For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
"BRITISH FACTORY-JAPANESE FACTORY" (ROBERT DORE) & "UNDER JAPANESE MANAGEMENT" (M. WHITE & M. TREVOR).
Term Paper ID:23378
Essay Subject:
Critical comparison of 1973 & 1983 books on British & Japanese management philosophies & practices.... More...
12 Pages / 2700 Words
2 sources, 16 Citations,
MLA Format
$48.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Critical comparison of 1973 & 1983 books on British & Japanese management philosophies & practices.
Paper Introduction:
Introduction
Much has been written during the 1980s about Japanese management and how the techniques employed by the Japanese have ramifications and applications to management throughout the world. Just-in-time (JIT) inventory management and Total Quality Management (TQM) have both gained popularity in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as other regions, and their roots can be traced to Japan. However, management analysts have been interested in Japanese management techniques for a number of years prior to the recent wave of attention focused on Japanese management, and some researchers were conducting studies on factories in Japan and comparing their management styles to factories in the United Kingdom. This research examines two such works, written ten years apart, which studied Japanese factories and used the findings to c
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
However, the lack of proactive employment practices did not mean thatthe Japanese companies did not take an interest in employment policy andpersonnel issues. Overall, Dore holds that while there may well be some convergenceamong companies and economies, national differences and differences inenvironment will account for significant differences among companies basedin various nations to the point that a homogeneous business organization isnot likely to emerge. He holds that English workers are less likely to bemotivated by the wages that they can command in the market and more likelyto be drawn to companies which can offer stable long-term employment(similar to the situation which he found in Japan). Dore also found considerable differences in the way in which wageswere calculated and implemented. White and Trevor find that Japanese management, far from being staticand stagnant in its policies and procedures, is remarkably adaptable todifferent environments. In addition, Japanese management techniques have enjoyed favorableattention in recent years because they are the techniques used bysuccessful companies. The authors found that where the focus in employmentpolicy in Japan tended to be on post-hiring processes, the opposite wastrue in Britain, where considerable emphasis was placed on activities suchas recruitment and hiring. Dore did not foresee the rapid globalizationand consolidation which has taken place in the 2 years since his report. Certainly the recentexperiences in the United States suggest that downsizing is becoming apopular trend among large companies, and that trend has been seen in theUnited Kingdom, as well. The overall goal of this research was to find whether Japanese stylemanagement techniques could be applied in Britain; more to the point,whether Japanese companies had been successful in applying these techniquesto their British holdings. From the perspective of the mid-199 s, nearly 15 years after White andTrevor published this work, several issues have surfaced which White andTrevor did not identify. They sought a British-style Japanese-owned firm as well as aJapanese-style company, and they interviewed employees from throughout theorganization's hierarchy. Inaddition to these authors, there is general agreement that Western managerscould learn much from Japanese managers. Unlike Dore, they do not use actual company names, but they doprovide detailed descriptions of the companies they examine. InEngland, unions are organized by skill or industry, not by company. Dore's Study Robert Dore studied four factories, two of the English ElectricCompany (located in Bradford and Liverpool) and two belonging to theHitachi company (located in Furusato and Taga). Dore's Findings As in other studies, Dore identifies lifetime employment as a primarydifference between factories in Japan and those in Britain. Under Japanese Management.London: Heinemann, 1983. White, Michael and Malcolm Trevor. While employees may prefer long-term employmentwith a single employer, Western companies are not aligning themselves tothis strategy. Dore also holds that there are advantages to being a "late starter,"as he identifies Japan after World War II. Dore considered theoverall factory structure in his study, but compared similar units whenexamining smaller components of the four factories. Despite the differences between the way that unions are structured anddifferent composition of members in each union, both the Hitachi union andthe unions represented at England Electric see wage bargaining as theirprimary function. There is asingle union at Hitachi to which only Hitachi employees are admitted. However, managementanalysts have been interested in Japanese management techniques for anumber of years prior to the recent wave of attention focused on Japanesemanagement, and some researchers were conducting studies on factories inJapan and comparing their management styles to factories in the UnitedKingdom. The attention to quality and productivity (both ofwhich are cited by White and Trevor) are hallmarks of successful companiesregardless of whether they use Japanese management techniques or differenttechniques. Observations on Dore Dore takes issue with the idea that all factories throughout the worldwill eventually evolve into similar types of institutions because they usethe same technology to produce the same type of product (Dore 11). Dore also takes issue with the idea that the business organizationshave reached a point of "modernity" which is now permanent (Dore 11). This research examines two such works, written ten years apart,which studied Japanese factories and used the findings to considerapplications in Britain. These authors focus on the relationship between management andemployees, which is complex and which is undergoing change in the West.However, there may be other reasons that Japanese companies have been ableto post the remarkable success that they have in the post-war years. Theirreport used six case studies and a community survey of Japanese-ownedcompanies and the relationships that these companies had with their Britishworkers. The authors disagree with this view, and suggest that theincreased international exchange that Japanese ownership brings is notunlike the expansion that American and British companies underwent in theearlier part of this century. Such techniques, they found, were not implemented in theBritish enterprises which were owned