How the US concept of how continuous improvement polarized Japan
in the art of change for better.
KaizenAfter World War II, the United States helped Japan rebuild their manufacturing infrastructure by sending a group of managers to oversee this effort in helping the Japanese economy survive. A man by the name of William Edward Deming was one of them. Deming helped local manufacturing firms by improving the quality of their product while reducing costs (Investopedia, 2018). Deming’s concept was better overall quality not only boosts productivity but it also reduces costs, thus improving the buying power of that product. Japan went on to be a leader in car and electronic manufacturing which started when William Deming’s sowed his seeds of the continuous improvement theory.
This concept of continuous improvement lead Japan to create a new mindset, Kaizen. This word translates roughly to “good change,” and is a Japanese productivity philosophy that helps with organizing everything that one does, in other words, constant, continuous improvement (Henry, 2014). So why did the United States fall behind Japan when they taught them the concept of continuous improvement after World War II? Perhaps Japan saw that creating a quality product created loyal customers and the reputation that followed, which eventually created a dominance in both the car and electronic industry. While the United States was satisfied with quantity over quality (Investopedia, 2018). Japan’s dominance in these industries such as car and electronics, saw Toyota being the number one car manufacturer in the world (BizVibe, 2018) along with Honda and Nissan. Japan is also a top electronic manufacturer with organizations such as Hitachi, Sony, Panasonic, and Mitsubishi (ManufacturingGlobal, 2018) that strive to be dominate in their industry.
Why is Japan so dominate in management practices that make them so successful in the car and electronic industries? Perhaps it’s the way they view the attitudes and characteristics of their workers, the attitudes and polices of management and their workers, the competitive focus along with management accounting and control. This stems from the concept that Japan views their employee as a valuable resources, of lifelong employment with training, upward mobility, and loyalty as the pillar of their foundation. The United States has the concept that all workers can be replaced and that training is not necessary, the ever revolving door. Japan values knowledge and input from their workers, while the United Sates chooses to use more of an autocratic decision making process. Japan utilizes the concept of kaizen that of continuous improvement, while the United States prefers the concept of optimization; seeking perfection by removing constraints versus finding an optimal solution given a set of constraints (MAAW.info, 2018, Martin, J R, 1992). Japan is in competition for the long run, versus the United Sates who appears to be happy with short run financial gains. Japan has a bottom up approach where they value the input of all workers on all levels in order to develop goals and set the strategy of the organization. The United States has a top down approach with little emphasis on what the workers can provide the company with improvement and feedback.
Japan’s continuous improvement model is very much in line with the six cultural dimensions that Hofstede outlines. Which may also show why Japan and The United states has opposite views of how industry should run as there is quite the disparity between all six dimensions when comparing Japan with the United States. Which may be the reason why each company operates their businesses so differently, with Japan having more success. This difference is very prevalent on the way that in one sees the Individualism dimension, the United States in much an “I” nation compared to the “We” concept of collectivism shown in the Japanese culture, taking care of each other in exchange for loyalty. This is a main concept in how each prefers to run businesses in their perspective countries. Japan’s power distance is higher than the United States, with both sharing a bit of the unequal distribution. Japan having a bit more inequality in the distribution of wealth even though there is a strong sense of loyalty, which may be the effects of power distance in this country, as one respect that who is in charge. And finally a key indicator on the success of Japan’s business endeavors is long term orientation. Japan focuses on the long term goals and the future. Lifelong employment and loyalty are key indicators of long term orientation. While on the other hand, the United States focuses on short term goals and quick results, there is little loyalty with workers and their organization and the revolving door concept is very apparent in many United States businesses
Hofstede’s Japan
Hofstede’s United States
The United States has begun to utilize the kaizen process and many organizations have stated to embed their work processes using kaizen models such as Six Sigma, TQM, WCM and other lean manufacturing concepts. Ford and Lockheed Martin are two organizations that have shared success in the kaizen philosophy, “change for the better”. Please see David Kiger’s blog, “The Best Examples of Companies Using Kaizen in the Real World” for more information.
References
Emspak, J. (2014, September 24). Kaizen: An American Idea Gets A Japanese Makeover. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092414/kaizen-american-idea-gets-japanese-makeover.asp
Henry, A. (2014, December 17). Get Better at Getting Better: The Kaizen Productivity Philosophy. Retrieved from https://lifehacker.com/get-better-at-getting-better-the-kaizen-productivity-p-1672205148
Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/
Martin, J. R. (n.d.). Martin, J. R., W. K. Schelb, R. C. Snyder, and J. C. Sparling. 1992. Comparing the practices of U.S. and Japanese companies: The implications for management accounting. Retrieved from https://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumMartin92.htm
Rowe, S. (2018, June 18). Top 10 electronics manufacturers in the world. Retrieved from https://www.manufacturingglobal.com/top10/top-10-electronics-manufacturers-world
Top 10 Automobile Companies in World: 2018 Overview. (2018, July 10). Retrieved from https://www.bizvibe.com/blog/top-10-automobile-companies-in-the-world/
The Best Examples Of Companies Using Kaizen In The Real World. (2017, June 20). Retrieved from https://davidkigerinfo.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/the-best-examples-of-companies-using-kaizen-in-the-real-world/
Hello Deb, you did a very well-researched blog post on the Japanese industry (post WWII) and the concept of Kaizen. It is interesting how the US and Japan compete now in the automobile market (although I learned in the past that there were GM/Toyota cooperative undertakings that did not work too well because of cultural differences such as those we are learning in this course such as collectivism/individualism). It seems that the US found what it wanted by investing in quantity over quality and individualism over collectivism which is the opposite of the Japanese way. Japan views employees are valuable resources, you mentioned, and perhaps the US sees them simply for what they are on paper – employees. You described it as a revolving-door in which anyone is replaceable (such as in these competitive automobile and electronic markets). Japan is very forward-looking and understand the value that each employee’s training, prior experience, and loyalty bring to a company and how that translates to future long-term success. Perhaps companies such as GM simply see their employees as filling a necessary role that can be filled with many others waiting in line for the same job – with little differentiation or recognition for what the employees do for the company and add to the company. A GM/Toyota collaboration would likely fail as the US factory owners dismissed Kaizen. I know this is very similar to what happened in this actual collaboration as a lot of the workers were enjoying (and prospering) from the Japanese training but the US factory owners did not understand the method and this led to its eventual failure. The US sees short term goals as gains as more important (as shown by its lower Long-term orientation in the Hofstede dimension score) while Japan is the opposite. To be a global leader, one would be wise to understand these cultural differences and adapt accordingly when working in the US versus Japan or amongst the two nations concurrently with a different business model and mindset. I learned even more about Japan, the US and international cooperation between the two regarding industry following the end of the war. Thank you for your perceptive and insightful blog post.