The Japanese Management Theory Jungle

Author(s): J. Bernard Keys and Thomas R. Miller

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 342-353
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258447 .
Accessed: 08/11/2013 03:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

?Academy of Management Review, 1984. Vol. 9, No. 2, 342-353.

The

Japanese

Management Theory

Junglel

J. BERNARDKEYS
THOMAS R. MILLER
Memphis State University
Many competing hypotheses have been advanced to account for the apparent effectiveness of Japanese management practices. The present review of some of the leading theories attempts to classify and clarify the
state of knowledge of Japanese management. Although each theory may
be correct as a partial explanation of Japan's success, no single conceptualization has captured the complexity of Japan's managerial achievement. Further development of integrated, internally consistent models is
needed.
In response to Japan's impressive business performance over the last decade, the mystique of Japanese management has been addressed by a deluge
of books and articles. The perceived superiority of
management practices in Japan has been the subject of intensive inquiry by both the academic and
the executive communities. Researchers' efforts to
unlock this mystery have revealed a multitude of
factors presumed to account for the excellence of
Japanese management, but the most striking results
perhaps are the diversity of factors cited and the
disagreement over the causes of this success.
Competing hypotheses abound, ranging from the
"Seven S" theory of Pascale and Athos (1981)
about a unique Japanese management style to the
"bottom line" explanation that stresses the Japanese focus on long term operating results. Some observers believe that excellence in Japanese management springs primarily from an emphasis on human
resource development. Others maintain that the
source of Japanese success is not found in social
practices, but rather in the profound understanding
of the intricacies of the decision making process.
Several researchers laud the effective use of employee quality circles as the key element of Japanese success. Still others claim that Japanese expertise in technological developments and in manufacturing management is the basis of their ef-

fectiveness. Yet another school of thought attributes

Japanese achievement to their mastery of the use of
statistical quality control applications.
To those attempting to comprehend the Japanese
phenomenon, it appears that a dense jungle of confusion has grown up consisting of conflicting "theories" (using the term broadly), each of which offers
hope as an explanation for the apparent superiority
of the Japanese system of management. The jungle
of Japanese theories is reminiscent of the "mental
entanglement" that characterized American management theories in the 1950s, addressed in a classic article by Harold Koontz (1961). The purpose
of this paper is to classify and to clarify the state of
knowledge of Japanese management.

The Jungleof Theories

Manufacturing Management
Robert H. Hayes (1981) conducted his research
by visiting and studying several plants of six Japanese companies. He finds the answer to Japanese
superiority in their excellent manufacturing management: clean facilities, responsible employees, little or no inventories on the plant floor made possible by the absence of work stoppages, almost no
rejected products, and "just-in-time" materials arrival. He discovered a remarkable absence of crisis
management in the plant and excellent maintenance of equipment. Hayes captures the essence of
Japanese manufacturing management in the old
Japanese proverb:"pursuing the last grain of rice in

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

Meeting of the Academy of Management, New York, 1982. The
authors acknowledge Harold Koontz (1961), author of the classic paper, "'The Management Theory Jungle."

342

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

recognized: orderly production operations may be

the result of the effective practice of management
rather than the cause of manufacturing efficiency.

the corner of the lunchbox." He points out that the

Japanese are never satisfied with the quality of
their products even when the defect rate is at an
unbelievable 1 percent, nor are they satisfied as
long as any defect exists in the manufacturing operation. Hayes believes that technological advantages
in Japan stem not from superior technology per se,
but from the Japanese insistence on building their
own process equipment in-house, which they in turn
match with skilled employees trained in-house.
They will not accept the compromise of a machine
developed for several "users, and therefore several
uses."
Further support for the manufacturing management theory is provided by Wheelwright (1981),
who states that Japan's impressive accomplishments
in manufacturing result chiefly from the effective
integration of operations policy and manufacturing
strategy. In marked contrast to the Japanese, the
author cites the common American tendency to
treat product quality and production planning as
"swing factors" that can be traded off in order to
meet the production output deadline. Thus, an
American manager may deliver a product that, although functionally acceptable, does not meet the
quality specifications. In reporting their impressions
after visiting the plants of three Japanese companies-Tokyo
Sanyo Electric, Toshita Tsurumi
Works, and Yokogaua Electric Works, General
Electric manufacturing executives agreed that the
critical differences between Japanese and American
manufacturing were not really cultural and environmental, but rather were related to basic manufacturing policy and practice. Observers reported a
high degree of cleanliness and organization with orderly and timely flow of materials through the production system. They commented that although
Americans have the necessary knowledge of effective manufacturing processes, they have lacked the
discipline to implement them fully (Wheelwright,
1981). Wheelwright concludes that Japan's "truly
impressive discipline and consistency in manufacturing operations" is the result of "a deliberate,
thorough, and painstakingly developed way of
thinking about the day-to-day management of production" (1981, p. 68). In other words, he holds
that the Japanese have become so efficient chiefly
because of excellent manufacturing practices. However, in interpreting these observations in order to
isolate causes, an alternative hypothesis should be