by Japanese companies, but this didnot appear to harm the management success that these companies were able toachieve. As much as possible, the factories werechosen for their similarities which made comparison easier for theresearchers (Dore 3 ). While the exact policies variedfrom company to company, the existence of a comprehensive policy wasconstant (White and Trevor 124). British Factory-Japanese Factory. White & Trevor's Findings White & Trevor begin their analysis with an examination of employmentpractices in Japan, focusing on enterprise-wide unions and lifetimeemployment. Thisis a significant difference in that the way in which management and unionsinteract changes radically between the two countries. AtHitachi, management employees, technical employees and skilled workers allbelong to the same union. That either of these books was writtenindicates that there has been considerable interest in the differencesbetween Japanese and Western style management techniques for more than 2 years. Instead, theytook issue with the concept that cultural differences would make itimpossible for workers and managers in the United Kingdom (and in Westerncountries as a whole, by implication) would render it impossible forJapanese management techniques to be successfully applied (White & Trevor6). However, theauthors did not find this to be the case. White and Trevor find that Japanese management can beimplemented in British companies, but they do not make clear why this is adesirable goal for British companies. While the work that these authors havedone is insightful and helpful to managers seeking to increase their firm'ssuccess, there is additional work that needs to be done if all of thefactors which account for the differences between Japanese and Westerncompanies are to be identified and analyzed. The authors also found that the managers in the Japanese-ownedcompanies were not Japanese expatriates, generally speaking, but Britishmanagers who had been trained in Japanese management techniques. Just-in-time (JIT)inventory management and Total Quality Management (TQM) have both gainedpopularity in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as otherregions, and their roots can be traced to Japan. The English factory is much more flexible, which can lead both toan ability to react to change, but also to uncertainty in some situations(Dore 199). Stability isidentified as the emphasis at the Japanese factories, and that stabilityderives from a precise understanding of the roles that each participantplays. The authors also take issue with the perception that Japanese workersare more content than their counterparts in other parts of the world, whichwould account for the greater success of Japanese management techniques.The authors found no greater job satisfaction among workers at the Japaneseowned companies than those workers at British and American owned companies(indeed, workers at American companies tended to report a high level of jobsatisfaction) (White and Trevor 129). Permanent workers are paid a ratecomparable not with their counterparts in the same region, but with similarcompanies throughout Japan. Dore's point thatthere are differences inherent in the cultures of Japan and England whichmay determine the success of Japanese techniques has been largely ignoredby management analysts seeking to gain the benefit of Japanese strategieswithout clearly understanding the long-term ramifications of thosestrategies. At Hitachi, Dore foundthat these types of calculations are performed only with regard totemporary and contract workers. For example,permanent employment at Hitachi meant that employees were, in principle,hired for life, and there was a large difference between the way thatpermanent employees were treated and the way that temporary employees wereperceived both by the company and by their peers. For example, while White and Trevor note thatonly a small percentage of managers at Japanese-owned companies wereexpatriates, these managers tend to be at the highest levels of theorganization where policies and strategies are decided. Instead, they found thatindustrial relations were neither problematic nor a major resourceconsideration in the Japanese firms (White and Trevor 125). At the same time, the British factorieshired both men and women from all educational levels and social backgroundswhile the Japanese factories had a much more elitist approach to hiring.Menial jobs in the Japanese factories were held by temporary workers or on-site contractors (Dore 7 ). Dore also cites some nations inAfrica and Latin America as being examples of this effect (Dore 13). White & Trevor's Study Ten years after Dore's study was published, Michael White and MalcolmTrevor took on the issue of Japanese management in Britain itself. Where Dorefocused on companies that were similar in their products and theirindustries, White and Trevor sought companies which were notable for theirdifferences. However, the Japanesewere able to start their activities from the same point as the Americansand British because these two nations had already gone through the learningprocess and were willing to share their information. Unlike British (or non-Japanese foreign owned)enterprises, the Japanese companies tended to have recruitment and hiringpolicies which were strictly followed and which emphasized building up theworkforce to the benefit of the company. In fact, some Japanese companies which have traditionallyfollowed lifetime employment have been forced (in occasional cases) todepart from this strategy. The role that unions play in Japan and the United Kingdom was exploredby Dore and has been commented on by others extensively. Western analysts are interested in identifying why the Japanesehave been successful, and whether the management techniques they use, whichare often different from Western techniques, could be the root cause. Overall,the authors found that Japanese managers accounted for no more than tenpercent of the workforce in the British companies (White and Trevor 131).The authors hold that this means that Japanese management can be taught toBritish managers, and that the techniques used by the Japanese can becarried across to companies in different countries without encounteringsignificant cultural barriers which would make adoption and successdifficult (White and Trevor 131). Skilled and technical employees would mostlikely belong to different unions, and it is unlikely that managementemployees would have any union representation at all (Dore 197). Companies such asHitachi were able to avoid the problems that the British companies sufferedthrough as they learned their way, and could thus "leapfrog" over the othernations' companies in their development. In the 2 years which have passed since he conducted thisstudy, there has been much attention on the Japanese management system asit might be