Schools of management in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development. With polar differences, however, there is a certain similarity between them: both schools focus on the activation of the human factor (using, however, various forms and methods), constant innovation, diversification of manufactured goods and services, downsizing of large enterprises and moderate decentralization of production; they are guided by the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise (although if American managers develop their plans for 5-8 years, then Japanese managers - for up to 10 years or more). At the same time, despite the outward similarity, these two management schools have features due to the specifics of the socio-economic development of their countries.
The basis of the American system of government is the principle of individualism, which arose in American society in the 18th-19th centuries, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived in the country. In the process of developing vast territories, such national character traits as initiative and individualism were developed. For Japan, in which until the end of the XIX century. feudalism was preserved, the traditional attitude of public consciousness towards collectivism (belonging to any social group) was characteristic, and the formation of the modern Japanese management system took place taking into account this feature. Currently, Japanese management is becoming more widespread in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, taking into account common cultural values and traditions.
There are other differences between Japanese and American control systems. In the United States, in the management process, the focus is on a bright personality that can improve the organization's performance - in Japan, managers are guided by the group and the organization as a whole. In American firms, there are rigid management structures with certain functions, while in Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and eliminated as specific tasks are performed. The main incentive for American workers is the economic factor (money) - for Japanese workers, it is not money that plays a more significant role, but socio-psychological factors (sense of belonging to a team, pride in the company). Western European and American enterprises are characterized by the presence of moral and psychological prohibitions that hinder the initiative and creativity of workers - Japanese workers are guided by the concepts of internal duty and subordination of their interests to the interests of the team. In crisis situations, American managers try to fire part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive - in Japanese enterprises there is an unwritten law of the so-called lifelong employment of workers, in which the working staff is considered as the highest value of the organization, and therefore, the administration will do everything possible to keep their employees in the most critical situations. According to the employment contract, American workers are focused only on the performance of their functional duties - Japanese workers strive not only to fulfill their job duties, but also to do the maximum useful for their organization, for example, an American foreman or engineer will never do cleaning work on the workshop, even if he has free time, and a Japanese specialist, having time free from his main activity, will definitely do something useful for his company, since he is focused not on performing strictly defined functional duties, but on working for the good of his company. American workers typically change jobs once every few years, moving to firms that offer them better wages or better working conditions. This is also due to the fact that in the United States, traditionally, only a vertical career is considered successful (when an employee is promoted in the structure of his organization). It is a common practice to retire employees who have been with the company for 20-25 years, even if they have not reached retirement age. In this way, the management of companies seeks to create conditions for the career growth of young professionals and keep them in their organization.
In Japan, employees usually work their whole lives in one enterprise, and any transfer to another organization is considered unethical. The career of a Japanese specialist is more often horizontal (for example, a middle manager moves to other departments every 4 to 5 years, occupying positions equal in their previous status). This allows the company to improve the system of horizontal links between departments and services, to train professionals of a wide profile, to solve the problem of interchangeability, to improve the moral climate in the team. People who have reached retirement age rarely retire, trying to work for the benefit of the company as long as they have the strength, and in any areas and positions.
