Hiroshi Hazama

Characteristics of Japanese-Style Management

>u>Foreign Views of Japanese Management>/u>. The expression Japanese-style management is being used as a contrast to such expressions as American-style management, British-style management, or Chinese-style management. An international comparison is therefore intended. Strictly speaking then, one cannot use this expression meaningfully unless a great deal is known on this subject.

Labour Management during the Establishment of Heavy Industries

With the First World War, heavy industries, which evolved around the munitions industry, developed conspicuously in Japan in both qualitative and quantitative terms. The production of basic intermediate materials, which had hitherto been the least developed aspect, was on a firm footing with the development of the iron and steel industry. This led to a complete range of heavy industrial production unfolding. However, light industries still continued to occupy a large proportion of the whole industrial sector.

General Conditions during the Developmental Period of Familistic Management

Thus far, our inquiry has proceeded by focusing on the formation and development of a typical form of managerial familism or familistic management. It was made clear that its practice was extensively embraced by large-scale enterprises in Japan during the period around the First World War. However, as mentioned in the course of the discussion, not all enterprises adopted such a typical form of managerial familism or familistic management. But even firms which did not directly adopt familistic management itself influenced each other as far as successful management measures were concerned. And as a whole, they are likely to reveal some sort of trend.

Analytical Overview of Labour Management

Research on labour management has hitherto been carried out from the perspective of management science as an area of management alongside production control and financial management. However, as is well known, this perspective is but one of the numerous ways in which the subject may be analyzed, ranging from one based on management techniques to one based on a theory of the logic of capital. The resulting definition of labour management differs according to each perspective. But if one were pressed to seek an approach common to all, the following perspective emerges because much of management studies has hitherto had its theoretical foundation in economics: labour management is about management action to achieve the objective of the enterprise through an efficient use of labour. However, even those who hold this view of managerial economics recognize the fact that labour is a special commodity which cannot be considered as separate from the personality of individual workers. They therefore include the management of both workers and work attitudes in the study of labour management. And in order to understand the latter, sociological and psychological perspectives are becoming widely adopted in contemporary theories of labour management.

The Development of Familistic Management

Managerial familism is one form which management ideology took historically in Japan.1 As the suffix ‘ism’ indicates, it is nothing but an ideology, and is not labour management itself. However, in order for management ideology to fulfil its important function sufficiently, and in particular for the leader (i. e. the owner-manager) to direct the followers’ (or employees’) actions and enhance their morale, mere verbal appeals are ineffective. It is not until the ideology is combined with the labour management policy which backs it up that tangible results are brought about for the first time. Conversely, labour management policy itself bears fruit as a comprehensive management policy only if it is not left as a set of fragmented and piecemeal measures but is backed up by an ideology which binds these elements into a coherent whole. In this sense, managerial familism as a management ideology may be said to be inseparably linked to familial management as one mode of labour management.

Theory of Managerial Familism and its Formative Process

Managerial familism (keiei kazoku shugi) was considered a distinctive feature of Japanese firms before the Second World War, and was also an issue over which labour and management were driven to confront each other after the war. To this was added the voice of American researchers,2 so that there has been a renewed understanding of what is meant by ‘Japanese management’ and in particular ‘Japanese-style’ labour management. In explaining what is ‘Japanese’, various terms such as paternalism, managerial familism and lifetime employment are used, but their meaning has not been examined sufficiently. Consequently, there is still much theoretical confusion and misunderstanding.

Labour Management during the Rise of Private Enterprises

Industry in Japan experienced a turning-point around 1887: it established its foundation and grew into a modern industry throughout the two war periods, the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars. In heavy industries, the munitions industry occupied a leading position, and was in effect under the control of government-run large factories. The development of government-run factories, particularly those related to the army and navy, were conspicuous in the late nineteenth century (see Table 6.1).Tokyo Arsenal (employing 14 140 factory workers in 1903) and Osaka Arsenal (with 9456 workers) were notable examples of army-related concerns, while Tokyo Naval Arsenal (1400 workers), Yokosuka Naval Arsenal (6551 workers), Kure Naval Arsenal (12 847 workers), Sasebo Naval Arsenal (4288 workers) and Maizuru Naval Arsenal (744 workers) were the main naval factories. By focusing on these facilities, the army, after the Russo-Japanese War, `strove to achieve technological and productive independence and self-sufficiency in munitions, and to achieve and secure a world standard’. Similarly, towards the end of the Meiji period, the navy also recognized that ‘shipbuilding and munitions technology in our country has developed recently to a level comparable to that in Western countries’) In addition, there were large-scale Railway Agency concerns among government-run factories. Open image in new window Figure 6_1 Comparisons of Development of Government Munitions Factories and Private Machinery Factories, 1899–1912