Analysis of Business Culture

in Japan

For Assignment or Dissertation Help, Please

Contact:
Muhammad Sajid Saeed
+44 141 4045137
Email:
todrsaeed@gmail.com
Skype ID: tosajidsaeed

INTRODUCTION
The culture of a region describes the attitude preferences which are appreciated and aspects not
acceptable to the society. The business culture operates likewise, how a certain operation is
ideally carried out in a particular region is characterised by the culture and is distinct for that
culture. The Japanese culture, similarly, have its distinct traits which establishes the basis for
business in the region. This essay would discuss the Japanese business culture and a comparative
discussion would follow to describe the differences in operational culture of Japan and United
States.
CHARACTERISTICS OF JAPANESE BUSINESS CULTURE
The values system of every culture is distinct and is the differentiating point for it in combination
with the working processes, beliefs and ethical codes and differs entirely with every culture.
When initiating or moving a business to a new culture, understanding these differences is must as
efficient business collaborations could be jeopardizes in case they are insufficiently considered
or understood. The key principals of the business culture in Japan which require considerable
understating are numerous and a few examples have been presented. Wa is the business
concept in Chinese culture which describes harmony and is the most appreciated principal of the
Japanese society (Christine, 1994) and when applied in the business culture of the country, it
demonstrates the idea of evading individualism and self-proclamation. Hierarchy is given utmost
respect in the Japanese organisations. Kao depicts the notion of the face and is a vital element
of the Japanese business culture, demonstrating the social status, personal pride and reputation
(Alston and Takei, 2005). While involved in the Japanese business, disastrous effects could be
experienced in the professional relationship when one is made to lose Kao. Omoiyari is yet
another value of the Japanese culture and describe the loyalty and compassion (Alston and Takei,
2005). Punctuality is a key element for the business culture of the region and is highly
appreciated.
A very interesting observation about the operations of the Japanese enterprises is their
conservative business style where they were found not to be interested in reinvestment of the
profits to increase their ultimate revenues so hardly confronting any pressures regarding funds
(Chen, 2003). The major focus of the business in Japan is the stable operations rather the higher

levels of profits as a result of investment and reinvestment. Some key features which may or may
not act like advantages of the Japanese business culture include the lower interest in short term
profits, fixed dissemination of the business dividends, highlighted focus on the internal
organisational growth with encouragement as the employees are believed to own the organisation
rather the shareholders, the board of governor of a Japanese enterprise comprise almost entirely
of the higher managerial position holders of the company, the Confucian concepts being a key
influential factor for the Japanese enterprises, and the expression of the perpendicular networks
in the society.
THE BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS IN JAPANESE BUSINESS CULTURE
The Japanese culture of doing business encourages the relationship building among the
enterprise and its employees and this is believed to be effective for not only fortifying the loyalty
contributed by a satisfied and motivated employee but also the economic benefits received
(Abegglen, 2006). In addition to the distributed wages, the Japanese enterprises have been
offering numerous benefits to their employees including food, accommodation, shops etc., giving
a concept of home rather an enterprise. The Japanese cultures undue leniency, as perceived
extensive throughout the world, has been contributed by the concepts of familism and
beneficialism which are still existing despite the introduction of American style of management.
These traits of the Japanese business culture which are exclusive have given rise to particular
styles of management and business operations (Fan, 2002).
Establishing a degree of trust and relationship is believed to be a key to successful business
operations. An excessive time taken for the process of decision making to be executed in the
Japanese organisation is contributed majorly to the involvement of all level employees in the
process to encourage and motivate them which is believed to contribute tremendously to the
business success. The deadlines and the limited time boundaries to complete a task or take a
decision are usually found to be inconsequential for the Japanese organisational and they prefer
to complete their group involvement and taking decision with the organisational involvement
which at time could be frustrating and challenging to handle for the foreign organisations coming
to initiate their businesses in the region.

Mutual trust is believed to be the most essential part of business, as believed and practiced by the
Japanese businessmen and the principles of the business culture are followed to the most. Mutual
trust is assured and this contributes to the important observation of the value of signing to the
contract. The Japanese does not believe in signing the contracts, however with time, this concept
is changing but still, the contracts are kept simple and brief and oral commitment is still believed
to be most trustworthy way to commit (Wen, 1993).
Another important believe in the Japanese business culture is the inability of the words to
express the feelings of true and sincere attitude towards the business counterparts. The two
parties involved in business communication must sense the thoughts and perceptions of the other
(Wilkinson, 1992). In the Japanese culture, certain decisions are reached by both subordinate and
the leader without communicating and is known as being from heart to heart (Takao, 2006) and
the idea of good relationships in the business are based on not the strong slender interactions but
on the idea sharing which is not bound to the verbal expressions on any part of the parties.
THE FORD PRODUCTION SYSTEM
FORDISM
In America, the intensification of Ford depicts an era of an entirely new production of consumer
durables by giving rise to mass production paradigm (Hounshell, 1985). The Fordism production
system intersected the market, products and processes to standardize the operations such as to
allow exciting dissection of the labour of the auto maker industry. One example of this was the
moving assembly lines which become a symbol for Fordism in addition to the extremely precise
metaculating technologies and slandered wages on per day basis which was believed to be a
more justified approach to pay your workers. However, the changing needs of contemporary
business approaches and customer requirements and expectations called for more flexibility in
the mass production systems leading to a failure of Fordism (Hounshell, 1985).
TAYLORISM
The key difference among the Ford and Taylor was their principles of work management where
Ford tried to reduce human labour by automation of processes, the Taylor believed in improving
a given business operation by study. The work organisation was the major focus of Taylorism

