Japanese-style Human Resource Management in the
United States
Jana Smith.
Copyright -- all rights reserved
Because of the success of Japanese companies in Japan, many
American companies have implemented a Japanese system of human
resource management. By copying Japan, they hope to increase
productivity and worker satisfaction. Although a few companies in
America have been successful, many companies are finding problems
transferring the Japanese style. In the future, I expect an immediate
increase in the number of American firms using Japanese style
because of its initial appealing nature; however, because of great
cultural differences, this style will not succeed in the long run, and a
decrease will follow.
At first glance, it may appear that the Japanese style team concept
allows for a better, more involved work environment. In the auto
industry, teams in Japan have proven to provide a sense of loyalty
and pride to the company because workers feel the power of peer
pressure rather than a direct form of management. Team members
can help others get out of trouble if they get behind and they rotate
jobs in order to decrease monotony. Though all of this may sound
great, American social barriers often stand in the way of making the
team concept a complete success in the United States.
For example, if one team member seems to have more trouble
keeping up in a factory system, other members of this team may
have feelings of resentment toward that particular worker. Japanese
policy also includes a strict absenteeism policy that increases
pressure from team members. If a team member is out, usually the
team leader must take his or her place, creating greater strains on
those who may need the team leader’s assistance. Japanese cultural
traits, such as homogeneity, familism, and loyalty reduce these
feelings in Japan. Though teams may create an initial good feeling in
1
America, cultural conditions and expectations will prevent its long-
term success.
A popular component of the Japanese system is the principle of
kaizen, which means continuous improvement and the reduction of
waste. To most companies, this practice sounds ideal because it
results in higher productivity and less wasted time. The product and
service will constantly be improved as changes are made. Yet there is
a side of kaizen that makes it difficult to implement in American
societies: kaizen puts an enormous amount of stress and pressure on
workers and the organization. The constant push for efficiency can
result in the loss of individuality, which occurs because the worker is
unable to socialize with those around and there is no room for
creativity.
In order for everything to get done at high quality, workers must often
work very long hours. Employees are sometimes required to work
overtime on extremely short notice, which can result in feelings of
anger toward the company. Americans tend to want to keep work
separate from family life, and unexpected overtime could take away
from family plans. Though kaizen is beneficial to the company, it does
not take into account the feelings of the individual, which is important
to most Americans.
Seniority and job security are also important aspects of the Japanese
system. Workers in Japan go into a job knowing that their elders will
have the better positions. If they perform well, their chance for
seniority will come along later, as they will probably still be with the
same company because of great job security. Japan is able to offer
this security because the companies obtain guarantees from banks. In
America, companies rely heavily on the stock market, which is highly
variable and provides little security, resulting in heavy layoffs.
Also, use of the Japanese seniority system would likely cause young
college graduates in America to feel tension toward elders because as
recent graduates, they feel that they have the competitive edge,
2
knowing the best new, efficient ways to run businesses. Despite this
system’s overwhelming success in Japan, cultural differences will
produce a barrier preventing the achievement of the Japanese system
in America.
Although the complete implementation of Japanese style
management and human relations would likely be unsuccessful in
America because of cultural differences, certain aspects of it may
contribute to America’s future success in world competition. The
transfer of some Japanese aspects, such as worker participation in
decision making, would likely provide some improvement to American
firms without disturbing cultural traditions.
Yet other aspects will be less likely to transfer; for example long-term
loyalty, because Americans like to be happy at work. Those who are
unsatisfied will willingly switch jobs to achieve happiness. Perhaps the
answer to the debate over the transferability of the Japanese system
is to implement only the ideas that mesh well with American culture.
Even if an increase in the use of the entire system occurs initially, it is
likely that upon realization of cultural differences, its use will decrease
greatly in the distant future.
RESOURCES
Berggren, Christian. "Lean Production-- The End of History?" Work,
Employment, and Society, Vol. 7, No. 2 (June 1993): 163-188.
Brown, Clair, and Michael Reich. "When Does Union Management
Cooperation Work? A Look at NUMMI and GM-Van Nuys." California
Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, (Summer 1989): 26-44.
Chinoy, Eli. "On the Line." Automobile Workers and the American
Dream. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1992: 135-152.
Dedoussis, Vagelis. "Simply a Question of Cultural Barriers? The
Search for New Perspectives in the transfer of Japanese Management
3
Practices." Journal of Management Studies, Vol.32, No. 6 (Nov. 1995):
731-746.
Graham, Laurie. "Inside a Japanese Transplant: A Critical Perspective."
Work and Occupations, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May 1993): 147-173.
Kaizen. 1998. The Kaizen Institute. ([Link]
Kinney, Martin, and Richard Florida. "Transplant Industries: Autos and
Electronics." Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov.
1995): 789-803.
Rehder, Robert, and Marta Medaris Smith. "NUMMI: Teamwork in
Action." New Management, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall, 1986): 47-49.
Wagner, Tom. "Toyota’s Okuda on Catching up With Ford." Business
Week Jun 15 1998: 58.
