority and operation formalization than those of Japanese and Taiwanese firms. For compete-tive strategies, American firms tended to emphasize product differentiation and cost leadership strategies while Japanese firms favor process innovation and product differ-entiation strategies. (3) Firms selecting process innovation and product development strategies tended to emphasize both organizational development and sales growth objectives. These firms tended to be very sensitive on the potentials of industry development. In addition, firms adopting cost leadership strategies tended to emphasize sales growth objectives. These firms seemed to exercise higher levels of formalization and standardization of business activities.