Quality Circle
A common theme in the literature on the effectiveness of Japanese management is their development and utilization of "quality control circles" or
just "quality circles," as they are now commonly
called (Cole, 1980; Rehder, 1981; Takeuchi, 1981;
Yager, 1980). Although there are many variations
of quality circles in practice, nearly all are structured as a relatively small group of employees who
meet together to discuss and develop solutions for
work problems relating to quality, productivity, or
cost.
In many respects, quality circles are rooted in the
work of the humanistic behavioral scientists such as
Chris Argyris, Douglas McGregor, and Rensis
Likert, who have long emphasized the significance
of employee participation to effective management.
Schooled in these behavioral techniques, the Japanese borrowed and adapted them to their organizations. However, it appears that the Japanese found
their organizations more receptive to this form of
participation than have American managers. Cole
(1980) argues that Japanese managers have more
fully accepted the fundamental premise of participative management-that employees are capable of
contributing and desire to contribute to organizational requirements of a supportive supervisory climate and that the commitment of sufficient time for
the participative process may be better satisfied in
Japanese industry than in the United States.
Thus, the quality circle theory ascribes the effectiveness of Japanese management to an in-depth application of the participation concept, which apparently has resulted in improved productivity through
higher levels of motivation, greater sharing of decision making, stronger employee commitment, and
increased job satisfaction. In an extensive review of
quality circles, Munchus (1983) concluded that
they have been successful in widely diversified cultures, but that the results of their use in the United
States are still open to question. Matsushita Electric, for example, uses them widely in Japan but
does not consider the American worker suited to
such activity.
343

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ahead, not just a month ahead.

Further evidence of the long planning horizon of
Japanese management is the tradition of lifetime
employment, resulting in a worker spending his entire career with one firm. For example, the average
job tenure at Fujitsu is 13 years; the average job
tenure in the United States is 3.6 years (Nakayama, 1980). While providing essentially a guaranteed job to the worker, the longevity of employment
encourages extensive investment in employee training and development and promotes employee loyalty and esprit de corps, as evidenced by the company songs and exercise programs in many of the
large plants. The nearly complete job security also
reduces costs of turnover and subsequent recruitment. But, perhaps most important, the worker's
assurance of economic security greatly reduces
one's resistance to technological change that enables methods changes to be implemented more
easily. Drucker maintains that this willingness to
accept change and to embrace opportunities for
productivity gains might be "the most important secret of the Japanese economy" (1971, p. 116). In
sharp contrast, the typical American worker in a
unionized firm has been conditioned to resist
change, fearing both real and imagined threats to
his/her economic security.
However, a key point in evaluating the unionization issue should be noted. In Japan, employees belong to company unions rather than craft unions;
thus they could not readily change companies if
they wished to do so. The strong company affiliation
makes it easy to shift employees from plant to plant
within the same company (Tanaka, 1981). These
employer advantages are enhanced by the strong
feeling of security promoted by the Japanese lifetime employment concept. Drucker recently commented that lifetime employment, which restricts
labor mobility and the threat of strikes, has rendered the union powerless in the private sector, almost an "organ of management" (1982, p. 26).
It should be recognized that the Japanese management focus on long term profitability is feasible,
in part, because of the supportive role of the Japanese government. The comments of Reddy and Rao
are revealing: "The Japanese government has been
pursuing economic growth with a passion that
American government has reserved for fighting
communism" (1982, p. 5). The close relationship
between business and government has been charac-

Statistical Quality Control

In the 1950s the Japanese focused on upgrading
the quality level of their manufactured products in
an effort to reverse the notion that i"madein Japan"
signaled inferior merchandise. As with the development of quality circles, the expertise came largely
from consultants in America - in particular from
W. Edwards Deming and J. M. Juran, who lectured
widely on the development and utilization of statistics and quality control techniques. The Japanese
quickly embraced and effectively implemented the
popular techniques developed in the United States,
including zero defects and value engineering, and
have become dedicated to the gospel of quality
(Takeuchi, 1981). The Japanese appreciation for
Deming's work is evidenced by his receipt of the
Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure from
Japan's Emperor Hirohito.
Of course, productivity is closely related to quality, and in Japan there is a fervent interest in "doing
it right the first time." Deming argues that quality
cannot be increased by inspection, and using men
and machines to separate good products from bad is
not the answer. The quality capability must be built
into the production process. In comparing Japanese
and American management, Deming (1980) argues
that Americans learned the techniques too, but the
Japanese took them seriously.
Long Term, Bottom Line
Peter Drucker suggests that the real reason for
Japanese superiority springs from their focus on
long term objectives. Large U.S. institutional investors, such as the pension funds, he laments, tend to
reject firms that do not show strong performance in
such short term measures as quarterly earnings per
share. Thus, high technology companies are reluctant to "plow back money long term" for fear of
adverse effects of their price earnings ratios. The
market, he believes, has become far too sensitive to
short term fluctuations (Flanigan, 1981).
A similar theme is echoed by William Anderson
(1981), chairman and chief executive officer of National Cash Register Corporation. He cautions that
American managers must look "beyond this
month's sales report and this year's financial performance" and begin to evaluate both employee and
organizational achievements from a long term prospective. The clear implication is that U.S. management should adopt criteria that look five years
344

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

implanting its roots into the soil so it can grow."

