Most Americans are not familiar
with the elements of Japanese management because few studies of Japanese
management are available in English. In the late 1970s, American managers became
concerned when the Japanese increased their importation of automobiles,
electronics, and other products to the USA (Komai, 1989, p. 1). It was not until
the publication of Ouchi’s Theory Z (1981) that American managers
obtained a clearer profile of Japanese management.
Ouchi
(1981, p. 58) summarized seven principles of Japanese management (Theory J) as:
lifetime employment; slow evaluation and promotion; non-specialized career
paths; implicit control mechanisms; collective decision making; collective
responsibility; and holistic concern.
The most
important characteristic of Japanese management was lifetime employment, which
functioned as the cornerstone of Theory J. Japanese management contributed to
the economic success of Japan, but Ouchi also recognized that Theory J could not
be fully applied to American management because of cultural differences. Thus,
Ouchi borrowed the following ideas from Theory J to create Theory Z: consensual
decisions, infrequent appraisal, slow promotion, and comprehensive concern.
Ouchi left individual responsibility unchanged because it was an important
concept to American management.
Japanese
management continues to attract worldwide attention because of its success,
efficiency, and humanistic quality. Ouchi’s Theory Z was the first work
that introduced Japanese management to America. Although some critics interpret
Japanese management as control tactics within police organizations (Miyazawa,
1992), most practitioners consider Japanese management qualities as a salient
resource for organizational goals.
One of the most telling
examples of the vast differences in culture is the existence of many
Japanese-language words involving obligation, duty, perseverance, etc., which
lack American counterparts. “Girl,” in Japanese means duty or obligation,
ranging from obligation from gratitude for a favor to the duty of revenge. Most
Japanese feel an intense obligation to do good work and to remain loyal – hence
the existence of lifetime employment(“shushin koyou”) for many. The Japanese
also believe in the separate but related ideas of “gaman suru” (to persevere,
even under hardship), “michi” (a path to mastery that involves specialization,
continuity, and authority), and “kaizen”(continuous, gradual improvement).(6)
These ideas, along with many others, are central to Japanese culture (Rhody,
1995).
Much has
been written about the differences in attitudes toward work between Japanese and
American workers, with the implication that the Japanese have a much higher work
ethic. Japanese management deals with each employee as a person rather than a
worker. This concern tends to go beyond the job and the paycheck. Most of the
work force is on a six day schedule (Harper, 1998). The work ethic is at an all
time high.
Nimgade
(1989) reviewed the good and bad points of American management. He found both
positive and negative management practices, but generally found positives in
that Americans are willing to change, informal, frank, direct, aggressive, and
materially oriented. He found the negatives to be a short-term substance, and an
overemphasis on scientific and rational planning. American businesses have begun
to follow Japanese practices and are now much more concerned with employee
satisfaction (Knotts, 1992). American management used to use more punishment so
that workers did what they were supposed to do. However, over the years, there
has seen a shift from coercion to motivation as a way of getting employees to
perform at satisfactory levels.
Because
the Japanese value group values, commitment, trust, and hard work, Japanese
managers do not need to monitor their workers in the same way that American
managers need to monitor American employees. However, Japanese firms that
operate in the United States do not follow the traditional Japanese managerial
style and that they take into account the culture within which they operate.
Even more attention should be given to cultural context so that management
styles could be tailored to meet the aspects of each business environment. It
has been found that Japanese styles could not be fully integrated into American
plants, even in Japanese-owned firms (Rhody, 1995). The Japanese, like many
others, have found the need to adapt their management styles to the culture.
References
Bayley, D.H. (1991), Forces of Order: Policing Modern
Japan, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Beechler, S. & Yang, J.Z. (1994).
The Transfer of Japanese Style Management to American Subsidiaries:
Contingencies, Constraints, and Competence. Journal of International Business
Studies.
Harper, S.C. (1988). Now that the
dust has settled: Learning from Japanese Management. Business Horizons,
43-51.
Komai, H. (1989), Japanese
Management Overseas: Experiences in the United States and Thailand, Asian
Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
Knotts, R. (1992). Rambo doesn’t work here anymore Business
Horizons, 35 (1), 44-46. Miyazawa, S. (1992), Policing in Japan: A Study on
Making Crime, State University of New York Press, New York, NY.
Nimgade, A. (1989). American
Management as viewed by international professionals. Business Horizons, 32 (6),
98-105.
Ouchi, W. (1981), Theory Z: How
American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Rhody, J.D. (1995). Learning from
Japanese Transplants and American Corporations. Public Personnel Management
Vol24.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment