Japanisation the Idea of Japanisation Has Been

Japanisation

The idea of Japanisation has been around for at minimum the last three decades. Since approximately the 1980s the idea has been popularized among UK managers seeking to remain competitive and forward thinking in relation to management and industrial relations. A number of Japanese "transplant" manufacturing companies have entered the UK environment in recent years. These companies are characterized by their more liberalized management systems that traditional incorporate employee friendly practices. Many UK companies currently operating have attempted to emulate their success; some with great fervor and others less so. Those adopting the Japanese model in whole have proven more successful than those who have not. The lack of success of some companies in the UK has been attributed to the failure to adopt the system as a whole; these companies by and large have attempted to synergize traditional British methods, which have been described at the very best by employees as rigid and rule ridden.

The most common model of Japanese management involves a production system where employees are held accountable for their actions, to the same extent that supervisors or manager would be held accountable for the actions of all employees in a more Western or Americanized model. Employees working under such conditions are thought to invest more personal effort and worth into the company at large, in part because their actions affect their chances for success as much as the companies.

Japanisation is also characterized by the idea or proliferance of just in time management, where goods and services are provided on an as needed basis, further increasing productivity by reducing extraneous waste and inventory. The idea of Japanisation and its influence thus far in the UK realm are explored in greater detail below.

JAPANISATION CHARACTERIZED

Turnball notes that in the current state of employee relations, "all periods are characterized by elements of change and continuity" (Turnbull, 1994). The impact of new management techniques in the workforce of Britain, including changes represented in a broad sense as management based on the 'Japanese model' are being incorporated into aspects of manufacturing management (Delbridge, 1997).

Among the influences Japanisation has had on the manufacturing industry includes the idea of Just in time production or JIT. JIT is most commonly associated with Toyota, and similar manufacturers within the Japanese motor industry (Delbridge, 1998). This notion of management includes managing the "stocks and flow of material," and was spread in part via Japanese writers who published their work in English (Delbridge, 1998; Monden 1983; Ohno 1988). The Toyotal production system "became largely synonymous with JIT and 'Japanese' manufacturing management" (Delbridge, 1998).

A central feature of Japanese production involves the idea of just in time management (Wood, 1992). This package of techniques relies on "human and nonhuman resources" in the manufacturing process that all contribute to producing "high quality, competitively priced products with the minimum of wastage" (Beardwell, 1996). By nature manufacturing techniques relying on JIT principles must be incorporate technologically advanced production and manufacturing methods.

Taiichi Ohno is largely credited with discovering JIT, otherwise referred to as the "fundamental doctrine" of the Toyota production system, which dictates that production should aspire to "the total elimination of waste" (Delbridge, 1998; Ohno, 1988). The Japanese manufacturing model differed from the American version which was largely focused on mass production.

The Japanese model focuses on production driven by market requirements, "as information regarding demand pulls production through the processes" (Delbridge, 1998). This differs from a 'push' approach, which was traditionally used in British and American companies, where output plans are developed based on historical information and production is "decoupled from demand" (Delbridge, 1998).

Some have argued that the Japanese model is more effective because it emphasizes reliable production quality more so than traditional models, and couples well with the idea of total quality management, or TQM. Traditionally JIT production systems "dramatically increase the interdependencies between the actors involved in the production process (Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992). By demanding that all partners be involved in the supply and demand process, new criteria for excellence are established as everyone aspires to produce and manage successfully.

UK systems are also interested in TQM, an idea that traditionally Americans are credited with developing, but the Japanese are credited with actually implementing (Delbridge, 1998). The Japanese model has traditionally stressed the importance of managing quality in the workforce.