The authors believe that it perfectly describes the
appropriate process of practical decision making in
any culture.
To the Western observer, the consensus decision
making process may appear to be exceedingly inefficient, but this attitude fails to give proper consideration to the implementation of the decision. In defense of the Japanese decision making practice, it is
advanced that a consensus decision, though mediocre, can yield better outcomes than an imposed decision, though brilliant, because of the support of
employees, their knowledge of the decision parameters, and their commitment to successful execution
of the decisions. Further, the considerable time that
goes into defining the issue reduces the risk that a
preconceived solution will prevent proper definition
of the problem, a criterion of decision making practices of American managers (Kobayashi, 1970).

terized as "Japan, Inc.," suggesting the behavior of

a superconglomerate (Drucker, 1981). Indeed, some
argue that Japan's economic success is related
chiefly to the unique business-government relationship fostered by the Ministry of International Trade
and Industry (MITI). As noted by Tsurumi (1981),
government policies through tax incentives and
other assistance programs are directed to rewarding
the firms fulfilling the goals that support industrial
growth and national stability. A related factor enabling business to focus its attention on the civilian
product market is the low level of national resources committed to defense expenditures in Japan, a much publicized criticism by American
producers.
Decision Making
At first glance, the consensus decision process of
the Japanese appears to be simply an application of
the American concept of participative management.
Ouchi (1981) states that a consensus has been
reached when there is agreement on a single alternative and when there is a mutual understanding of
views of the participants and when there is support
for the decision, whether one preferred it or not, because it was determined in an open and fair manner. However, Ouchi argues that even this degree of
participation does not approach the Japanese concept of consensus decision making, in which an important decision such as where to put a new plant
or changing a production process would involve all
who would likely be affected by it, perhaps 60 to 80
people. Ouchi further notes that two or three persons would have the task of discussing the decision
with the affected employees and repeating this process when significant changes arise. Although this
process is very time consuming, when the decision is
finally determined, the support for it is nearly
unanimous.
Howard and Teramoto (1981), professors in
Great Britain and Tokyo, respectively, argue
strongly that the most important difference in
American and Japanese management involves the
subtle differences in decision making. The word in
the Japanese vocabulary that describes decision
making is "nemawashi," which refers to the "political" processes by which an unofficial understanding
is reached before any final decision is made on a
particular matter. The literal meaning of
nemawashi is "the process of planting a tree, i.e.,

Attempts at Integrated Models of Japanese

Management
Several students of the Japanese management
process have gone beyond the search for the singlefactor explanation in their efforts to develop more
comprehensive theories. Three of these notable efforts will be reviewed briefly.
Seven S
Richard Pascale and Anthony Athos (1981) utilize in their model the framework of seven management variables developed by McKinsey & Company. The seven variables of S's are superordinate
goals, strategy, structure, systems, staff, skills, and
style. These are the "levers" of organizational and
management functions with which executives can
influence large complex organizations. Superordinate goals function as the unifying elements that tie
together the various activities and interests of organizational members.
According to Pascale and Athos, the variables
can be divided into "hard S's" and "soft S's." The
hard S's, presumably the more impersonal and institutional factors, are strategy, structure, and systems. In contrast, the soft S's, dealing more with
human values and interpersonal issues, are staff
(the concern for having the right sort of people to
do the work), skills (training and developing people
to do what is needed), and style (the manner in
which management handles subordinates, peers,
345

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and superiors). The authors' chief research instrument included interviews and observations of the
styles of chief executive officers in the United States
and Japan-in particular, the Matsushita Corporation and ITT.
Pascale and Athos maintain that U.S. management is very similar to Japan on all the hard S's of
strategy, structure, and system, but that Japan has
advantages in the soft S's of staff, skills, and style.
These advantages stem largely from the Japanese
culture, which differs in its approach to ambiguity,
uncertainty, imperfection, and interdependence.
The authors discuss at length how the Japanese
manager in communicating with others has learned
to make the most of ambiguity, indirection, subtle
cues, trust, interdependence, uncertainty, implicit
messages, and management of process, as opposed
to the U.S. managerial norm of striving for complete openness, explicitness, and directness in order
to minimize ambiguity and uncertainty. Unfortunately, the authors support their theory only with
broad generalizations drawn from comparisons of
the chief executive officer of Matsushita Corporation and ITT's Geneen.

