新编大学英语第三册unit10 Text C: The Japanese Approach to Management
UNIT 10 AFTER-CLASS READING 2; New College English (III)
The Japanese Approach to Management
1 During the 1970s and 1980s, American managers invested much time and money studying Japanese approaches to management because of the fine quality of Japanese products and the general productivity of their organizations. While the American and Japanese cultures differ significantly in many ways, it is still possible to examine Japanese management and discover several relevant principles.
2 Extensive studies of Japanese organizations have demonstrated that Japanese managers stress the following:
3 1. Bottom-up Initiative. Japanese managers believe that change and initiative within an organization should come from those closest to the problem. So they elicit change from below. Top-level Japanese managers see their task as creating an atmosphere in which subordinates are motivated to seek better solutions.
4 2. Top Management as Facilitator. Japanese managers do not view themselves as having all the answers. When a subordinate brings in a proposal, the manager neither accepts nor rejects it. Rather, he tactfully, politely asks questions, makes suggestions, and provides encouragement.
5 3. Middle Management as Impetus for and Shaper of Solutions. In the Japanese system, junior (middle) managers are initiators who perceive problems and formulate tentative solutions in coordination with others; they are not functional specialists who carry out their boss's directives. Because so much emphasis is placed on coordination and integration, solutions to problems evolve more slowly, but they are known and understood by all those who have been a part of the solution generation process. Horizontal communication is stressed as essential to the coordination of problem-solving efforts.
6 4. Consensus as a Way of Making Decisions. The Japanese are less inclined to think in terms of absolutes, that is, the solution (which is right) versus the alternatives (which are wrong). Rather, they recognize a range of alternatives, several of which might work and all of which possess advantages and disadvantages. When a group makes a decision, all members become committed to the chosen solution. From a Japanese perspective, that commitment, and the ensuing dedication toward working to make the solution successful, is probably more important than the objective quality of the decision. The Japanese have an interesting concept of consensus. Those who consent to a decision are not necessarily endorsing it. Rather, consent means that each person is satisfied that his point of view has been fairly heard, and although he or she may not wholly agree that the decision is the best one, he or she is willing to go along with it and even support it.
7 5. Concern for Employees' Personal Well-being. Japanese managers have a kind of paternalistic attitude toward their employees. Traditionally, Japanese organizations have offered their workers housing, extensive recreational facilities, and lifetime employment. The Japanese believe that it is impossible to divorce a worker's personal and professional lives. Good managers express concern for workers as per-Sons with homes and families as well as for the quality of the products the workers produce. Managers typically work alongside their subordinates, counsel them regarding their personal lives, and encourage much peer interaction.
8 It is interesting that principles that are considered by many to be advantages of the Japanese system can also be viewed as problems, at least from an American perspective. There is a fine line between encouraging consensus and forcing it. When groups place too much emphasis on being agreeable and conforming to organizational expectations, poor quality decision making is a likely outcome. Moreover, the Japanese notion of taking care of employees can extend into an extreme form of paternalism with which few well-educated Americans would be comfortable. It is appropriate to protect children or others who cannot think for or look after themselves. But professionals hardly fall into these categories. Most Americans would prefer an organizational system that makes it possible for them to function as mature, intelligent human beings, responsible for their own security and well-being.
9 Finally, some authors have suggested that Japanese style management as adapted to American organizations is little more than a tool for even greater management control. An employee who has a life commitment to a particular organization, for instance, becomes vulnerable. Since he does not perceive viable options, he is more likely to tolerate existing working conditions, even if he finds them unpleasant. The employee is also encouraged to become a generalist rather than a specialist. Thus, a person's expertise in a particular area is rarely sufficiently developed so that the organization actually grows to depend on him or her as an irreplaceable employee. Instead, substitutes are readily found. Moreover, should an employee who has worked in this kind of organizational environment decide to abandon his commitment to this organization after a few years of working as a generalist, he would be poorly equipped to move into other American organizations since he would be competing with specialists.
10 The body of research on Japanese organizations continues to grow. Recent research suggests that one cannot generalize about Japanese workers that males and females, young and old, differ in their decision-making style and management preference. One study reported that Japanese workers were more passive than commonly thought, preferring to be persuaded of the value of a decision by their supervisor over making the decision themselves. However, a different study found that Japanese managers place a far greater emphasis on corporate participation and cooperation than their American counterparts. Thus, a consistent and coherent view of Japanese organizations does not yet exist.
11 Like the other approaches to management, the Japanese approach is very interesting. In reminding us of the value of the individual, the need for participative decision making, and the potential of facilitative management, it has been extremely useful. It is not a panacea, however. Because of extreme differences between the Japanese and American cultures, some Japanese management practices are simply poorly suited to American organizations.