and attempts were made to improve it to maximum to achieve desired results by involving
workers (Aglietta, 1979). The taylorism proposed a concept of functional management where the
work was managed through division at every single level and reducing the responsibility on
individuals to make them more productive for their required brain work. This work force division
lead to more productive manufacturing (Ford and Crowther, 1924).
NEO-FORDISM
In the late 1920s, though Fordism met its end however the practices were not entirely diminished
from the market and persisted to be applied as a key production paradigm in the manufacturing
sector for another fifty years or more and thus a new paradigm of neo Fordism was induced
(Hounshell, 1985). This functional approach was more associated with the new technologies and
the altered business and human resource management approaches, enhanced competition on an
international basis and a rather saturated market. This approach applied more programmable
technologies in the automobile manufacturing for example flexible systems of machining (Tidd,
1991) and Japanese style of management was more widely applied not only in Europe but in
North America such as the total quality management and the just in time production systems and
lean production system was reported to be the most advanced and recent development in this
regard (Womack et al. 1990).
COMPARISON WITH US BUSINESS CULTURE: A CASE OF AUTOMOBILE
INDUSTRY
The difference among the industries of Japan and United Kingdom is a product of the
organisational practices and this gap is more profound in the automobile industry. In Japanese
automobile industry, taking example of Toyota, the production system, product development and
other business operations were established to incorporate distinct operational improvements such
as just in time production perspective and total quality management. These establishments were
critically considered and implements in the 1970s which was given the much known name of
Toyotas lean production system which primarily emphasized on quality, time, flexibility in
production instantaneously. This was achieved by certain steps taken in the Japanese business
culture which included the abolition of the limp resources to eliminate manufacturing problems
and changing the leadership styles in practice at the industry by involving supervisors, leaders

and workers, though depending on the particular rank, in the decision making process (Oliver
and Wilkinson, 1992).
Comparing with the business culture of the United States, when it comes to the Japanese
automobile industry, certain key elements of mass production were ignored, or are not
appropriately followed by the Japanese industry such as the tayloristic standard of the operations,
prime techniques of the business and engineering, and Detroit form of automation to name a few
(Helper, 1990). The major deficiency lies in the specialization level which is induced by the
authentic Fordism style which includes both horizontal and vertical operations. Another
difference was observed in the extent of lot production which was again on an extreme when it
comes to the production index of the American automobile industry whereas the Japanese
manufacturers believe in producing small lots which are characterized by assembly of mixed
models, manufacturing flexibility and quick alteration. This small lot production and subsequent
low extent of specialization of the Japanese production lines has been a significant weakness
when it comes to comparing with the American automaker giant manufacturers (Berger, 2001).

REFERENCES
Abegglen, J. C. (2006). 21st-century Japanese management: new systems& lasting values. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan
Aglietta, M. (1979). A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. New Left Books,
London
Alston, J, P, Takei, I, (2005). Japanese Business Culture and Practices, A Guide to twenty First
Century Japanese Business, iUniverse, Linclon
Berger, M.L. (2001). The automobile in American history and culture: a reference guide.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Chen, H. L. (2003). Misunderstood Japanese. Di Teng Publication Co., Ltd.
Christine, G. (1994). Japan Business: The Portable Encyclopedia for Doing Business With
Japan. World Trade Press, p. 155,
Fan, C. T. (2002). Corporate Business Negotiations. Hsin Lu Bookshop
Ford, H. and Crowther, S. (1924) Ford: My Life and Work. Heinemann, London
Helper, S. (1990). Comparative supplier relations in the U.S. and Japanese auto industries: an
exit/voice approach. Business and Economic History, 19, ISSN 08494825.
Hounshell, D.A. (1985) From the American System to Mass Production 1800-1932: The
Development of Manufacturing Technology in the U.S., Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore
Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1992). The Japanization of British industry: New developments in
the 1990s, 2nd edition, Blackwell
Takao, K, (2006), CEO Turnover, firm performance, and enterprise reform in China, Evidence
from micro data, Journal of Comparative Economics, 34 (4), 796-817
Tidd, J. (1991). Flexible Manufacturing Technologies and International Competitiveness, Pinter,
London
Wen, C. H. (1993). Impressions over Japan. ChienHsing Culture
Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World. New York:
Rawson Associates