trast, the American culture has developed from the

spirit of individualism of an expanding frontier, a
culture less conducive to industrialization.
Ouchi and Jaeger (1978), like Pascale and Athos,
point out that the Japanese style is not culture
bound, however. Many Japanese firms, with little
adaptation, have transported their successful operations to the United States. Theory Z, then, becomes
the modified model, which includes the best of the
Japanese and American models. Theory Z emphasizes long, but not lifetime, employment; consensual
decision making, as in Japan; individual responsibility as opposed to the Japanese emphasis on collective responsibility; slow evaluation and promotion as
in Japan; implicit control (Japanese) but with explicit measures (American); moderately specialized
career paths (a compromise); and a holistic concern
for employees, as in Japan (Ouchi & Jaeger, 1978).
Ouchi's theory has not been immune to criticism.
In his review of Theory Z, for example, Gibney
sharply challenges Ouchi's assertion that Japanese
organizations can be so readily typified and understood from the few cases cited by Ouchi: "Ouchi
has given us a chrome-plated collection of hasty
generalizations, slogan-type writing, and dimestore
business sociology, based on what one might call a
modified dart-board technique of research" (1981,
p. 17).
A thoughtful, incisive critique of Theory Z is
provided by Sullivan (1983), who develops an antitheory Z "descriptive" conceptualization that contrasts sharply with Ouchi's "prescriptive" model.
Anti-theory Z acknowledges the existence of lifetime employment, nonspecialized careers, and automatic promotions, but suggests that these are cultural, historical factors rather than managerially
initiated incentives. Further, Sullivan hypothesizes
that these conditions produce some minimally competent managers who, when promoted automatically, must depend heavily on subordinates. The resultant consensus decisions and sharing of
responsibility may stem more from necessity than
from intimacy, involvement, and trust. Thus, consensus decisions and collective responsibility protect
bureaucratic, hierarchical relationships, which, he
proposes, exist in some Japanese firms. In addition,
Sullivan argues that Theory Z does not, as Ouchi
claims, emanate from humanistic management. Instead, Sullivan contends that Theory Z derives from
the "industrial clan" values of Durkheim (1902/

Organizational
William Ouchi (1981) summarizes his work in
what has become the best selling book on Japanese
management, Theory Z. Instead of emphasizing the
differences in the styles of leaders of key organizations in the United States and Japan, Ouchi focused
in his writing on the organizations, themselves. He
first describes the ideal Japanese organizational
model, which he used as a "foil" against which to
compare and understand the American model. The
Japanese organization is characterized by lifetime
employment, slow evaluation and promotion, nonspecialized career paths, implicit control mechanisms, collective decision making, collective responsibility, and holistic concern for employees. In sharp
contrast, features of American organizations include short term employment, rapid evaluation and
promotion, specialized career paths, explicit control
mechanisms, individual decision making, individual
responsibility, and segmented concern for workers.
Ouchi also argues that the characteristics of Japanese management have derived from their culture
a culture woven interdependently because of collective rice farming and crowded conditions causing
Japan to be very ripe for industrialization. In con346

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

activities.
In contrast to the above model, Cole (1971) cautions that Western knowledge of the blue-collar
worker in Japan is still shallow and laden with stereotypes of limited validity. He claims that the vision of the Japanese worker as always polite and
unemotional differs sharply from the gregarious,
spontaneous, openly expressive workers in the Tokyo plant he observed. The character of the Japanese worker is further explicated by Tsurumi
(1981), who maintains that politeness, hard work,
orientation toward group activity, and loyalty to
management are no more inborn traits of the Japanese than of Canadians and Americans. Although a
popular view of Japanese work groups touts their
strong cohesiveness and the benefits of consensus
decision making, Cole warns that this emphasis
masks the strong competition within Japanese society. Such competition reveals itself in efforts to cultivate favor with superiors through flattery or politicking, which can result in conflicts within the
work group. Further, Cole questions the authenticity of Japanese employee security through lifetime
employment, noting that there are many devices
employers can use to get employees to quit that fall
short of actually firing them.
Yazaburo Mogi, first executive vice president of
the Kikkoman soy sauce plant at Waleworth, Wisconsin, cautions that "the Japanese seniority system, while it offers security and creates a harmonious atmosphere conducive to good results, may also
reduce incentives to do good work" ("How the Japanese Manage," 1981, p. 103). Rejecting the
".myth" of the Japanese as "supermen" and the
conclusion that Japan's industrial success is linked
to the uniqueness of Japanese human factors or
"the spirit of its workers," Blotnick argues that it
would be as correct to link Japan's success to "the
coercive, regimented side of its society," which
Americans would "hardly want to emulate" (1981,
p. 132).
The transfer of strong family ties to industry has
fostered several interesting phenomena. Tanaka
(1981) reports that employees tend to hire "total
persons," and employees tend to become totally immersed in the organization for which they work.
Because the company becomes a surrogate for the
family, work takes on the same ethos as a contribution to the family-loyalty, sincerity, and so on.
The company's (family's) prosperity becomes more