applied to British environments, and techniques such as JIT andTQM have been implemented into factories without regard for the culturaldifferences between the two nations. Where the United States andEngland built their post-war activities on existing infrastructure, theJapanese infrastructure was essentially destroyed. British workers are willing to take on newways of doing their jobs when they are able to see positive results. Observations on White & Trevor White and Trevor do not suggest their work leads to specific ways inwhich Japanese management techniques can be implemented in Britain or theUnited States. Some companies have been successfulat creating new corporate cultures, and some have not. Some managers inthe United States and Britain have expressed frustration at not being ableto reach these inner management circles. The Hitachi union receives higher dues from its membersthan the England Electric union, which translates into better unionbuildings and facilities and more resources available to pursue the wagebargaining agreement. HisLatin American and African examples have not had similar levels of success,and even he suggests that differences in culture and environment are likelyto play a large role in the long-term success of a particular organizationor economy. LA: U of CA Press,1973. Conclusion Both Dore and White and Trevor focus on Japanese management atJapanese companies; Dore also considers the differences between Japanesemanagement and British management. There also tends to be better communication betweenunion officials and members within the Hitachi union ranks. One of theproblems that analysts anticipate for Japanese firms operating outsideJapan is an inability to adapt to this difference in focus. White and Trevor did not set out to determinehow all Japanese techniques could be applied in the United Kingdom, nor didthey determine that such a policy would even be desirable. Such distinctions didnot exist in the British factory. The greater contribution offered byWhite and Trevor is that changes are needed in the way that Britishcompanies conduct business. At this point (the late 197 s and early 198 s), group decisionmaking was not widespread in Britain, even in Japanese firms, and therewere no seniority-based wage systems or lifelong training programs. Of greater import to British managers is the realization that Japanesemanagement techniques can be imported to Britain without losingproductivity in the process. In England, theunion looks out for the best interests of its members, but this can meanthat the union negotiates high wages with one company in order to boostwages throughout the industry and thus assist members at different firms.This can lead to a more adversarial relationship between management andunions than is found in Japan. Works Cited Dore, Robert. In Japan, there islikely to be more co-operative negotiating as the employees' best interestsare clearly linked to the best interests of the company. For example, whenworking with job allocation, Dore focused on the washing machine assemblylines at Taga and Liverpool and on the shops producing generators andmotors at Bradford and Furusato. The end result of the union efforts and management negotiations is amore formal structure in the Japanese company than in the English company.The Japanese contract is more likely to clearly identify rules for mostareas of the employees' work environment, while the English contract leavesmuch to the discretion of supervisors and their subordinates. Union membership is also different between the two countries. Hetakes issue with this because of the influence that the culturalenvironment has on the factory environment, and because of the differencesin how individual countries view the relationship between business and theoverall culture. The way that unions are treated in the two countries identifies someof the more significant differences between management styles. They cite as evidence of this the willingness ofJapanese companies to work with trade unions, and on the ability of Britishmanagers to successfully implement Japanese management techniques amongBritish workers. Thesereasons may come from having a long-term focus, from using differentfinancing techniques, or from any number of factors which are outside therealm of organizational management. Theauthors held that the British environment, including the active role oflabor unions and the mobility of workers, helped prevent the implementationof these practices (White and Trevor 124). In England, such employees would not belong tothe same employee organization. A key differencebetween the success of Japanese companies and British companies is theexistence of enterprise unions in Japan, which tends to lead to co-operative negotiating techniques, and industrial/trade unions in the West,which tends to lead to adversarial negotiating techniques. They recognize that Japanese investment in both countrieshas led to widespread criticism that the Japan is essentially using the twoother countries as a labor force, and that the jobs produced are low-payingand result in income flowing back to Japan rather than staying in the hostcountries. Introduction Much has been written during the 198 s about Japanese management andhow the techniques employed by the Japanese have ramifications andapplications to management throughout the world. In addition, negotiations take place withunions who do not represent a particular skill (such as shop workers)across all companies, but with unions who represent all employees at agiven company (Dore 11 ). Dore's late development effect cannot entirely explain the high rateof success that Japanese companies have enjoyed during recent decades. At the English factories, employees andmanagers were under the impression that wages are negotiated by the"market," which determines a particular price for a particular skill.Employers should pay that wage not merely because it is the right thing todo, but because employees are likely to seek employment elsewhere if theyare not paid a rate commensurate with the market. Thissuggests that criticism of Japanese management based on the idea thatcultural differences will make it difficult to realize in differentenvironments is not entirely sound. While some workers at Japanesecompanies reported that they felt greater job security than when they wereemployed at British-owned companies, there was no specific promise oflifetime or long-term employment given by the Japanese owners; instead, theauthors suggest that this feeling of permanence might come from beingassociated with a company which was performing well in the marketplace(White and Trevor 13 ). Hesuggests that the business organization has evolved as the businessenvironment has evolved, and that this is likely to continue to be the casein the future.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject