Cross-cultural Leadership and Management in Japan.

Influence of Confucianism

Along with Buddhism came Confucianism from China. The two philosophies shaped Japanese culture and, from the 7th century onwards, the constitution of Japan, the administration of the state and the behavior of the dignitaries and the morals of the common people very early on. "Sincerity and incorruptibility are commandments inspired by Confucianism, while selflessness and overcoming human urges reflect Buddhist principles" (Coulmas, 2014).

Although Confucianism was denied in various periods of Japanese history, its ethos still shapes the behavior of the Japanese people today, even if they are no longer referred to under the name of Confucius. They are to be regarded as universal values, so to speak.

The values ​​prominent in Japanese culture are similar to those in China. The family is the most important unit in society, the individual humbles himself and places himself in the background of a community, which he serves benevolently and dutifully. Respect for age and authority, frugality and sincerity are virtues underlying the behavioral patterns of Japanese people. Great importance is attached to interpersonal relationships. Harmony and saving face are guiding principles in the design of communication.

Dealing with the silence

Like the Chinese, but unlike Western Europeans and Americans, the Japanese are very good at using silence in joint meetings. Switching on quiet moments during work sessions is not uncommon, with the silence serving not for relaxation per se but for individual reflection. People from Western countries who feel the need for an uninterrupted flow of discussion in encounters are well advised to take this aspect into account when communicating with East Asians. "Anyone who has endured long periods of silence in a team or in a meeting with Japanese and has not fallen into the Western trap of "filling in the gaps" has arrived in Japan" (Haller, Nagele, 2014).

Written, oral and non-verbal communication

The aversion to legally regulated agreements and lawyers finds its counterpart in written communication, which the Japanese consider mandatory mainly for annual reports, reports to the government organs or for complex content. Written communication strikes the Japanese as cold, impersonal and, most importantly, deficient in terms of a shared understanding of the content (Whitehill, 1991). The testimony of a researcher from the Mitsubishi Research Institute may confirm the aversion to the written word in business relationships:
"Many Japanese businessmen won't take any notes during a meeting. Topmanagers especially are supposed to be good listeners, with no memo pads or pens“ (Whitehill, 1991).

In oral communication one always recognizes the importance of the relationship and the desire for harmony and respect. Non-verbal communication is very important when interacting with Japanese people.

.

Japanese have developed a subtle way of communicating their expectations and feelings without words. The process that drives this mutual feeling is called haragei (in English "gut language") and is supported by body language (Whitehill, 1991).

decision-making processes

In Japanese companies, decisions are primarily initiated by middle management according to a bottom-up process called "Ringi", with top management having the final say. The “Ringi” stipulates that the manager hands over a folder to his subordinates that contains the details of the problem to be solved. Managers are asked to present their point of view. Then they in turn perform the same action with their subordinates.

This ensures that all relevant opinions have been collected before the final decision is made. At the end, the folder returns to the initiator.

Such a process would be unimaginable for managers from Western countries because it delays decisions beyond local standards. Its great advantage, however, is that all affected employees stand behind the respective decision because they were involved in it themselves. The time invested before the decision is made pays off later, when there is no longer a need to inform, educate and, if necessary, convince the employees concerned. On the other hand, decisions that Western managements make on their own and are merely communicated to the bottom often trigger resistance and disagreements because the employees lack the intellectual basis that led to the decisions.

Importance of the employees in the organization

In both Western countries and Japan, managers emphasize the importance of human resource management to the organization. But there is one essential difference between these cultures: the Japanese apply this principle very thoroughly. As one example among many others, Keizaburo Yamada, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Mitsubishi Corporation (MC), once said:

“MC is a community of 10,000 people who share a common destiny. The top must try to understand the thinking of the base and vice versa”. Considering that employees are one of the fixed assets of the Japanese company, it is understandable that a great deal of attention is paid to their well-being (Arthur M. Whitehill, 1991).

“Workers in Japanese workplaces belong to a group, and it is groups, not individual employees, who are given tasks” (Coulmas, 2014). Whitehill expresses the same principle by quoting M.Y. Yoshino, Prof. and Director of Research at Harvard Business School: “The basic unit in the organization is a collectivity, not an individual. In read one of the fundamental differences between American and Japanese management” (Whitehall, 1991).

When it comes to hiring staff, there is a fundamental difference to the West.

Japanese companies hire candidates for the company, not for a specific job. Employees are likely to join the company for the rest of their lives. Of course, such an arrangement results in a very different relationship between employers and employees than, for example, in America, where employees are fundamentally regarded as readily exchangeable resources.

Functions are vaguely described on an individual level, since it is not the individual employees who are given orders, but the team. The transitions are also fluid at the team level, so that cooperation between the teams is promoted instead of "garden thinking". However, the question arises as to how the individual in Japanese organizations ensures his or her advancement. At this point there is again a fundamental difference to Western cultures. While people from Western countries see a conflict between their own ambition and cooperation with others, the Japanese distinguish themselves through teamwork, as this ability is highly valued.
This principle is confirmed by Whitehil:

“A good point is made that individuals in the Japanese Kaisha (company) do compete. But such interpersonal competition is aimed at gaining the more desirable position assignments and special considerations in long-term career development rather than at getting an immediate promotion or salary increase. To a Japanese, the dichotomy seen by American workers between competition and cooperation is a false one. The Japanese way to compete is through teamwork” (Arthur M. Whitehill, 1991).

These results underline the inhibitions of Japanese employees with regard to a transparent performance appraisal process. The Japanese, in particular, have a hard time revealing and discussing their weaknesses because it could probably cause a loss of face. Only 30% of those questioned would like to be informed about their strengths as well as their weaknesses.

Comparison with China based on the cultural dimensions

In terms of significantly lower power distance and higher masculinity, Japanese employees appear to be better armed than the Chinese for the performance appraisal process. However, uncertainty avoidance is immensely higher than among the Chinese.

A study conducted in 1999 by Osaka City University shows that MbO has been used as a performance appraisal system by numerous Japanese companies since the 1960s. In the 1970s, the popularity of the instrument received another boost: “As a result of high economic growth their intense commitment to the company seemed to decrease. Japanese companies had to find an effective way to improve employee's ability and motivation in their work. Again MbO became popular among such companies. This time, experience with MbO as a quota system led them to emphasize the participation of employees. They were encouraged to set their goals, accomplish them, and check the accomplishment by themselves.

.

Through participation employees were expected to improve their ability and work motivation. MbO adopted in this way often lacked a chain of objectives from the top to the lowest levels. The objectives were set freely by subordinates and superiors were encouraged to accept them wherever possible” (Akiko Okuno, 1999).

Recommendations for the leadership of Japanese associates

To be successful, Western executives should understand exactly how leadership and management works in Japan. When interacting with Japanese employees, it is advisable, as in the case of China, to show leadership that is as appreciative and impartial as possible. Japanese employees tend to work enormous hours, identify strongly with their employer, are honest, loyal and expect a benevolent attitude from their employer. Although their individualism is stronger than that of the Chinese, the Japanese are excellent team players. However, this does not mean that Japanese employees can be seamlessly integrated into every team. The following constellations may explain this:

• Compared to Europeans, the attitudes and behavior patterns, which are far apart, endanger communication and harmony in the team
• Compared to Europeans, the Japanese are considered collectivists. In the eyes of the Chinese, however, they are individualists. Not only the individualism but also the masculinity and the avoidance of uncertainty show enormous differences between Chinese and Japanese. These discrepancies are likely to cause some problems in communication between the two cultures.