1933) that promote and sustain a regulated social

order as opposed to the self-interest of individuals.
Human Resource
Hatvany and Pucik (1981) have conceptualized a
model of Japanese management that focuses on the
maximization of human resource development. Emphasizing the use of an integrated system of management, the authors' model rests on the implementation of three interrelated strategies: development
of an internal labor market, articulation of a company philosophy stressing cooperation and teamwork, and utilization of a well-defined socialization
process for hiring and integrating new employees
into the company.
The unique element of Japanese management
highlighted by Hatvany and Pucik is the internal
labor market, which derives from the lifetime employment syndrome discussed earlier. Japanese
firms hire males after graduation, with the expectation of retaining them for a lifetime. This security
of male employment is assisted by using female and
part time workers in order to adjust the size of the
workforce to current economic conditions, by underpaying workers in the early stages of their careers in favor of compensation in later years, and by
slow career path movement. The Japanese utilize
an intensive socialization process designed to foster
a "4companyman" identity.
Many specific techniques are utilized by the Japanese to promote and reinforce their management
system. Broad knowledge of company operations is
fostered by job rotation, slow promotion, and the
lifetime employment. Company policies and assignments tend to build group cohesiveness and teamwork and emphasize the importance of the collective interests of the group, rather than the
individual's own interests. Employee evaluation encompasses both performance factors and workers'
attitudes and behaviors. Open communications are
fostered by extensive face-to-face communications
(the absence of private offices, even for high ranking managers) and by the frequency with which
foremen and senior plant managers tend to visit
workers on the plant floor. Use of consultative decision making practices is another supporting technique of Hatvany and Pucik's model. The final element in their model is management's expression of
concern for employees enhanced by extensive company sponsored cultural, athletic, and recreational
347

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

important than individual prosperity, and work for

the company-not leisure--becomes the essence of
life.

Japanese firms arise from consumer or environmental issues. Rarely does protest involve issues such as
feminism, investment policy, wages, or living and
working conditions. For protests that do arise, litigation is quite uncommon (Japan has half the population of the United States, but only 11,000 lawyers). Nor is shareholder pressure a viable
alternative for special interest groups; 90 percent of
all directors are "inside" directors employed by the
company (Janger & Berenkein, 1981).
A further source of confusion is the tendency toward oversimplification in explaining the effectiveness of Japanese management. It is doubtful that a
one-factor or two-factor theory of management
such as "decision making" or "quality control" can
account fully for a country's economic achievements. Surely a group of complex forces taken together delineate the dimensions of Japanese management experience. A related element of confusion
is the difficulty of distinguishing causation from
correlation. Sullivan (1983) bases his anti-theory Z
on such an argument.
Another caveat to the student of Japanese management concerns the tendency toward overgeneralization of the "Japanese management" mystique.
Research on Japanese management practices has
focused primarily on large, highly visible firms in
the automotive and electronics industries. What of
the experience of the smaller firms and businesses
engaged in retailing, agriculture, chemicals, or in
the service industries such as banking and finance?
Can one characterize the management practices of
an entire nation from such a small and nonrepresentative sample? Although Ouchi and Pascale and
Athos have highlighted dramatic differences between Japanese and American management practices, it is doubtful that the few firms cited truly
represent the norms of "Japanese" and "American"
management. The excellent productivity and quality of Japanese manufacturing in such mass production industries as automobiles, household appliances, and steel are well recognized, but one should
not conclude that the Japanese enjoy superiority
over international competitors in all industrial efforts. As noted by Tsurumi:
Japanese industriesdo not outperformAmerican,

Sources of Entanglement in the Jungle

Many differences in the Japanese style of management and Western styles can be attributed to
sharp differences in the respective cultures rather
than to management practices (Schein, 1981). The
common thread about which Japanese life has developed is "intimacy," which has evolved from the
dictates of collective farming, little available land
space, and the need to construct homes that offered
little privacy. The family cultural forces are transferred to business firms, reinforcing compliance of
behavior and promoting high performance (Cao,
1981). In strong opposition to this style, which promotes close social relations, American life has developed around rugged individualism and independence (Ouchi, 1981), which has grown out of the
developing frontier and a land intense economy
rather than a labor intense one. Thus, the cultural
focus on the groups' interests, as opposed to the individual's, is strongly imbedded in Japanese workers in contrast to their American counterparts.
Several environmental and structural factors
seem to offer Japanese management an advantage
over the United States. Most Japanese employees
who are union members belong to company unions.
Of the directors of major corporations, 16 percent
are former union officials (Janger & Berenkein,
1981). Unions and management tend to form a
strong productive partnership, paving the way for
easy introduction of labor-saving devices. The influence of such "macro" factors as MITI, extensive
capital investment, modest defense expenditures,
lower wage rates, and the relatively undervalued
yen have been slighted as causal factors of Japan's
economic success when compared to the much publicized managerial prowess of the Japanese. Further, Vogel has argued that the Japanese educational environment is the foundation of its economic
achievement: "If any single factor explains the Japanese success, it is the group-directed quest for
knowledge" (1982 p. 65). Perhaps this quest arises
in the very competitive school systems and is reinforced by the close relationships among academic
performance, schools attended and job placement.
Nearly all of the confrontations faced by

Canadian and other foreign counterparts . . . in ag-

riculture,aircraft,nonferrousmetals, and some advancedtelecommunications

equipment.In the fields
of organicand non-organicchemicals,pharmaceuticals, large-scalecomputersand large earth-moving
348

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

equipment,Americanfirms lead the Japaneseby a

substantialmargin(1981, p. 7).
The need for additional research to resolve inconsistencies and conflicts is clear. True, insights and
understandings are developing, but much of the evidence is andecdotal or is so narrowly based that accurate conclusions must necessarily be tentative.
Although these results are to be expected, given the
youthful state of research on Japanese industrial
sciences, some observers have been unable to resist
drawing broad conclusions that are appealing in
their simplicity but are unwarranted by the research data.

more inclined to accept a lifetime commitment and

holistic concern for their employees. Finally, the
Japanese appear more strongly committed to the
concept of collective responsibility than individual
accountability. These three factors are explored as
integrating concepts in interrelating the streams of
Japanese management thought presented above.
A suggested pattern of causality among the underlying factors of long run planning horizon, commitment to lifetime employment, and collective responsibility and a summary of outcomes characterizing Japanese management are shown in Figure 1. The authors contend that these underlying
factors may be chiefly responsible for the development of the elements of the Japanese system of
management and that these are rooted in the Japanese culture. Although a model of perfect causality
is not claimed, the tentative pattern of causality in
Figure 1 relates and summarizes much of the existing evidence.

Common Factors in the Theories and

Models-A Mental Factor Analysis
Although the positions of the writers above present different views and perspectives on Japanese
management success that have contributed to the
"entanglement," there appear to be underlying factors at the heart of the Japanese system that foster
the development of the various management theories and models. First, Japanese managers seem to
be oriented to a longer planning horizon than their
American counterparts. Second, Japanese firms are

Long Run Planning Horizon

Once management commits itself to planning for
the long run rather than focusing on short run max-

Figure 1
Fundamental Factors Underlying Japanese Management Practices:
A Suggested Pattern of Causalitya
Underlying Factors

Long-Run Planning Horizon

Commitment to Lifetime Employmemn

Collective Responsibility

Management Practices
Commitment to sufficient time to manage
Diligence in implementation of plans
Discipline and order in work
Sufficient time to implement concepts and systems
Development of an integrated organizational philosophy
Growth of implicit control systems
Atticulation of company philosophy
Executive investment in employee training and development
Socialization process in hiring and integration
Reduced turnover and high loyalty
Nonspecialized career paths
Development of internal labor markets
Emphasis on soft S's-staff, skills, style
Company unions rather than craft unions
Emphasis on teamwork and cooperation
Consensus decision making
Participative management
Trust and interdependence
Quality circles

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

349

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ceptance of changes in work-methods and technology that enhance productivity. (This approach
contrasts sharply with an American tendency to
reap short term benefits from new employees with
entry-level skills by retaining them in a job until
they leave the organization.)
The recruitment and selection process is approached differently when one hires for a lifetime
rather than the short term. More emphasis must be
given to the socialization factors-the "fit" of the
employee to the organization, one's satisfaction
with the company philosophy, one's relationships
with peer groups at work, the acceptance of management style, and so on. Indeed, hiring may be
based more on social factors than on entry skills,
because the latter will be utilized less.
The intensive socialization of the Japanese firm's
efforts to inculcate the culture of the organization
in employees-through such extensive ritualistic
practices as employee calisthenics, singing the company song, after-hours group activities, and company sponsored vacations-help develop and sustain
long term commitment and loyalty to the organization. The holistic concern that is evidenced for employees and their families may be viewed as a sensible effort to safeguard the employer's substantial
investment in human resources and further bond
the employees to the organization.
The long term commitment and concern for employees and the consequent familial relationship
promote trust and support of organizational leadership. Unlike the employee who is likely to remain
with an employer (and a boss) for a short time, the
Japanese system promotes accommodation and
unity of interest. Knowing the extended nature of
the employment practice, the worker is less inclined
to engage in major confrontations or conflicts that
would damage the long term superior-subordinate
relationship. One would expect communications to
be more gentle, subtle, implicit, and "family
oriented."
Finally, a commitment to lifetime employment
with holistic concern for employees is likely to produce a balanced, reciprocal psychological contract
calling for a "company" type of identity. The employer's side of the contract is likely to include
more participation of employees in the decision
making process. When one has remained with a
company long enough "to belong," the person also
is more likely to be "consulted" on important mat-

imization, certain benefits are likely to follow. Management is allocated more time to develop objectives and implementation plans. The longer planning horizon is conducive to the generation of
interpersonal relationships that foster mutual understandings and implicit goals. Furthermore, the
time frame of all plans-short run, intermediate,
and long term-tends to lengthen, and immediate
pressures tend to diminish. Deliberate planning and
communication exhibits itself in orderliness and diligence of implementation of production operations
and in the integration of manufacturing strategy
and operations policy. There is time to produce customized in-house process equipment, and, perhaps
more importantly, the long tenure of employees provides time to select employees whose skills match
the equipment or to train those whose skills do not.
The impact of the long planning horizon on Japanese industry is further evidenced in the activities
of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, which provide a supportive, stable environment for the industries that are responsive to expressed national economic goals. The predictability of public policy
toward business and industry permits an easier organizational commitment to long term strategies
rather than a penchant for short run expediencies.
The success in Japan of quality circles, statistical
quality control, and consensus decision making also
is facilitated by the long term focus. Often the lack
of success with these approaches in the United
States has not been because they are faulty in theory or concept, but rather because they have been
implemented poorly. Poor implementation usually
means too hastily introduced. However, given sufficient time for employers to become comfortable
with these new approaches, and with co-workers,
many implicit control systems and corrective adjustments arise to prevent the failure of these complex managerial concepts and systems.
Commitment to Lifetime Employment
The mutual commitment of Japanese management and the employee to lifetime employment appears to underlie a number of the celebrated Japanese management practices. The mutual awareness
created by the investment of the two parties permits
long term efforts in training and development. It
also encourages rotational training programs
outside one's specialized field and, perhaps most importantly, as cited by Drucker, promotes the ac350

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ased in their analyses, but rather are unable to fully

grasp the intricacies of the data to describe adequately Japan's industrial success. For, as noted, in
addition to the host of management-based theories
proposed as explanations for Japanese achievements, alternative theories built on government and
environmental models, for example, "Japan Inc.,"
have been hypothesized. Thus, they are reacting not
only as did the scientists in the parable of the spindle, but also as did the blind men in the fable in
which they describe the elephant. You will recall
that one felt the knee of the elephant and described
it as a tree-like creature; another felt the tusk and
likened it to a spear; and a third felt the tail and
insisted that it was small and round like a rope.
Perhaps all of the theorists are correct in attributing some Japanese excellence to the area of Japan's industry that they have examined. Maybe the
Japanese, in their obsession to redeem the honor of
their country after World War II and in their quest
for world respect in industry, have produced excellence in many areas of the process of management.
If so, it should not be surprising that existing research efforts have failed to capture adequately the
essence of Japanese management effectiveness. Further, it seems unlikely that additional research
seeking single-factor or dual-factor explanations of
the Japanese success will be more successful; the
panacea will continue to be elusive. Also, the jungle
warfare among management theorists cited by
Koontz in 1961 is not lacking among students of
Japanese management today. For there exists a tendency to discount or discredit rival hypotheses or
conceptualizations that are incompatible with one's
own.
Of what value are the present theories in the jungle? It is argued that they are of considerable value
as long as researchers and organization development implementors recognize that elements of Japanese management do not stand alone, but rather
they require supporting cultural and environmental
frameworks to be effective. As in most new systems
of management, practice must precede research,
and research must initially address small segments
of the implementation. For the organization contemplating adoption of the Japanese system, Chung
and Gray (1982) stress that extensive preparation
and commitment is necessary, pointing out that an
adoption will not work unless the organization is
willing to change its whole philosophy of organizing

ters affecting the company.

Emphasis on Collective Responsibility
According to most writers, Japanese management
shuns individual accountability and credit in preference for collective or group responsibility and rewards. If true, organizations managed by such persons would place heavy emphasis on the values of
teamwork and cooperation. Decisions more often
would be made collectively or, more likely,
nemawashi style. Participative management or consensus management would not be a style that most
managers forced on themselves, but rather would be
a natural way of engaging in the collective sharing
of responsibility.
The present phenomena of quality circles and
consensus decision making are rooted in the Japanese cultural traditions emphasizing interdependence, collaboration, and cooperation. The apparent
subordination of the individual's needs and interests
to those of the group has strong precedent in the
Japanese culture. The willing acceptance of one's
role in the organization reflects the traditional commitment to the priority of collective action. The emphasis on collective responsibility fosters a congruence of goals among employees and management,
which is bolstered further by lifetime, two-way contracts between them.
The presence of a hard-working, orderly
workforce can be related to the orientation to collective responsibility of the Japanese. When coupled
with a high degree of goal congruence between employer and employee, the emergence of cohesive,
productive, disciplined work groups is not surprising. The impressive performance of the Japanese
work force, particularly their high productivity and
exceptional quality levels, reasonably derives from
those underlying conditions that support vigorous
implementation of high output standards and superior quality control systems.

Clearing a Path Through the Jungle

From a review of the research findings on Japanese managerial success, one is reminded of Porter's
(1962) parable of the spindle, in which the proverbial specialists, called on to solve a problem, all
found the answer deeply imbedded in their own
particular expertise. On greater reflection, however,
it is proposed that the writers probably are not bi351

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

practices, rather than focusing on the techniques or

concepts in isolation. Present understanding of Japanese management is limited by the narrow comprehension of the environment in which it existssocietal norms and values, educational and socialization processes, and the interfaces of business, government, and labor. Armed with a better understanding of the interrelationships of the elements of
the Japanese management system, one will be better equipped to address the issues of emulation, adaptation, and implementation in American enterprises. When one attempts to traverse a jungle, a
complete understanding of the terrain is helpful.

people. In a similar vein, England (1982) presents

evidenceto suggest that the social and institutional
frameworkof American industry is inimicableto
the tenets of Ouchi'sTheory Z, and this will limit
its adoptionby firms in the United States.
Perhapsthe most fruitful approachfor uncovering tracksin the Japanesemanagementtheoryjungle will be to build modelsthat reflectthe "system"
of
of Japanesemanagement-the interdependencies
the political, economic, social, and religious variables with managementpractices.What appearsto
be most neededis the developmentof integrated,internallyconsistentmodelsthat encompassthe evaluation and the context of Japanese management

References
Anderson, W. S. Meeting the Japanese economic challenge. Business Horizons, 1981, 24(2), 56-62.

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

Blotnick, S. Supermen? Forbes, August 17, 1981, pp. 132-133.

Hayes, R. H. Why Japanese factories work. Harvard Business

Review, 1981, 59(4), 57-66.

Cao, A. D. The Japanese challenge in the 1980's: A sociocultural interpretation. Mid-South Business Journal. 1981, 2(1),
7-14.

How the Japanese manage in the U.S. Fortune, June 15, 1981,
97-98, 102-103.

Chung, K. H., & Gray, M. A. Can we adopt the Japanese methods of human resources management? Personnel Administrator, 1982, 28(5), 41-46, 80.

Howard, N., & Teramoto, Y. The really important difference

between Japanese and western management. Management International Review, 1981, 21, 19-30.

Cole, R. E. Japanese blue collar: The changing tradition. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1971.

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

Cole, R. E. Learning from the Japanese: Prospects and pitfalls.

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

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

Deming, W. E. What can American manufacturers learn from

the Japanese? Iron Age, October 6, 1980, p. 51.

A Japanese experi-

Koontz, H. The management theory jungle. Journal of the

Academy of Management, 1961a 4(3), 174-188.

Drucker, P. F. What we can learn from Japanese management.

Harvard Business Review, 1971, 49(2), 110-122.
Drucker, P. F. Behind Japan's success. Harvard Business Review, 1981, 59(1), 83-90.

Munchus, G. Employer-employee based quality circles in Japan:

Human resource policy implications for American firms.
Academy of Management Review, 1983, 8, 255-261.

Drucker, P. Are unions becoming irrelevant? Wall Street Journal, September 22, 1982, p. 26.

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

Durkheim, E. Preface. In The division of labor in society. 2nd

ed. New York: Macmillan Co., 1933, 1-31. (Originally published, 1902).

Ouchi, W. C. Theory Z: How American business can meet the

Japanese challenge. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
Ouchi, W. C., & Jaeger, A. M. Type Z organization: Stability in
the midst of mobility. Acnademy of Management Review,
1978, 3, 305-314.

England, G. W. Japanese and American management: Theory Z

and beyond. Unpublished paper, University of Oklahoma,
1982.

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

Flanigan, J. The wrong bottom line. Forbes, May 25, 1981, pp.
42, 46.

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

Gibney, F. B. Now it's time to imitate the Japanese. Pacific Basin Quarterly, 1981, 6, 17-18.

Reddy, A. C., & Rao, C. P. Japanese marketing: Underlying

reasons for its success. Mid-South Business Journal, 1982,

Hatvany, N., & Pucik, V. An integrated management system:

352

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24(4), 23-29.

2(1), 3-6.
Rehder, R. R. What American and Japanese managers are
learning from each other. Business Horizons, 1981, 24(2), 6370.

Tsurumi, Y. Productivity: The Japanese approach. Pacific Basin

Quarterly, 1981, 6, 7-11.

Schein, E. H. Does Japanese management style have a message

for American managers? Sloan Management Review, 1981,
23(1), 55-67.

Vogel, E. F. Japan as number one: Lessons for America. New

York: Harper & Row, 1979. Quoted in L. A. Bryan, Jr., The
Japanese and the American first-line supervisor. Training and
Development Journal, 1982, 36(1), 65.

Sullivan, J. J. A critique of theory Z. Academy of Management

Review, 1983, 8, 132-142.

Wheelwright, S. C. Japan - Where operations really are strategic. Harvard Business Review, 1981, 59(4), 67-74.

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

Yager, E. Quality circle: A tool for the 80's. Training and Development Journal, 1980, 34(8), 60-62.

Tanaka, F. J. Lifetime employment in Japan. Challenge, 1981,

J. Bernard Keys is Professor of Management and Associate

Dean of the Fogelman College of Business and Economics,
Memphis State University.
Thomas R. Miller is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Management and Associate Dean, Fogelman College of
Business and Economics, Memphis State University.

353

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:12:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions