Management Practices in Japanese and US Companies

perplexity Practices in Nipp wizardse and US CompaniesThis look Paper makes a summary affinity of handle-cultural investigate conducted in the last ten to fifteen historic period in the aras of Human imagery Management Management Style and dialog Strategies in Nipp matchlessse and US companies. The several(prenominal)(predicate) Research Studies in these tercet argonas analyzed the lift uping possibilities for lacquerese and US companies on two divers(prenominal) levels At headquarters and at subsidiary level. For each one of the terce look for go throughics, a path mannermap is drafted with concrete steps and strategies as to how these companies should adapt their vigilance serves in these 3 argonas in order to be even more than victoryful. The findings of this paper also cover the genuinely central debates in the planetary Human Resource Management literature The Convergence vs. Divergence solvent and the Standardization vs. Localization issue. The resu lts clearly show that overall the dominance raise is most of the essence(p) (i.e., subsidiary practices appear to converge to the dominant US practices). Hence the results obtained in this paper lead to the instead surprising induction that for what might be considered to be the most localized of functions HRM carrefour to a world-wide best practices dumb show is clearly defend. From the authors viewpoint his is a logical publication of worldwideization in all production line sectors.Key Words Road Map Human Resource cultivation Leadership Style, talks Strategies regular army japan Cross-CulturalIntroduction to Human Resource Management Practices in Japan and in the USAFrom a historic perspective, Human Resource Management (HRM) has been identified as a place ingredient for the success of Nipponese companies on world markets during the 1980s. In this decade, suggestions as to how Western omnibuss could learn from Nipponese HRM practices were plentiful. Only one de cade later, however, Japan went into a quoin from which its trans complaint line model has non yet in fully recovered. Oddly enough, these in one case superior HRM practices ar now world viewed as the root of the unease of the underperforming Japanese economyA Research Perspective of HRM Practices in Japanese and US CompaniesIn the early 1980s of the last century, the Japanese circumspection model, and in particular its HRM model, go for often been depicted as very(prenominal) different from Western- entitle anxiety, yet much more matched (Kono Clegg, 2001). Its deep-rooted and curious cultural and institutional characteristics usually were cited as the linchpin reasons for these differences (Pudelko, 2006). Earlier, Frenkel Peetz (1998) described a rapidly accelerateing up world-wideization-induced trend towards increasing convergence resulting from global competitive pressures. In parallel, Katz, Darbishire (2000) noned a clear trend towards convergence in ke y patterns of HRM practices among industrialized countries. This phenomenon they call converging divergences. In parallel, the look for of Frenkel Kuruvilla (2002) concludes that employment relations patterns are being de full organizeined by the interplay of what they condition as three distinct logics of military action The logic of global competition, resulting in the pursuit of global best practices and ultimately global convergence does not al set downhearted local insular cross-cultural happiness and coziness both(prenominal) longer.One reason that the USA has achieved its dominant status in the mid-nineties was its superior economic mathematical process. The conclusion from these findings were that if the strengths of a successful economy are tough in industries characterized by intense external competition such as IT, computers and electronics the attention and the readiness to learn from it track downs to be particularly strong. such industries are often the pioneers for defining and producing best practices and the place where such global standards of focussing practice are set. Taylorism, or scientific caution, has been the meridian example for a charge concept claiming universal validity. Other examples were inclination intersection pointion, kaizen, re-engineering and attention by headings once strong points of the Japanese economy, when they were the best practice leader in doing so. Since the implosion of the Japanese economy and with the advent of globalization, speed of action and instant flexibility to adapt to changing global market conditions were key criteria to succeed. Cultural diversity research carried out in the US and in Japan over the last one and a half decades has been that the American management model is particularly well accommodate to provide the indispensable speed and flexibility to cope with rapidly changing economic and expert conditions. Consequently, the USA became again the dominant employmen t model (Edwards, Almond, Clark, Colling Ferner, 2005).Summary par of Key HRM Practices in Japanese and US CompaniesThe pursuance diagram shows a comparison in the midst of Japanese and US firms HRM practices. Areas discussed are Recruitment and liberate of personnel training and human resource development employee assessment and furtherance as well as employee incentives. The comparison clearly illustrates the singularistic HRM sexual climax in American firms as compared to the collectivism- point HRM orientation in Japanese firms. It is taken for granted(predicate) that in the high technology sector especially the squad and consensus oriented HRM philosophy of the Japanese is a hindrance to success.It appears that there are several other reasons for the declining importance attached to key attributes of Japanese model (kaizen, kanban, broad(a) quality management, quality circles, group work). Just identical the Japanese firms give up to learn from best practice sol utions from other countries, these attributes mother already been adopted by American HRM managers in the last 20 years, therefore are less significant in the succeeding(a) as sources for orientation. The salmagundis brought about by globalization in the competitive surroundings probably also have played a role. For the future, fundamental developments such as globalization postulate substantial on-going replys from multi- subject area companies to maintain competitiveness. flesh 1 compares Japanese and US HRM practices and their competitive impact on HRM management in general.Figure 1 resemblance of Japanese US HRM Practices in 4 Key AreasHRM SectorJapanese HRM PracticesUS HRM Practices1. Recruitment Release of PersonnelRecruitment of rude(a) graduates to a permanent positionSelection based on inter- in the flesh(predicate) skillsLife-long employment philosophy low staff turnover rate= high loyaltymanagerial positions filled with internal staff lonesome(prenominal)Find ing the best aspect internally or externally availableSelection based on performance/expertiseJob hopping philosophy pouts somebody goals above alliance interestsPositions filled with best expert availableCompetitive make of various(prenominal) HRM PracticesSlowness towards plan miss of external expertisePromotes rapid establishment from inside or outsideLow loyalty to employerHRM SectorJapanese HRM PracticesUS HRM Practices2. formulation HRD DevelopmentBroad training towards generalist experienceExtensive training based on work group start outEmployee is trained to fit corporal finaleSpecific training for specific tasks onlyTraining is limited and focused on the individual only minute effort to mould the employee towards the corporate cultureCompetitive set up of respective HRM Practices cerebrate on corporate culture buildingFocused on individualism to promote successHRM SectorJapanese HRM PracticesUS HRM Practices3. Employee Assessment Promotion idiom on seniority and not on performanceEmphasis on group achievementsQualitative informationrmal valuation criteriaCareer path broad based in several DivisionsEmphasis on individual success onlyEmphasis on individual achievementsQuantitative measurable criteria and objectivesCareer path mostly confined to one functional part onlyHRM SectorJapanese HRM PracticesUS HRM Practices4. Employee IncentivesA mix of material and immaterial incentives support increases based upon seniorityLittle difference between top management pay levels and workers Low with 201Emphasis is on material incentives Pay + bonusPay based upon individual performance onlyVery large differences between top management and workers gritty with 1001Competitive Effects of respective HRM PracticesSlow promotion for top performersSlow climate of initiation speedy promotion for top talentsInnovative staff ensures innovative corporate climateProposed cross-cultural Roadmap for a strategic HRM accessionThroughout the research reports an alyzed for this paper, Globalization demands a broader-based strategic HRM response by Japanese firms on this more than 90 % of the interviewed Japanese Executives agreed. The results from the American respondents showed that they considered it to be a particular strength of the American HR management. Japanese managers agree in turn, that their process based incremental improvements concepts will lose in entailment in the future.Furthermore the research data clearly shows that only Japan management has a distinct desire to change its own HRM model in a rather comprehensive way. This definitely can be described as a paradigm shift. The following Figure 2 gives some key thoughts and elements for such a strategic near to HRM tasks in the future.Figure 2 A cross-cultural Roadmap for a strategic plan of attack to HRM Tasks in the FutureDrivers of Global Changes in HRMElements causing ChangesImpacts of Change Elements on HRMNeed to reduce costsSpeed of product innovation prime(a) of serviceKnowledge of client needsStaff motivatingTraining in design to cost methodInnovative methods in product managementStaff penury and skills trainingMarket knowledge has to be communicatedIndividual performance alone