keys.. japan. manag. jungle 1994

8/8/2019 KEYS.. Japan. Manag. Jungle 1994

1/13

y of Managem ent Review, 1984, Vol. 9, No. 2. 342-353.

The Japanese Management Theory Jungle^J. BERNARD KEYSTHOMAS R. MILLERMemphis State University

Many competing hypotheses have been advanced to account for the ap-parent effectiveness of Japanese management practices. The present re-view of some of the leading theories attempts to classify and clarify thestate of knowledge of Japanese management. Although each theory maybe correct as a partial explanation of Japan 's success, no single conceptu-alization has captured the complexity of Japan's m anag erial achieve-ment. Further development of integrated, internally consistent models isneeded.

In response to Japan's impressive business per-

Competing hypotheses abound, ranging from the

'Portions of this paper were presented at the 42nd Annual

fectiveness. Yet another school of thought attribJapanese achievement to their m astery of the ustatistical quality control applications.To those attempting to comprehend the Japaphenomenon, it appears that a dense jungle of fusion has grown up consisting of conflicting "tries" (using the term broadly), each of which ohope as an explanation for the apparent superioof the Japanese system of management. The juof Japanese theories is reminiscent of the "meentanglement" that characterized American magement theories in the 1950s, addressed in a sic article by Harold Koontz (1961). The purof this paper is to classify and to clarify the statknowledge of Japanese management.

The Jungle of TheoriesManufacturing Management

Robert H. Hayes (1981) conducted his reseby visiting and studying several plants of six Jnese companies. He finds the answer to Japasuperiority in their excellent manufacturing magement: clean facilities, responsible employeestle or no inventories on the plant fioor made pble by the absence of work stoppages, almosrejected products, and "just-in-time" materials val. He discovered a remarkable absence of cmanagement in the plant and excellent manance of equipment. Hayes captures the essencJapanese manufacturing management in the Japanese proverb: "pursuing the last grain of ric

342


2/13

Further support for the manufacturing manage-

(1981, p. 68). In other words, he holdsthe Ja panese have become so efficient chiefly

recognized: orderly production operations maythe result of the effective practice of managemrather than the cause of manufacturing efficieQuality Circle

A common theme in the literature on the etiveness of Japanese management is their devement and utilization of "quality control circlesjust "quality circles," as they are now commcalled (Cole, 1980; Rehder, 1981; Takeuchi, 1Yager, 1980). Although there are many variatof quality circles in practice, nearly all are sttured as a relatively small group of employees meet together to discuss and develop solutionswork problems relating to quality, productivitycost.

In many respects, quality circles are rooted inwork of the humanistic behavioral scientists sucChris Argyris, Douglas McGregor, and ReLikert, who have long emphasized the significof employee participation to effective managemSchooled in these behavioral techniques, the Jnese borrowed and adapted them to their organtions. However, it appears that the Japanese fotheir organizations more receptive to this formparticipation than have American managers. C(1980) argues that Japanese managers have mfully accepted the fundamental premise of parpative managementthat employees are capablcontributing and desire to contribute to organtional requirements of a supportive supervisorymate and that the commitment of sufficient timethe participative process may be better satisfieJapanese industry than in the United States.

Thus, the quality circle theory ascribes the eftiveness of Japanese management to an in-depthplication of the participation concept, which apently has resulted in improved productivity throhigher levels of motivation, greater sharing of dsion making, stronger employee commitment, increased job satisfaction. In an extensive reviewquality circles, Munchus (1983) concluded they have been successful in widely diversified tures, but that the results of their use in the UnStates are still open to question. Matsushita Etric, for example, uses them widely in Japandoes not consider the American worker suitesuch activity.343


