Abstract
Management practices and orientation need to change when the climate of the time in which firms operate change. In the 1980s–early 1990s when the world enjoyed a broad economic growth on a global scale, Japanese management practices were once admired in awe around the world. Since the Japanese economy began to slip into a decade-long recessionary environment in the late 1990s, many Japanese firms experienced profit losses and the world’s admiration of Japanese management began to wane. This article explores how and why, and offers broader implications to management practices in general.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Focusing on U.S. academic research environment, Eleanor Westney in her essay laments that U.S.-based academics had challenges and difficulties in balancing the importance of the Japanese-specific context with the pervasive demand to develop general theory. As a result, while many Japanese management concepts were revered, they were considered “unique” and rarely went into general theory development. Let me dig deeper on her point. The reason why Japanese management practices stopped short of going beyond being unique has to do with how theory was developed in Japan as opposed to the United States. In the United States, the pragmatic approach to empirical research, often called, logical empiricism, has been the primary modus operandi for business research. Simply stated, the literature review-hypothesis development-empirical research paradigm has become the standard in U.S. academic research. As a result, whenever a theory is constructed, researchers pay due attention to the measurability of constructs, which statistically makes it possible to quantify the (causal and/or associative) relationship between the constructs. In Japan, however, Hegelian dialectical approach to research had set the standard for academic research since the nineteenth century. First, a logical thesis is developed, followed by a search for contradiction (“antithesis”) of the thesis, and then the synthesis is attempted to resolve the differences between the two opposing points to reach a higher level of truth. Although U.S.-style empirical research has gained popularity in many parts of the world, including Japan, Japanese academics still espouse the dialectical approach, or its variants, that emphasizes logical consistency through acute observation more than quantitative measurements. Much of the well-known research in Japanese management practices falls in this category. From the U.S. logical empiricism point of view, most theoretical arguments related to Japanese management practices are not conducive to quantitative empirical investigation. Thus, many of Japanese management concepts remain “unique” as they are not easily quantifiable.
References
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cutts, R. L. (1990). Power from the ground up: Japan’s land bubble. Harvard Business Review,90(May-June), 164–172.
Dyer, J. H. (1996). Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal,17(4), 271–291.
Fortune (1993). “DINOSAURS? They were a trio of the biggest, most fearsome companies on earth. Here’s how earnest executives managed them into historic decline,” May 3.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review,66(May/June), 63–73.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review,35(4), 519–530.
Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing,52(1), 71–85.
Hiromoto, T. (1988). Another hidden edge—Japanese management accounting. Harvard Business Review,66(July/August), 22–26.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kachaner, N. & Whybrew, A. (2014). “When ‘Asset Light’ is Right,” Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2014/business-model-innovation-growth-asset-light-is-right.aspx.
Kagono, T., Nonaka, I., Sakakibara, K., & Okumura, A. (1985). Strategic vs. evolutionary management: A U.S.-Japan comparison of strategy and organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2016). Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing,80(2), 1–20.
Kotabe, M. (1990). Corporate product policy and innovative behavior of European and Japanese multinationals: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing,54(April), 19–33.
Kotabe, M. (1992). Global sourcing strategy: R&D, manufacturing, and marketing interfaces. New York: Quorum Books.
Kotabe, M., & Mol, M. J. (2009). Outsourcing and financial performance: A negative curvilinear relationship. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,15(4), 205–213.
Kotabe, M., Mol, M. J., & Ketkar, S. (2008). An evolutionary stage model of outsourcing and competence destruction: A triad comparison of the consumer electronics industry. Management International Review,48(1), 65–93.
Kotabe, M., Mol, M. J., Murray, J. Y., & Parente, R. (2012). Outsourcing and its implications for market success: Negative curvilinearity, firm resources, and competition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,40(March), 329–346.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1982). The art of Japanese management. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Takeishi, A. (2001). Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal,22(5), 403–433.
Usui, T., Kotabe, M., & Murray, J. Y. (2017). A dynamic process of building global supply chain competence by new ventures: The case of Uniqlo. Journal of International Marketing,25(3), 1–20.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,42(1), 35–67.
Vogel, E. F. (1979). Japan as number one: Lessons for America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kotabe, M. Japanese management and the climate of the time. Asian Bus Manage 19, 25–35 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00078-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00078-y