countsRisksinvolvedOverall corporate management philosophy has to be benchmarked against indus corrects best practiceKey Changes indispensableHRM has to salt apart and accompany a change management processIndividual performance evaluation has to abolish consensus-based group performance evaluation conceptsConclusionsHRM has to be travel along the parkway integrative force for the implementation of the Corporate moving in projectResulting Roadmap for HRM schemaHRM Parameters that need to improve the Competitiveness of CorporationsHRM ParameterExpected Benefits from HRM Changes strategical HRM forge has to be part of Business PlanFuture staff qualifications are in sync with corporate task planBusiness Plan has to contain Change Management ConceptHRM develo ps a long term focus linked to strategic corporate objectivesInnovative Career DevelopmentAllows quick promotion of top performersInnovation oriented recruitingSpeed up innovation cyclesPromotion based on merit onlyDoes away with endangerment minimizing attitudeIntroduction Best HRM Practice ConceptHRM does pigheadedness of its performance against key competitorsStrategic HRM Implementation RoadmapOverall Strategic HRM ObjectivesHRM is the adhere link of overall corporate business strategy to the employees of the companyHRM promotes innovation and change culture in the company provision Horizon of elect HRM StrategyLong term plan over 20 to 30 yearsStrategic plan over 5 years sherlock rolling plans over 2 to 3 yearsTop Management Support required to implement new HRM StrategyHRM has be a board level responsibility with staffing and budget to implement HRM Strategy chosenIntroduction to cross-cultural Management StylesGlobalization has changed the managerial tasks of US and Japan ese mangers dramatically Many have to work now in an international environment, in Japan or in the USA. Reasons for these changes were joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions and cooperation alliances. In the 1980s, Japan taught the work what kaizen kanban, total quality control, etc meant in terms of competitive advantage. So the US managers had to learn these concepts. Towards the end of the late 1990s, the US had caught up with this cross cultural learning approach.Then the globalization effect came to full speed suddenly the single type of US management proved to be much more flexible and successful then the slow consensus-based Japanese management style.Research findings towards different Business Cultures in Japan and in the USThe research for this paper showed that the business cultures in Japan and in the US differ in 5 key categories1. Power bodily structure National level versus international level egalitarian approach versus non-egalitarian approach centralized managemen t forms versus decentralized management practices. In the authority-driven business environment still prevailing in Japanese companies, aspects of function play a critical role. This slows down finish make, as power issues dominate business cultures dominating innovative US companies (Browaeys 2009).2. People Relationships Collectivism versus individualism team orientation versus individual focus. Japanese collectivism is documented in its overemphasis on team issues where consensus finding warrants longer cartridge clips until a decision is being taken (Dickson 2003). Management emphasizes group loyalty, relationships in groups prevail over individual tasks. Americans have lesser loyalty to their companies, they see employment as a temporary issue for the mutual benefit of employer and employee.3.Tolerance for Risk- taking High avoidance levels versus low avoidance levels bureaucratic orientation versus non-bureaucratic orientation. The consensus-based Japanese business culture tries to calumniate uncertainties through an over-emphasis on intend. As a result, they do not like to change plans once they were approved (Yamazaki 2008).US companies treasure the opportunities offered in risky endeavors a horror for traditional Japanese companies4. Masculinity/Femininity Role specialization between males and females at society and organizational levels. Japanese managers are pass judgment to be assertive and decisive, with sex roles clearly defined. This means fewer women submit to managerial positions in Japan, whereas in the US women climb to administrator posts on a much more regular basis (Jacofsky 1988). Work for Japanese managers is seen as the center of life interests. Edwards 2005)5. Time Orientation Long term view versus short term view in business planning and strategy formulation. The clip perspective in their business philosophy early(prenominal)/present in Japan versus present/future perspective in US companies. American companies are a lot q uicker to play off to new opportunities what was successful in the retiring(a) is less important than new opportunities which lay ahead in the near future (Dahl 2004). The retrospective business approach of Japanese companies has them look for long-run relationships. US companies take the present and look quicker and often farther into the future. This speeds up their decision making processes and facilitates the acceptance of risk taking among their executives (Tsui 2007).Research findings towards Key managerial adroitnesss in Japan and in the USEffective cross-cultural management skills have to fit the prevailing national business culture where they are being applied to on their workplaces. In individualistic business environments as in the US, new employees are being hired on the basis of their individualized records. In the collectivistic business culture of Japan, recommendations from elite universities or from family members who already work for the company play a rattl ing role. The following key managerial functions have been analyzed in research paper punish allocation and employee motivation employee participation and managerial communication executive development.1. take Allocation and Employee Motivation The fit allocation of rewards is the driving force of the individualistic US business environment Rewards are expected to be blondness based, i.e. based upon an individuals contribution to corporate success. Rewards are supposed to be competent for equal performance Rewards have to based upon the specific needs of a position (Riley 2007). In the more equality and group oriented Japanese business culture, rewards are being allocated on a group basis. These research findings did prove that the application of in distinguish reward systems caused feelings of de-motivation and injustice (Buttery 2000)2. Employee Participation and Managerial Communication To get employees to participate in goal setting in a US company is daily business, as in this way it increases the employees involvement in how his work environment is being shaped. Given the individualistic US business culture team effectiveness rises if team members are personally accountable for their personal contribution, which can be measured i.e. management by objectives (Javidan 2006). In the more socially oriented Japanese Business culture, employee participation is more socially oriented and the employees display lower levels of power distance between organizational levels (Hofstede 1980)3. Executive Development In an American business environment, qualified staff is classified into high potential groups for future executive positions at a much earlier stage of their locomote and at a much younger age as compared to the Japanese business culture. This encompasses a mix of specialist type of work assignments combine with near executive project assignments, to give them an early feeling of how an executive ticks (Yamazaki 2008). Japanese companies tend to foc us on generalist type of assignments with intense functional and geographic job rotation at almost the alike hierarchical levels. Promotion is by seniority criteria mostly (Saee 2010). In return this implies Executive development in US companies is based upon the potential benefits seen in a junior executive, whereas the Japanese approach is more oriented towards rewards for the past performance (Raimo 2009).Proposed Roadmap for a strategic cross-cultural Management StyleThe following Figure 3 gives a strategic roadmap for a cross-culturally based management style which facilities quick and in effect(p) adaptation to cross-culturally different work environment.Figure 3 A cross-cultural Roadmap for a strategic Approach toDrivers of cross-cultural Management StylesManagement Style DevelopmentCommon Management Skills Deficiencies ban Impacts of missing cross-cultural Management SkillsLack of employee motivationIn-adequate communication styleDe-motivating reward systemSlow pace of p romotion systemLack of managerial skills trainingPerformance is not recognized/rewardedWork objectives unreadable=de-motivatingIndividual motivation not releasedResistance to innovationsNecessary changes do not take placeRisksinvolvedMix of management skills not suited for work environmentHigh potentials are not identified and promotedHigh staff turnover slow pace of innovation and change managementKey ChangesneededHRD concept oriented towards cross cultural esthesiaTop management involvement in management skills profile developmentCross-culturally oriented career development systemConclusionsAn innovative HRD approach is neededDesigned by managers with local management experience HRD skillsResulting Roadmap towards a cross-cultural oriented Management StyleManagerial Skills that need to be improveManagement Skills requiring AttentionExpected Benefits better Management StylesReward systems motivation toolsKeep staff and attract talentsCareer development system for talentsQuick p romotion for high potentialsInnovative pay systemIncreased motivation to innovateClear set of managerial objectivesRewards are measurable and objectiveInternal PR for new management styleMore credibility for management stylesTop managers have to practice this styleExtra motivation to manage/risk changesStrategic Management Skills Implementation RoadmapOverall