3/13

In the 1950s the Japanese focused on upgrading

Of course, productivity is closely related to quali-

Peter Drucker suggests that the real reason for

such as the pension funds, he laments, tend to

A similar theme is echoed by William Andersonchairman and chief executive officer of Na-

ahead, not just a month ahead.Further evidence of the long planning horizoJapanese management is the tradition of lifeemployment, resulting in a worker spending histire career with one firm. For example, the avejob tenure at Fujitsu is 13 years; the averagetenure in the United States is 3.6 years (Nyama, 1980). While providing essentially a guateed job to the worker, the longevity of employmencourages extensive investment in employee ting and development and promotes employee alty and esprit de corps, as evidenced by the cpany songs and exercise programs in many oflarge plants. The nearly complete job security reduces costs of turnover and subsequent recment. But, perhaps most important, the worassurance of economic security greatly redone's resistance to technological change that ables methods changes to be implemented measily. Drucker maintains that this willingnesaccept change and to embrace opportunitiesproductivity gains might be "the most importancret of the Japanese economy" (1971, p. 116)sharp contrast, the typical American worker unionized firm has been conditioned to rchange, fearing both real and imagined threathis/her economic security.

However, a key point in evaluating the uniontion issue should be noted. In Japan, employeeslong to company unions rather than craft unithus they could not readily change companiethey wished to do so. The strong company affiliamakes it easy to shift employees from plant to pwithin the same company (Tanaka, 1981). Temployer advantages are enhanced by the stfeeling of security promoted by the Japanese time employment concept. Drucker recently cmented that lifetime employment, which restlabor mobility and the threat of strikes, has dered the union powerless in the private sectormost an "organ of management" (1982, p. 26)It should be recognized that the Japanese magement focus on long term profitability is feasin part, because of the supportive role of the Jnese government. The comments of Reddy and are revealing: "The Japanese government has bpursuing economic growth with a passion American government has reserved for fighcommunism" (1982, p. 5). The close relationbetween business and government has been cha

344


4/13

t first glance, the consensus decision process ofAm erican concept of participative ma nag em ent.

would likely be affected by it, perha ps 6 0 to 80

processes by which an unofficial und ersta nd ing

implanting its roots into the soil so it can growThe authors believe that it perfectly describes tappropriate process of practical decision making any culture.

To the Western observer, the consensus decisimaking process may appear to be exceedingly inefcient, but this attitude fails to give proper consideation to the implementation of the decision. In dfense of the Japanese decision making practice, it advanced that a consensus decision, though medicre, can yield better outcomes than an imposed dcision, though brilliant, because of the support employees, their knowledge of the decision paramters, and their commitment to successful executiof the decisions. Further, the considerable time thgoes into defining the issue reduces the risk thatpreconceived solution will prevent proper definitiof the problem, a criterion of decision making pratices of American managers (Kobayashi, 1970).Attempts at Integrated Models of JapaneseManagement

Several students of the Japanese managemeprocess have gone beyond the search for the singlfactor explanation in their efforts to develop mocomprehensive theories. Three of these notable eforts will be reviewed briefly.Seven S

Richard Pascale and Anthony Athos (1981) utize in their model the framework of seven managment variables developed by McKinsey & Company. The seven variables of S's are superordinagoals, strategy, structure, systems, staff, skills, astyle. These are the "levers" of organizational anmanagement functions with which executives cinfluence large complex organizations. Superordnate goals function as the unifying elements that together the various activities and interests of orgnizational members.

According to Pascale and Athos, the variablcan be divided into "hard S's" and "soft S's." Thard S's, presumably the more impersonal and istitutional factors, are strategy, structure, and sytems. In contrast, the soft S's, dealing more wihuman values and interpersonal issues, are sta(the concern for having the right sort of people do the work), skills (training and developing peopto do what is needed), and style (the manner which management handles subordinates, pee

345


5/13


6/13

Hatvany and Pucik (1981) have conceptualized a

The unique element of Japanese management

Many specific techniques are utilized by the Jap-

ered by job ro tatio n, slow prom otion, and the

activities.In contrast to the above model. Cole (1971) ctions that Western knowledge of the blue-coworker in Japan is still shallow and laden with reotypes of limited validity. He claims that the sion of the Japanese worker as always polite unemotional differs sharply from the gregariospontaneous, openly expressive workers in the kyo plant he observed. The character of the Janese worker is further explicated by Tsur(1981), who maintains that politeness, hard woorientation toward group activity, and loyaltymanagement are no more inborn traits of the Janese than of Canadians and Americans. Althougpopular view of Japanese work groups touts thstrong cohesiveness and the benefits of consendecision making. Cole warns that this emphamasks the strong competition within Japanese soety. Such competition reveals itself in efforts to ctivate favor with superiors through flattery or pticking, which can result in conflicts within work group. Further, Cole questions the authenity of Japanese employee security through lifetemployment, noting that there are many deviemployers can use to get employees to quit that short of actually firing them.

Yazaburo Mogi, first executive vice presidentthe Kikkoman soy sauce plant at Waleworth, Wconsin, cautions that "the Japanese seniority stem, while it offers security and creates a harmoous atmosphere conducive to good results, may areduce incentives to do good work" ("How the Janese M an ag e," 1981, p. 103). Rejecting "myth" of the Japanese as "supermen" and conclusion that Japan's industrial success is linto the uniqueness of Japanese human factors"the spirit of its workers," Blotnick argues thawould be as correct to link Japan's success to "coercive, regimented side of its society," whAmericans would "hardly want to emulate" (19p. 132).

The transfer of strong family ties to industry fostered several interesting phenomena. Tan(1981) reports that employees tend to hire "tpersons," and employees tend to become totally mersed in the organization for which they wBecause the company becomes a surrogate for family, work takes on the same ethos as a contrition to the familyloyalty, sincerity, and so The company's (family's) prosperity becomes m347


7/13

Sources of Entanglement in the JungleMany differences in the Japanese style of man-

han to management practices (Schein, 1981). The

pace, and the need to construct homes that offeredlittle privacy. The family cultural forces are trans-ferred to business firms, reinforcing compliance ofbehavior and promoting high performance (Cao,1981). In strong opposition to this style, which pro-motes close social relations, American life has de-eloped around rugged individualism and indepen-ence (Ouchi, 1981), which has grown out of theeveloping frontier and a land intense economyrather than a labor intense one. Thus, the culturalfocus on the groups' interests, as opposed to the in-ividual's, is strongly imbedded in Japanese work-rs in contrast to their American counterparts.

Several environmental and structural factorsseem to offer Japanese management an advantagever the United States. Most Japanese employeeswho are union members belong to company unions.Of the directors of major corporations, 16 percentare former union officials (Janger & Berenkein,1981). Unions and management tend to form atrong productive partnership, paving the way forasy introduction of labor-saving devices. The influ-nce of such "macro" factors as MITI, extensiveapital investment, modest defense expenditures,lower wage rates, and the relatively undervalueden have been slighted as causal factors of Japan'sconomic success when compared to the much pub-licized managerial prowess of the Japanese. Fur-her, Vogel has argued that the Japanese educa-ional environment is the foundation of its economic

nowledge" (1982 p. 65). Perhaps this quest arisesn the very competitive school systems and is rein-

Nearly all of the confrontations faced by

Japanese nrms arise irom ujii:uiiici JI unTtal issues. Rarely does protest involve issues sufeminism, investment policy, wages, or livingworking conditions. For protests that do arisegation is quite uncommon (Japan has half theulation of the United States, but only 11,000yers). Nor is shareholder pressure a valternative for special interest groups; 90 perceall directors are "inside" directors employed bcompany (Janger & Berenkein, 1981).A further source of confusion is the tendencward oversimplification in explaining the effeness of Japanese management. It is doubtful tone-factor or two-factor theory of managesuch as "decision making" or "quality controlaccount fully for a country's economic achments. Surely a group of complex forces takegether delineate the dimensions of Japanese agement experience. A related element of confis the difficulty of distinguishing causation correlation. Sullivan (1983) bases his anti-theoon such an argument.

Another caveat to the student of Japanese agement concerns the tendency toward overgenization of the "Japanese management" mystResearch on Japanese management practicesfocused primarily on large, highly visible firmthe automotive and electronics industries. Whthe experience of the smaller firms and businengaged in retailing, agriculture, chemicals, the service industries such as bank ing and finaCan one characterize the management practican entire nation from such a small and nonrsentative sample? Although Ouchi and PascaleAthos have highlighted dramatic differencestween Japanese and American management tices, it is doubtful that the few firms cited represent the norms of "Japanese" and "Amermanagement. The excellent productivity and qty of Japanese manufacturing in such mass prtion industries as automobiles, household aances, and steel are well recognized, but one s

not conclude that the Japanese enjoy supeover international competitors in all industriaforts. As noted by Tsurumi:Japanese industries do not outperform AmeriCanad ian and other foreign counterparts . . . inriculture, aircraft, nonferrous metals, and some vanced telecommunications equipment. In the fiof organic and non-organic chemicals, pharmacecals, large-scale computers and large earth-mov

348


8/13

equipment, American firms lead the Japanese by asubstantial nnargin (1981, p. 7).The need for additional research to resolve incon-

Common Factors in the Theories andModelsA Mental Factor AnalysisAlthough the positions of the writers above pre-

more inclined to accept a lifetime commitment holistic concern for their employees. Finally, Japanese appear more strongly committed to concept of collective responsibility than indiviaccountability. These three factors are exploreintegrating concepts in interrelating the streamJapanese management thought presented aboveA suggested pattern of causality among thederlying factors of long run planning horizon, c

mitment to lifetime employment, and collectivesponsibility and a summary of outcomes cacterizing Japanese management are shown in ure 1. The authors contend that these underlyfactors may be chiefly responsible for the devement of the elements of the Japanese systemmanagement and that these are rooted in the Janese culture. Although a model of perfect causais not claimed, the tentative pattern of causalityFigure 1 relates and summarizes much of the isting evidence.Long Run Planning Horizon

Once management commits itself to planningthe long run rather than focusing on short run mFigure 1

Fundamental Factors Underlying Japanese Management Practices:A Suggested Pattern of Causality'Underlying Factors

Long-Run Planning Horizon

Commitment to Lifetime EmploymentCollective Responsibility

Management PracticesCommitment to sufficient time to manageDiligence in implementation of plansDiscipline and order in workSufficient time to implement concepts and systemsDevelopment of an integrated organizational philosophyGrowth of implicit control systemsAtticulation of company philosophyExecutive investment in employee training and developmentSocialization process in hiring and integrationReduced turnover and high loyaltyNonspecialized career pathsDevelopment of internal labor marketsEmphasis on soft S'sstaff, skills, styleCompany unions rather than craft unionsEmphasis on teamwork and cooperationConsensus decision makingParticipative managementTrust and interdependenceQuality circles

"Overlapping lines represent shadings of dual causality. The authors acknowledge that some of the resultant practices may, in turn,the underlying factors, suggesting two-way causality.349