The Japanese model supports the combination of 'hard' and 'soft' management skills, which essentially combine process control with employee participation (Delbridge, 1998; Wilkinson, et. al, 1992). The Japanese economic model is often utilized due in large part to the success it has realized over the last two decades. According to Biggart and Hamilton, the Japanese model has been "the leading success story of the past two decades...the tremendous growth and economic development" (Biggart and Hamilton, 1997; Delbridge, 1998). The success of the Japanese economy has led to curiosity and interest particularly in the area of management practices within Japanese corporations, and it is these practices that are the most likely to be incorporated by UK corporations.

HISTORY OF JAPANISATION

The Japanese model first started making an impression during the 1960s and 1970s, but didn't spark extraordinary interest until the early 1980s, when many authors started placing a great emphasis on the natural intertwining of Japanese culture and traditions with management practices in business (Delbridge, 1998). Part of the spread of the Japanese model is due to literary translation of works written by Japanese engineers including Ohno and Shingo who paid particular emphasis to technical aspects of production (Delbridge, 1998). These author/engineers also emphasized the importance of combining technical and social aspects of manufacturing management.

By and large the Japanese model may be described as a combination of many facets of management, including but not limited to operations management, human resources management, human resources management and supply chain management (Delbridge, 1998). Employee involvement is also high on the list of important criteria in the Japanese model.

Many theorists have supported the notion that 'Japanisation' is possible in all industries and in all contexts, regardless of locality (Delbridge, 1998). This is certainly the philosophy adopted in the UK.

CASE STUDY

Nippon CTV is an example of a Japanese owned factory that is located in the southern portion of England. The factory employs 1,000 people. Recently the factory was the subject of a research study on the shop floor where a majority of the workers are women. There are eight assembly lines operating out of the panel shop, each of which uses an automatic conveyor to carry panels to operators working from their stations (Delbridge, 1997). The assembly teams are run by a team leader, who is responsible for handling any issues which might affect performance including quality control and disciplinary issues (Delbridge, 1997).

No formal job descriptions exist for plant management; rather each member of the organisation at Nippon is expected to do "whatever is necessary to maintain production at the designated levels of efficiency and quality" (Delbridge, 1997). Few external interruptions affect the daily work schedule at the plant; rather the plant is able to deliver its finished products with regular stability well in advance of production schedules on many occasions (Delbridge, 1997). The plant has also been recognized for its reliable quality and delivery from suppliers (Delbridge, 1997). Problem prevention and "first time right" concepts are critical to the success of operations (Delbridge, 1997).

Management provides team leaders with support in the way of uniform responses and formal negotiations related to established rules (Delbridge, 1997). Whereas in traditional corporations managers are held accountable for the actions of their teams, at Nippon the opposite is true; every individual and every worker from production line on up is held accountable for their actions and the quality of product that they produce (Delbridge, 1997). The performance of any one individual at any point in time is publicly displayed.

CURRENT TRENDS

As of late January 1993 there were 167 Japanese manufacturers working out of the UK, of which employed more than 50,000 British workers (Beardwell, 1996; AJEI, 1992). Often these companies have been hailed as the "vanguard of employers" that are now implementing new industrial relations and manufacturing management practices modeled after the Japan style within the UK (Beardwell, 1996; Basset, 1986; IRS, 1990).

Management techniques developed by the Japanese have been adopted by many UK companies, in part to compete with Japanese competitors, and in part to improve productivity and efficiency (Beardwell, 1996). Contemporary management practices and trends within the UK may be characterized as "Japanised" by nature.

Japanisation" within the UK has been described in various ways. It has been described as operating at two levels, as either a "process or impact" related to investment or as "attempts of British companies to emulate Japanese Practices" (Beardwell, 1996). Ackroyd et. al (1988) perhaps presented the best definition in which he refers to Japanisation as a "mediated" form of management (Beardwell, 1996). Ackroyd claims that "mediated" Japanisation refers to British companies that adopt Japanese practices with the thought that Japanese companies traditionally have honored higher standards of quality and performance (Beardwell, 1996).

Copying these practices is done as a means of providing a tool with which UK managers can emulate these standards. Japanisation in this form may be used as a mechanism through which companies may force changes in production methods and working practices, with a workforce that traditionally "goes along" with the practice with the belief that the company will only survive fierce competition if it meets its competitors with identical practices (Beardwell, 1996).

Many have argued that this practice is not a means of emulation, but rather a means of increasing the flexibility of workers in order to improve productivity and "maintain production levels with much reduced workforces" (Beardwell, 1996).

Ackroyd also describes a type of Japanisation which is referred to as "full or permeated" where Britain is seen as mirroring Japan's economic an social structure, such that investment and marketing practices are one in the same (Beardwell, 1996). What Japanisation does offer British manufacturing companies is an "alternative production system" wherein employee relations take on a new meaning and significance (Beardwell, 1996).

Japanisation at heart involves improving employee relations practices, which are aimed at improving employee attitudes toward work, behaviours and overall work performance (Turnbull, 1986; Wickens, 1987; Beardwell, 1996). By improving employee performance, one may argue that the performance of the company and overall productivity are also improved (Beardwell, 1996).

A study by White and Trevor showed that Japanese transplants to the UK foster employee relations by creating a "stable workforce with a high level of commitment to the company" (Beardwell, 1996). Japanese transplants have also been characterized as being cooperative and more willing to accept change, extremely "unwilling to enter into strikes or other forms of conflict" and also noted for putting the company's best interest above personal interest, thus doing whatever is necessary to ensure the best outcome for the team rather than the individual (Beardwell, 1996). Such effort is said to foster a more unified and "easy" climate in which to work, and in which management changes can occur (Beardwell, 1996).

BRITISH INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

British Industrial Relations have been characterized by attempts by management to improve employee relations practices and reduce attitudes among employees traditionally defined as "them and us" or the idea that employees are a separate entity from management, in essence a force to be reckoned with opposing management systems (Beardwell, 1996). Some researchers have argued that in traditional industrial environments, employees have held onto the idea that a division or in some situations, brick wall exists between management and employees, and that each has conflicting interests that must be addressed separately (Beardwell, 1996).

Japanese companies operating out of the UK have transformed this notion, and employees at a majority of UK facilities, as well as managers are adopting policies and strategies targeted toward reducing the idea that a "them and us" must exist, and rather encouraging attitudes that are more along the lines of "we." Kelly and Kelly developed a theoretical framework along this idea, arguing that "reductions in the division between management and workers may be induced by certain employee relations practices that use any one, or a combination of three mechanisms" (Beardwell, 1996). These mechanisms are incorporated into an idea referred to as "new industrial relations initiatives" (Beardwell, 1996).

The new initiatives defined by new industrial relations focus on communications skills, new job designs and participation from employees and managers. Among the three mechanisms is the idea of intergroup contact, where companies need to rely on contact among and between employees and managers in order to enhance the development of interpersonal relationships (Beardwell, 1996).

Developing interpersonal relationships is impacts productivity in a variety of ways; Employees and managers working together and building interpersonal relationships are more likely to find common interests and realize that "negative perceptions they hold of each other are inaccurate" (Beardwell, 1996; Allen, 1986; Allen and Stephenson, 1983). Cooperative relationships result in increased production; the establishment of interpersonal relationships is the basis for cooperation and collaboration. The creation of interpersonal relationships is evident in Japanese transplants within the UK (Beardwell, 1996).

Working relationships in a Japanese model factory would be represented as a partnership, one that "depends on mutual co-operation and understanding," or in essence a contract in which each partner is committed to the overall success of a venture or work project (Beardwell, 1996; Oki, 1990).

The next mechanism utilized is creation of "super-ordinate goals" which are goals that supersede sectional goals and which cannot be achieved unless managers and employees work together to realize their success and achievement (Beardwell, 1996). In this case, in essence what is good for the goose is good for the gander; what benefits the worker must also benefit the company and vice versa. Thus the company and employee merge into one to foster super-ordinate goals and realize the overall success and profitability of a company (Beardwell, 1996).

One example of super-ordinate goals is in a company handbook at a transplant company in the UK, which states that "all staff, whether management or employees, should follow the philosophy that we are one" (Hitachi, 1990; from Beardwell, 1996). Other wording that might be incorporated into handbooks or company policies, practices and procedures might include phrases such as "the good of the common interest" or anything which applies to the "mutual benefit" of a company (Beardwell, 1996).

The third mechanism identified as relative to Japanisation is based on the idea that worker attitudes and behaviour may be changed in the workplace (Beardwell, 1996). This idea is exemplified at one Japanese transplant within the UK, where a policy states to employees that "management will seek to use participative and cooperative practices in order to promote a positive and harmonious relationship between the Company and staff" (Beardwell, 1996; Pioneer, 1991).

This idea is contrary to the popular belief that worker interests differ from those of management; employees are lead to believe that it is in their best interests to work with management in a complementary rather than adversarial manner.

Japanese methods have not simply been adopted with vigorous enthusiasm at UK facilities however. Rather, Wood notes that "the distinctiveness of Japanese methods is not simply that a particular set of practices are followed, but that they are devised and adopted in such a way that they are integrated and mutually supportive of each other" (Beardwell, 1996). UK facilities can not simply adopt one or two mechanisms or practices of the Japanese model; rather the system must be adopted as a whole to work. As Oliver and Wilkinson put it, the success or secret of the Japanese system lies in "the synergy generated by a whole system" (Beardwell, 1996).

CURRENT UK MODEL OF Management

RENCO is a UK company in the electronics sector currently described as representative of "direct Japanisation" (Beardwell, 1996). The company may be classified as a large batch manufacturer, meaning that it produces several models of the same product along several different assembly lines (Beardwell, 1996). Most recently the corporation was divided into the following work areas: a main assembly area, a press-weld area, and a subassembly area (Beardwell, 1996).

The work environment at RENCO offered employees at the time of analysis an employee relations package that incorporated "harmonized terms and conditions of employment, flexibility, training, communications structures and briefings" (Beardwell, 1996). The company also encouraged workers to be actively involved in issues related to production and quality issues. The agreement workers had entered into with the electricians' union included a non-strike clause, typical of the Japanese style or model of management (Beardwell, 1996).

RENCO human resources or personnel management staff was dedicated to enabling employees to break past the idea of "them vs. us" and acknowledging the idea that all employees are equals (Beardwell, 1996). The company held onto the idea that employees would actively seek out long-term employment because the structure of employee relations at the company was structured in such a manner that would create feelings of equality and cooperation among employees. Employees were made to feel that their organization was "our company" rather than a separate entity from employees (Beardwell, 1996).

During the time of observation the company employed JIT production and supply practices. The corporation's success relied in part upon the ability of suppliers to deliver "quality components by the date requested" (Beardwell, 1996). More than one hundred and eighty employees at the company, non-managerial employees, were invited to fill out a workforce questionnaire which measured employee's notions of company practices. Respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the unions performance; more than 80% of respondents indicated that they "disagreed to some extent that communication between workers and management was good at the company" (Beardwell, 1996).

Respondents also stated that they felt weakened by the no-strike clause in the union agreement, with more than 65% of respondents claiming that the union was "too co-operative with management" (Beardwell, 1996). Part of the trouble however, seems to lie in the fact that a majority of respondents cited the belief that the purpose of the union was to invest in collective interests and not let management "gain any advantage over the workforce" (Beardwell, 1996).

In a true collaborative, Japanese modeled workforce, both employees and managers would likely be less concerned about one group gaining an advantage, and more concerned with developing practices that would benefit the overall corporate and employee goals.

The results of this study actually reveal that a majority of employees currently working within the UK are so used to traditional union roles, that they now expect to play a traditional role, and subsequently expect their union to play a traditionally representational role, one that "necessitates an adversarial and low-trust relationship with management" (Beardwell, 1996).