Strategic Management Skill Development ObjectivesAnalyze requisites for necessary cross-cultural management skillsIncorporate necessary changes into overall management philosophy and corporate missionDocument and promote concept at all managerial levelsPlanning Elements for chosen Management Skill Development StrategyAssess time and research requirements properly involve superiors where neededInvolve top management team properly and show their support in public statements/info releasesManagerial Support required to implement new Management Skill Development StrategyDevelop a strategy paper involving top management and clarify roles and inputs and state resource requirements as compared to potential gains from these modify management skillsIntroduction to cross-cultural Negotiation StylesCultural Diversity is one of the most critical issues in international negotiations. A key requirement for successful international negotiation is the extent to which the negotiating parties are capable of sagaciousness the negotiating habits and thoughts of their counterparts who come from other culture (Brett 2000). When entering into an international negotiation process, the full awareness and understanding of the cultural differences, such as cultural background, national character, stirred up aspects, rules and regulations of other countries, decision making styles, ways of discussing, meeting and negotiating is of resilient importance in order to make the negotiation successful. The difficulty the negotiators are facing have to do with dealing on the basis of different sets of determine, attitudes, behaviors and communication styles of the other party participating in the negotiation process. The proper planning and preparation for negotiations, and participating in the negotiation process essential take into consideration all these factors. This will avoid setbacks, surprises and shock so often faced in cross-cultural negotiations.A. Basic Research Findings linking Negotiation and CultureA nations culture in itself consists of interrelated patterns or dimensions which come together to form a unique social identity share by a minimum of two or more sight It is the unique character of a social group and the values and norms super C to its members that set it apart from other social groups (Brett, 2001). Consequently for this reason, because of the different values and norms, flock from different cultures negotiate differently (Brett, 2001). Many authors talk of a set of cultural values associated with each cultural group which genuinely is the determining force for the culture (Tin sley, 2001, Brett, 2001). The knowledge of these values and norms provides insight into the choices make and influences these very negotiators cognitions, emotions, motivations and strategy. Research shows a clear differentiation Whilst values look up to what a person considers important (more on cognitive side), norms refer to what is considered appropriate behavior (behavioral aspects) in a specific culture. Consequently, because of these different values and norms, people from different cultures tend to negotiate differently (Brett 2001). These cultural values and norms shape implicit theories invoked in negotiations (Gelfand and Dyer 2000) and may influence a negotiators response to strategically displayed emotions. In Japanese companies, the emphasis of a group being the center nucleus for negotiations communicates these values to its members and rewards conformity. In this way a members values belong thoroughly culturally constituted. Thus, culture creates an overall enviro nment for Japanese companies and their negotiators which in many ways purportly or indirectly compels the constituent members to be guided by their cultural value sets while negotiating.B. Research Findings concerning the strategic Framework of cross-cultural NegotiationsAccording to the book The Global Negotiator Making, Managing, and location Deals around the World in the twenty-First Century (Salacuse 2005) there are a total ten particular elements consistently complicating intercultural negotiations. 1) Negotiating goal specialise or relationship? 2) Negotiating attitude Win-Lose or Win-Win? 3) Personal style free-and-easy or formal? 4) Communication Direct or indirect? 5) sensitiveness to time High or low? 6) Emotionalism High or low? 7) Form of agreement General or specific? 8) expression an agreement Bottom up or top down? 9) aggroup organization One leader or group consensus? 10) Risk taking High or low?Research shows that for a Japanese manager negotiation is also ab out being sensitive to the personal/emotional factors and hence may sometimes be indirect, informal, and general with less sensitiveness to time whereas. On the other side for a negotiator from USA, any negotiation is to the point, direct, formal, with high consideration for time and less care for personal or emotional factors.B. Research Findings concerning Diversity Factors and Strategies in Cross -Cultural NegotiationsIn countries such as in the US and much of northern Europe, strong, direct eye contact conveys confidence and sincerity while in Japan, lengthy eye contact is considered rude and is generally avoided. In Japan they of all time prefer personal space during business dealings. With regard to the Japanese, Salacuse shows that 100 part of the Japanese respondents claimed that they approached negotiations as a win-win process.Communication itself constitutes a basic contribution of negotiation framework. Diversity in this communication aspect is also very obvious and pertinent. In a culture that emphasizes directness, such as the American one, you can expect to receive a clear and definite response to the proposals and questions. In SE Asian cultures such as the Japanese reaction to proposals made to them may be gained by interpreting seemingly dim comments, gestures, and other signs.Concerning the cultural sensitivity to time, Salacuse in his study quotes Japanese tend to negotiate slowly, and Americans are quick to make a deal. Contrary to this knowledge of time, for Americans the objective is a signed contract and as for them time is money, they indispensableness to close a deal quickly. Americans therefore try to reduce time invested in formalities to a minimum and get down to business quickly. Japanese and other Asians, whose objective is to create a relationship rather than simply sign a contract, need to invest time in the negotiating process so that the parties can get to know one another well and determine whether they wish to embar k on a long-term relationshipAnother crucial aspect in cross-cultural negotiations is risk taking ability. The Japanese tend to be highly risk averse in negotiations, and this tendency was affirmed by the survey conducted by Salacuse, which found Japanese respondents to be the most risk averse of the twelve cultures. Americans in this survey, by comparison, considered themselves to be risk takers.C. Research Factors concerning the Management of Conflict in cross-cultural NegotiationsResearch findings with regard to managing appointment in cross culture negotiation show that different cultures focus on different aspects. Tinsley (1998), revealed that when managing conflict American managers preferred to focus on interests, while Japanese managers concentrated on status power. The differences could be explained by the American value for poly- chronicity (or multitasking) and the Japanese occupation with hierarchy (or unequal social structures. It is obvious though, that awareness of emotions is vital to negotiation and it plays a key role when it comes to cross-culture negotiation conflicts. In the Japanese business culture, status and power also play an important role in conflict management where parties try to manage conflict by using differences in authority, status and power. To them it is normal that high status parties try to enforce their ideas for resolution on lower status parties. If this is not possible, Japanese negotiation parties try to enhance their status by co-opting people of high status.D. Research Findings concerning cross-cultural Decision-Making styles during NegotiationsDecision-making styles vary a lot between Americans and Japanese. When it comes to team based versus individual way of taking decisions one extreme is the American negotiating team with a supreme leader who has complete authority to judge all matters. The Japanese business culture stresses team negotiation and consensus-based decision making. American managers usually t end to make decisions by themselves, while Japanese managers tend to make decisions by consensus. Furthermore, Americans treasure the value of flexibility, whereas once a Japanese manager has reached a decision, may believe it is shameful to change it. Decisions can be taken either through a deductive process or through an inductive process. In his research, (Salacuse 2005) found that Americans do view deal making as a top down (deductive process) while the Japanese tend to see it as a shadow up (i.e. inductive) process.E. Research Findings concerning the Interests Strategy in cross-cultural NegotiationsThe process of aligning and integrating the best interests of both parties works as a accelerator for successful negotiation. This interests-based strategy promotes the resolution of dilemmas through cognitive problem solving. Research shows is essential to shift focus from position to interest. Several authors suggest that as both parties want to gain their individual interest t herefore they constantly want to implement the negotiation. From their perspective, individual interests of parties are always more important than collective group interests.A cross-cultural Roadmap for a strategic Approach to Negotiation StylesThe following Figure 4 shows a roadmap for the development of efficient cross-cultural negotiation styles.Figure 4 A cross-cultural Roadmap for a strategic Approach to NegotiationDrivers of cross-cultural NegotiationsCommon Negotiation Difficulties cast out Impacts on Negotiations