9/13

The impact of the long planning horizon on Japa-

The success in Japan of quality circles, statistical

The mutual commitment of Japanese manage-

ceptance 01 cnanges mogy that enhance productivity. (This apprcontrasts sharply with an American tendencreap short term benefits from new employees entry-level skills by retaining them in a job they leave the organization.)The recruitment and selection process isproached differently when one hires for a liferather than the short term. More emphasis musgiven to the socialization factorsthe "fit" ofemployee to the organization, one's satisfacwith the company philosophy, one's relationswith peer groups at work, the acceptance of magement style, and so on. Indeed, hiring maybased more on social factors than on entry skbecause the latter will be utilized less.The intensive socialization of the Japanese fiefforts to inculcate the culture of the organizain employeesthrough such extensive rituapractices as employee calisthenics, singing the cpany song, after-hours group activities, and cpany sponsored vacationshelp develop and sulong term commitment and loyalty to the organtion. The holistic concern that is evidenced for ployees and their families may be viewed as a seble effort to safeguard the employer's substainvestment in human resources and further bthe employees to the organization.The long term commitment and concern for ployees and the consequent familial relationpromote trust and support of organizational leaship. Unlike the employee who is likely to remwith an employer (and a boss) for a short timeJapanese system promotes accommodation unity of interest. Knowing the extended naturthe employment practice, the worker is less inclto engage in major confrontations or confiicts would damage the long term superior-subordirelationship. One would expect communicationbe more gentle, subtle, implicit, and "faoriented."Finally, a commitment to lifetime employmwith holistic concern for employees is likely to duce a balanced, reciprocal psychological concalling for a "company" type of identity. The ployer's side of the contract is likely to incmore participation of employees in the decmaking process. When one has remained wicompany long enough "to belong," the person is more likely to be "consulted" on important

350


10/13

According to most writers , Japanese management

The present phenomena of quality circles andse cultura l tradition s emphasizing interdepen -

The presence of a hard-working, orderly

g. The impressive performan ce of the J apan ese

Clearing a Path Through the JungleFrom a review of the research findings on Japa-

ased in their analyses, but rather are unable to fugrasp the intricacies of the data to describe aquately Japan's industrial success. For, as noted,addition to the host of management-based theorproposed as explanations for Japanese achiements, alternative theories built on government aenvironmental models, for example, "Japan Inhave been hypothesized. Thus, they are reacting only as did the scientists in the parable of the spdle, but also as did the blind men in the fablewhich they describe the elephant. You will recthat one felt the knee of the elephant and describit as a tree-like creature: another felt the tusk alikened it to a spear; and a third felt the tail ainsisted that it was small and round like a rope

Perhaps all of the theorists are correct in attruting some Japanese excellence to the area of pan's industry that they have examined. Maybe Japanese, in their obsession to redeem the honortheir country after World War II and in their qufor world respect in industry, have produced exclence in many areas of the process of managemeIf so, it should not be surprising that existing search efforts have failed to capture adequately essence of Japanese management effectiveness. Fther, it seems unlikely that additional reseaseeking single-factor or dual-factor explanations the Japanese success will be more successful; panacea will continue to be elusive. Also, the junwarfare among managemetit theorists cited Koontz in 1961 is not lacking among students Japanese management today. For there exists a tdency to discount or discredit rival hypotheses conceptualizations that are incompatible with onown.

Of what value are the present theories in the jgle? It is argued that they are of considerable vaas long as researchers and organization develment implementors recognize that elements of Janese management do not stand alone, but ratthey require supporting cultural and environmenframeworks to be effective. As in most new systeof management, practice must precede researand research must initially address small segmeof the implementation. For the organization ctemplating adoption of the Japanese system, Chand Gray (1982) stress that extensive preparatand commitment is necessary, pointing out thatadoption will not work unless the organizationwilling to change its whole philosophy of organiz

351


11/13

Perhaps the most fruitful approach for uncover-

practices, ratner man iocusii i^ uu me ic^um^iueconcepts in isolation. Present understanding of anese management is limited by the narrow cprehension of the environment in which it exissocietal norms and values, educational and soczation processes, and the interfaces of business, ernment, and labor. Armed with a better unstanding of the interrelationships of the elementthe Japanese management system, one will be ter equipped to address the issues of emulation,aptation, and implementation in American enprises. When one attempts to traverse a junglcomplete understanding of the terrain is helpfu

ReferencesBus-

iness Horizons, 1981, 24(2), 56-62.Forbes, August 17, 1981, pp. 132-133.

tural interpretation. Mid-South Business Journal. 1981, 2(1),7-14.

ods of human resources management? Personnel Administra-tor, 1982, 28(5), 41-46, 80.Japanese blue collar: The changing tradition. Berke-ley, Ca l.: University of California Press, 1971.

Management Review, 1980, 69(9), 22-28, 38-42.

the Japanese? Iron Age, October 6, 1980, p. 51 .W hat we can learn from Ja panese man agem ent.

Harvard Business Review, 1971, 49(2), 110-122.Harvard Business Re-

view, 1981, 59(1), 83-90.Wall Street Jour-

nal, September 22, 1982, p. 26.The division of labor in society. 2nd

ed. New York: Macmillan Co., 1933, 1-31. (Originally pub-lished, 1902).and beyond. Unpublished paper. University of Oklahoma,1982.

Forbes, May 25, 1981, pp.42 , 46.

Pacific Ba-sin Quarterly, 1981, 6, 17-18.

Lessons from the Japanese experience. Academy of Mament Review, 1981, 6, 469-480.

Hayes, R. H. Why Japanese factories work. Harvard BusReview, 1981, 59(4), 57-66.

How the Japanese manage in the U.S. Fortune, June 15, 97-98, 102-103.

Howard, N., & Teramoto, Y. The really important diffebetween Japanese and western management. Managementernational Review. 1981, 21, 19-30.

Janger, A. R. & Berenkein, R. E. External challenges to agement decisions: A growing international problem.Conference Board. Report no. 808, 1981, 48-68.

Kobayashi, S. The creative organization A Japanese exment. Personnel, 1970, 47(6), 8-17.

Koontz, H. The management theory Jungle. Journal oAcademy of Management, 1961, 4(3), 174-188.

Munchus, G. Employer-employee based quality circles in JHuman resource policy implications for American fAcademy of Management Review, 1983, 8, 255-261.

Nakayama, N. The United States and Japan: Some manment contrasts. Computers and People, 1980, 29, 8-10.

Ouchi, W. C. Theory Z: How American business can meeJapanese challenge. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1

Ouchi, W. C , & Jaeger, A. M. Type Z organization: Stabilthe midst of mobility. Academy of Management Re1978, 3, 305-314.

Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. The art of Japanese manment. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981.

Porter E. H. The parable of the spindle. Harvard Businesview, 1962, 40(3), 58-66.

Reddy, A. C , & Rao, C. P. Japanese marketing: Underreasons for its success. Mid-South Business Journal,

352


12/13

What American and Japanese managers areearning from each other. Business Horizons, 1981, 24(2), 63-0 .

for American managers? Sloan Management Review, 1981,23(1), 55-67.Academy of ManagementReview, 1983, 8, 132-142.

H. Productivity: Learning from the Japanese. Califor-nia Management Review, 1981, 23(4), 5-18.

Lifetime employment in Japan. Challenge, 1981,

24(4), 23-29.Tsurumi, Y. Productivity: The Japanese approach. Pacific BaQuarterly, 1981, 6, 7-11.Vogel, E. F. Japan as number one: Lessons for America. NYork: Harper & Row, 1979. Quoted in L. A. Bryan, Jr., Japanese and the American first-line supervisor. Training Development Journal, 1982, 36(1), 65.Wheelwright, S. C. Japan Where operations really are str

gic. Harvard Business Review, 1981, 59(4), 67-74.Yager, E. Quality circle: A tool for the 8O's. Training and

velopment Journal, 1980, 34(8), 60-62.

J. Berna rd Keys is Professor of Ma nagement and AssociateDean of the Fogelman College of Business and Economics,Memphis State University.Thomas R. Miller is Professor and Chairman of the Depart-ment of Management and Associate Dean, Fogelman College ofBusiness and Economics, Memphis Slate University.

353


13/13

keys.. japan. manag. jungle 1994

Documents