|
Criteria |
Japanese model |
US model |
|
1. The nature of managerial decision-making |
Decision making by consensus |
Individual nature of decision-making |
|
2. Responsibility |
Collective |
Individual |
|
3. Management structure |
Non-standard, flexible |
severely formalized |
|
4. Nature of control |
Collective |
Individual control of the head |
|
5. Organization of control |
Soft informal control |
Clearly formalized rigid control procedure |
|
6. Evaluation of the performance of the head |
Slow worker performance appraisal and career growth |
Quick assessment of the result and accelerated promotion |
|
7. Evaluation of the qualities of a leader |
Ability to coordinate and control |
Professionalism and initiative |
|
Orientation of management to the group, increased attention to the person |
Orientation of management to an individual, attention to a person as a performer |
|
|
9. Evaluation of personnel performance |
Achieving a collective result |
Achieving individual results |
|
10. Relations with subordinates |
Personal informal relationships |
formal relationship |
|
11. Career |
Promotion based on age, length of service and loyalty to the firm |
Business career is predetermined by personal achievements |
|
12. Leadership training |
Training of universal leaders |
Training of highly specialized managers |
|
13. Pay |
Remuneration according to the performance of the group, experience |
Remuneration for individual achievements |
|
14. Duration of employment in the company |
Long-term employment of the head of the company, lifetime employment |
Employment on a contract basis, contractual basis, short-term employment |
|
15. General principle of management |
"Bottom-Up" |
"Top-Bottom" |
|
16. Staffing |
Lack of clearly defined roles and tasks within the organization |
Functional subordination and clear boundaries of authority |
|
17. Professional development |
On the job (in the workplace) |
Separated, for special training programs |
The table shows a comparison of Japanese and American management models, which makes it possible to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.
Another major difference lies in the organization of management itself. At American enterprises, official and production duties are strictly separated, and a higher person controls their use, therefore, a limited range of issues that they are entrusted with are in the field of view of workers and employees. At Japanese enterprises, the personnel who constantly improve their skills are responsible for many important issues of production activities. Thus, government in the US is "hierarchical" while in Japan it is "universal."
In the short term, the Japanese management system loses out to the American one due to the great complexity of decision making and the large amount of time and money spent on training personnel at all levels. But in the long run, it increases the efficiency of production, because it stimulates the participation of workers in management and increases their responsibility and interest in the affairs of the company.
The scrap rate* and breakdown rate of Japanese cars, televisions, integrated circuits, and other products are more than ten times lower than those of Western products. A comparison of these two concepts testifies to the "myopia" of American installations "(Table 1.3). For example, the reconstruction of a production system or production unit in order to improve quality leads to a short-term increase in production costs, but in the long term, on the contrary, reduces them.
A comparison of Japanese and American management models shows that one management model cannot be transferred to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.
However, the comparison of models is of considerable interest to us, since the formation of a domestic management model requires studying the experience of other countries.
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF SEVASTOPOL "SEVASTOPOL INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE NAMED AFTER MARSHAL OF ENGINEERING TROOPS A. V. GELOVANI
"American and Japanese models of management"
Student: Azovskikh Pavel Igorevich
Group MT-41
Teacher: Merezhko Tatyana Alexandrovna
Sevastopol
Introduction.
1. Features of organization management in the American and Japanese models of management.
2. Formation of American management.
3. American model of management.
4. Formation of Japanese management.
5. Japanese model of management.
6. Comparative analysis of two management models.
Conclusion.
Bibliography.
INTRODUCTION
Personnel management is one of the most important functions of management, since a person has been and remains the main productive, creative force, despite all the achievements in the field of mechanization and automation.
Scientific and technological progress leads to profound changes in labor methods, which, in turn, requires new forms of organization and management of personnel, directions to improve the efficiency of the use of human resources.
The search for appropriate motivators that would stimulate the purposeful behavior of individuals necessary for the successful functioning of the organization becomes a task of paramount importance.
In different countries, this task is solved based on the characteristics of the historical, socio-political, scientific and technological development of these countries, as well as the psychological, moral and ethical norms and behaviors of people, as well as their upbringing, traditions and foundations.
In the field of management, there are two generally recognized management models: American and Japanese. Japanese and American schools have their own advantages and supporters. However, despite the undeniable success and productive work of each of these models, they have a number of significant differences in the organization of management. It can even be called a collision of two poles, east and west.
1. Features of organization management in the American and Japanese management models
It is generally accepted that national-state and ethnic factors play a decisive role in the formation and functioning of the enterprise culture. An individual from his national culture receives a series of attitudes in the form of fundamental values. G. Hofstede formulated four factorial models of values: individualism - collectivism; large -- small power distance; strong - weak desire to avoid uncertainty; masculinity is femininity. On the basis of various combinations of these models, it is possible to draw up "cultural maps" of different countries and identify which features are compatible and which are fundamentally different. At the same time, there is no need to force members of organizations to revise their value orientations if national characteristics prevail in them.
Culture in US enterprises is associated with the Protestant ethic, in Japan with the Buddhist one.
2. Formation of American management
American management absorbed the foundations of the classical school founded by Henri Fayol. Americans Luther Gyulik and Lindal Urvik did a lot to popularize the main provisions of the classical school. Subsequently, other American authors made many additions, clarifications and changes to the system of management principles. The classical school had a significant influence on the formation of all other areas in American management theory.
Modern American management in the form that has developed at the present time is based on three historical premises:
1. The presence of a market.
2. Industrial way of organizing production.
3. Corporation as the main form of business.
The American economist Robert Heilbroner pointed out three main historical approaches to the distribution of society's resources. These are traditions, orders and the market. The traditional approach refers to the distribution of society's economic resources through established traditions, from one generation to the next. The team approach implies the distribution of resources through orders. The market approach provides for the allocation of resources through the market, without any public intervention. This approach is the most efficient. It is based on the relationship between the seller and the buyer, who independently set prices, product quality requirements, etc. Market relations often require managerial decisions to be made under conditions of uncertainty and risk, which increases the responsibility of managers for their development and adoption.
3. American model of management
At the present stage, the American management model is built on the belief that the success of the company is based on factors that lie within its boundaries. Therefore, the firm becomes a closed system. This initial belief predetermines the features of the American management model.
This approach defines goals and objectives as stable elements that persist over time. The main strategy of firms is continuous growth and specialization of production, therefore, the American model of management is characterized by a mechanism of explicit and constant control.
It also has a high degree of individualism. The freedom of the individual predetermines individual decision-making: the decision made by the leader is in no way subject to discussion and is mandatory for implementation. As a result, there is not collective, but individual responsibility for the results of the work performed. However, despite individualism as the main feature of the model, the attitude towards the employee is differentiated: he is perceived purely as an employee, and not as an individual.
Another important characteristic is that employees lack commitment to their company, which contributes to a high employee turnover rate. Some of them manage to change up to ten companies during their work. Hiring is made for a relatively short time and everyone knows about it, getting a job.
The American management model is the ideal model for careerists. It ensures the rapid development and promotion of the employee within the company. At the same time, an employee can develop in a specialized way, i.e. build a horizontal career. To this end, a variety of advanced training courses are held at universities and colleges.
4. Formation of Japanese management
Over the past two decades, Japan has taken a leading position in the world market. It accounts for 44.5% of the total value of shares of all countries in the world. And despite the fact that the population of Japan is only 2% of the world's population.
One of the main reasons for Japan's rapid success is its human-centered management model. Over the entire period of historical development in Japan, certain methods of work and behavior have developed that correspond to the specific features of the national character.
The Japanese consider their human resources to be the main wealth of the country. The Japanese economic system is based on the historically established traditions of group cohesion and the innate aspiration of the Japanese to create high-quality products.
The tradition of group cohesion is associated with the occupation of the Japanese in rice sowing, which requires huge labor costs and abundant watering of crops, which was beyond the power of one family. To create artificial reservoirs, people had to unite in groups, artels.
Economy and frugality are hallmarks of the Japanese character. Savings slogans can be found at every Japanese enterprise. The requirements of economy and thrift are directly related to the production of high-quality products.
The essence of Japanese management is the management of people. At the same time, the Japanese do not consider one person (personality), like Americans, but a group of people. In addition, Japan has developed a tradition of submission to the elder, whose position is approved by the group.
It is known that human behavior is determined by its needs. At the same time, the Japanese put social needs above others (belonging to a social group, the place of an employee in a group, the attention and respect of others). Therefore, they perceive remuneration for work (incentives) through the prism of social needs, although recently Japanese management has absorbed certain motivational concepts of American management focused on the psychology of the individual. This found expression in the fact that the need for personal consumption began to be recognized. The Japanese began to purchase consumer goods in large quantities.
5. Japanese management model
The Japanese management system is one of the most efficient. Her main advantage is her ability to work with people. The Japanese are sure that the main wealth of their country is human resources. Their management system is based on ancient traditions of group cohesion and an innate desire to create products of the highest quality. Japanese management focuses on the group form of labor organization. The mechanism of collective responsibility is used, in which the members of the group participate in making management decisions and bear equal responsibility for their implementation. Information about the affairs of the company, its plans is communicated to all employees. Active involvement (on a voluntary basis) of employees in solving technological and economic problems is practiced.
Among the distinguishing features of the Japanese character, psychologists distinguish, first of all, innate economy and thrift. Slogans about economy and frugality are found in Japan at every step, since in the minds of the Japanese, the release of high-quality products is directly related to economy and thrift.
In addition, in Japan there is a tradition of unquestioning obedience to the elder, which is widely used not only within families, but also in production groups.
The Japanese worship hard work. In the hierarchy of values of the Japanese people, work comes first. The Japanese experience sincere satisfaction from a job well done. Therefore, strict discipline, a high rhythm of work and the intensity of work do not have such a destructive effect on them as they do on Americans or Europeans. For them, this is one of the traditions that they must strictly follow. All employees work in teams and support each other in their work.
The Japanese build relationships with partners on the basis of trust.
There are six characteristic features of Japanese governance:
1. Job security and creating an environment of trust. Stability serves as an incentive for workers and employees, it strengthens the sense of corporate community, harmonizes the relationship of ordinary employees with management. Freed from the oppressive threat of layoffs and with a real opportunity to move up the vertical, workers are motivated to strengthen their sense of community with the company. Job security in Japan is provided by a lifetime employment system, a phenomenon that is unique and largely incomprehensible to the European way of thinking.
2. Publicity and values of the corporation. All levels of management and workers share a common base of information about the policies and activities of the firm. The Japanese management system also tries to create a common understanding of corporate values for all employees of the company, such as the priority of quality service, services for the consumer, cooperation between workers and administration, cooperation and interaction between departments. Management strives to constantly inculcate and maintain corporate values at all levels.
3. Management based on information. The collection of data and their systematic use to improve the economic efficiency of production and the quality characteristics of products is of particular importance. Managers review revenue lines, output, quality, and gross receipts monthly to see if the numbers are meeting targets and to see problems early on.
4. Quality-oriented management. Presidents of firms and management companies in Japanese enterprises often talk about the need for quality control. The personal pride of the manager lies in consolidating efforts to control quality and, as a result, in the work of the production site entrusted to him with the highest quality.
5. The constant presence of management in production. In order to quickly deal with difficulties and to help solve problems as they arise, the Japanese often place management personnel right in the production premises. As each problem is solved, small innovations are introduced, resulting in an accumulation of additional innovations.
6. Maintaining cleanliness and order. One of the essential factors for the high quality of Japanese goods is cleanliness and order in production.
In general, Japanese management is distinguished by an emphasis on improving human relations: coherence, group orientation, employee morale, employment stability, and harmonization of relations between workers and managers.
american japanese management management
6. Comparative analysis of two management models
In their pure form, the models are very different. So, for the American, an individual way of making decisions is characteristic, and for the Japanese, a collective way. Responsibility has the same features. In American companies, the management structure and control procedures are strictly formalized and even unified, while Japanese companies prefer to build a management structure more adapted to their needs. Employees in American companies develop formal relationships with managers, while in Japanese companies preference is given to informal relationships.
American managers are personality-oriented and evaluate individual results, while Japanese managers tend to organize group work and achieve harmony in the team.
The terms of employment of managers and their professional qualities also differ: Japanese managers are hired for a long period of time (most often for life) and are generalists, while American ones are hired for a short period and have a narrow specialization.
Features of the Japanese model:
1. Management decisions are made collectively on the principle of unanimity.
2. The form of responsibility is collective.
3. Non-standard flexible control system.
4. Control is poorly formalized, collective methods of control are used.
5. Evaluation of work and career growth is carried out slowly, career growth is tied to age and length of service.
6. The main quality of a leader is the ability to control and coordinate subordinates.
7. Labor is paid according to the performance of the group and length of service.
8. Weak specialization of managers.
Features of the American model:
1. Individual nature of decision-making.
2. Individual form of responsibility.
3. Strictly formalized control system.
4. Individual and clearly formalized control.
5. Quick assessment of the result and a sharp promotion. Business career depends on personal results. Hiring is short term.
6. The main qualities of a leader are professionalism and initiative.
7. Work is paid according to individual achievements.
8. Very narrow specialization of managers.
Let's give a comparative description of the Japanese and American models of management in the table.
|
Specifications |
|||
|
Japanese management model |
American management model |
||
|
Dominant qualities of a business person |
Ability to work in a "team", orientation to the team, refusal to stick out one's own "I", unwillingness to take risks |
Rejection of individualism, the transition to collective forms, the pursuit of thoughtful risk |
|
|
Criteria for promotion |
Life experience, good knowledge of production. Slow promotion |
High qualification, ability to learn. The job transition is fast. |
|
|
Professional Competence |
Generalists, special requirements and forms of advanced training: mandatory retraining; rotation of the place of work (position); written performance reports. |
The trend of transition from narrow specialization to mastering several related specialties. Traditional forms of training and advanced training. |
|
|
Decision making process |
Bottom-up, decision-making by consensus; The decision is taken for a long time, implemented quickly. |
From top to bottom, the individuality of decision making by the manager; accepted quickly, implemented slowly. |
|
|
The attitude of employees towards the firm and work |
Hiring for life, moving to another firm is considered unethical. The main motives for the behavior of employees are characterized by socio-psychological factors (a sense of belonging to a team, etc.). |
Short-term employment, frequent job changes depending on material wealth. The main motive is economic factors (money). |
|
|
Character holding innovation |
Evolutionary way |
in a revolutionary way |
|
|
Form of business relationship |
Personal contacts based on mutual trust |
Contracts |
CONCLUSION
In the work, an analysis of various control systems, in particular American and especially Japanese, was carried out. The study of best practices is a very significant and urgent task. However, in a comparative analysis of any control systems, it must be borne in mind that the purely mechanical application of a particular control system does not yet guarantee high efficiency. The effectiveness of a production organization is determined not so much by the use of a particular management system, but by how its elements are adapted to the production and market conditions in which the organization operates. This approach implies the need to analyze any system or management style in close relation to the specific internal and external economic conditions in which a given production organization operates.
The study of effective methods in personnel management gives us a wide opportunity to use them, subject to their adaptation to the specific conditions of the organization, thereby contributing to the most advanced and effective development of the management system.
A comparison of Japanese and American management models shows that one management model cannot be transferred to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.
However, a comparison of these two models is of considerable interest to us, since the formation of a domestic management model requires studying the experience of other countries.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Andreeva G.M. Social psychology and management models. - M.: Aspect press, 1998. - 303 p.
2. Grayson D., O "Dell K. American management on the threshold of the XXI century. - M.: Economics, 1991. -436 p.
3. Demchenko A.I. Possibilities of management // Issues of management. - 1996. - No. 7. - P.10 - 13.
4. Erasov B.S. Management: Textbook. - M: Aspect press, 1997.- 233 p.
5. Razumova E.D. Production management models. - M.: Olimp, 2003. - 419 p.
6. Semenova I.I. History of Management: Textbook for High Schools. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2000. - 222 p.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Characteristics of the American and Japanese models of management, their formation and special features. Comparative analysis of the American and Japanese strategies for personnel management, substantiation of the expediency of using elements in domestic practice.
term paper, added 06/17/2013
The concept of quality management, the evolution of the global management system. The main provisions and advantages of the Japanese school of quality management. Experience in quality management in the USA. Features of the formation and development of the American school of quality management.
term paper, added 12/17/2011
Stages of development of the theory and practice of management. Management: management in market conditions. Classical behavioral school of management. Six activities (functions) for the organization. Management models (Japanese, American), management functions.
summary, added 05/05/2009
Essence and specifics of personnel management. Comparative analysis of American and Japanese models of management. Characteristic features of both management styles. Ensuring staff competence. Advantages and disadvantages of each of the presented systems.
presentation, added 11/24/2014
Features and principles of the American management model, its advantages and disadvantages. Composition of the board of directors in the Anglo-American model. Corporation actions requiring shareholder approval. Comparison of American and Japanese management systems.
presentation, added 04/01/2016
The history of the development of the American management system, its features, advantages and disadvantages. Comparative characteristics of the American, English and Japanese models of enterprise management. Description of methods of effective corporate management.
thesis, added 09/13/2010
American, Japanese, Western European models of management and their features. The development of management in Russia since ancient times. Stages and schools in the history of management. Modern system of views on management and its description. School of Human Relations.
abstract, added 01/14/2009
Theoretical foundations of management. The history of the formation of management and its schools. Variety of management models. Management model in the Republic of Korea as a synthesis of American and Japanese management styles. Chaebol is South Korea's economic miracle.
thesis, added 09/28/2010
The concept and main criteria for the classification of management models. Features of American management, which absorbed the foundations of the classical school, founded by Henri Fayol. The Japanese model of management and the main features of the "model I".
term paper, added 02/05/2011
Annotations of theoretical sources on management. Experience in business and management. School of scientific management. The problem of studying the history of the American model of management. The idea of strategic management and planning in the organization.
Management is carried out in a certain social context that directly affects its character. Obviously, there are different approaches to management in national or continental cultures. Many of the American and Japanese scientific concepts are very productive..
Management schools in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development.
There are certain similarities between them:
they focus on the activation of the human factor (using, however, various forms and methods), constant innovation, downsizing of large enterprises;
they focus on the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise.
At the same time, despite the external similarity, these two models have features due to the specifics of their socio-economic development.
The first difference between the models lies in the setting of social consciousness. The basis of the American system of government is the principle of individualism. That is, the understanding that managers are, first of all, individuals who have certain interests and their own opinion about personal needs.
In the USA, the focus is on a bright personality who can improve the organization's performance. Japan is characterized by the traditional attitude of public consciousness towards collectivism. Managers focus on the group and the organization as a whole. In Japan, the individual merit of the worker is fully attributed to the merit of the firm (although this is now changing), which is not the case in the United States.
Decision-making methods in the American and Japanese models of organization management are also different:
In the United States, there is an individual nature of decision-making. He's faster. The Japanese, on the other hand, are accustomed to solving problems collegially. This reduces the possibility of error, but takes longer.
In Japanese companies, it would never occur to anyone to challenge the boss's decision after the decision has been made. But up to this point, due to collegiality, managers hold meetings with their subordinates, at which they can discuss the proposal, criticize it. The Japanese have the time and opportunity to convince management that an idea is right or wrong. But after the decision is made, whether you were for or against, you must fulfill this decision.
In large corporations with American management, the corporate structure pushes unique people to the top who are ready to take responsibility and risk, since there is no one to consult with. At each level, they have the last word. Even without being geniuses, they gain decision-making experience, since the leader always makes the final decision.
When the head of the company is weak in itself, then collegiality plays its positive role, then one can hope for the stability of the system. And the structure of Japanese corporations is stable. Moreover, it is stable in relation to the personal qualities of each specific manager. For example, a person received a specific position, which he does not quite correspond to, and then the collegial system will help him. It's not even about him - the main thing is that the system will survive. Unfortunately, there is also a negative point in this, since a lot of time is spent on all kinds of meetings. Until the solution becomes obvious to everyone, it will be “sucked”. This is one of the reasons why the Japanese stay so long at work. As you know, in Japan they work on Saturdays and even on Sundays. Efficiency in the use of time must be judged by results.
Achievements are judged by individual (in the USA) or collective result (in Japan).
In American companies, the responsibility for failure lies with the person who failed to complete the task. In Japanese firms, the responsibility is collective. They will never allow themselves to let the group down, otherwise they will "lose face" in front of their colleagues.
With regard to control, Japanese firms also exercise collective control and it is informal. In America, the leader personally controls the actions of subordinates, and the control structure is strictly formalized.
A representative of GENERAL in Russia: “In Russian companies, one mistake is often made - they do not give any authority to their employees, but try to strictly demand from them. In Russia, this is quite common. And in Japan, everything is the other way around, where the employee is given great powers, and as long as the employee does everything normally, fulfills the plan, there is no demand from him at all. That is, he can do everything as he sees fit. They begin to call him on the carpet only when there are problems with the implementation of the plan. And in this case they ask: “What are you doing, how are you doing?” This is the fundamental difference."
In American firms, there are rigid management structures with certain functions, there is a rigid division of duties, a rigid job description. A step to the right, a step to the left is not welcomed by the management. And vice versa, if something is suddenly demanded from you in excess of the norm, then you can refuse or ask for a revision of the working conditions in order to formalize it.
In Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and liquidated as specific tasks are completed. In Japanese companies, this situation is played out differently. A soft transformation can occur when part of the duties of an employee is taken away or, conversely, something is added. And it has nothing to do with salary or bonuses. Of course, a certain level of salary depends on your duties and how you work, which is correlated and aligned with the market.
Relationship between leader and subordinate. In Japan they are informal. In the US, there are formal relationships with subordinates. If a person occupies a position, then he must fulfill his duties regardless of personal qualities. They proceed from the fact that if the head of a department, then this is, first of all, the head of the department, and not Ivan Ivanovich. Personal contacts should not be important. And if a new department head comes, he or she will perform the same functions.
The philosophy of the company in the US may undergo some changes after the replacement of management. This is accompanied by a change in managerial staff and workers. Also, in crisis situations, American managers try to lay off part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive.
In Japan, with the change of leadership, the philosophy of the company does not change. Personnel remain, as the system of "lifetime employment" operates.
The goals of the firm are individual for different companies, but a general trend can be traced in America and in Japan. In the USA, this is the growth of the company's profit and dividends of individual investors; in the Japanese management model, it is ensuring the growth of profits and the well-being of all employees of the company.
Hiring and personnel policy. The Japanese model of organization management widely uses the work of graduates of universities and schools, retraining and training within the company, on the job. In Japanese companies, training is paid. The content of the work changes as the transition to the production of new products and the use of new technology, so retraining is necessary. New hires usually attend lectures and learn on the job. The most important task is to instill the corporate philosophy and technical skills. The duration of training varies from company to company, but most often it is from three to eight months.
In America, employees are hired on the labor market through a network of universities, business schools, etc. Focus on an individual, personal career.
Regarding remuneration and promotion in the models we are considering, enterprises have different policies. In Japanese, this is, of course, promotion based on seniority and remuneration depending on age and length of service in the company (the so-called equalizing salary). The career of a Japanese specialist is more often horizontal (for example, a middle manager moves to other departments every 4 to 5 years, occupying positions equal in their previous status). This allows the company to improve the system of horizontal links between departments and services, train professionals of a wide profile, solve the problem of interchangeability, and improve the moral climate in the team.
In the United States, when an employee is hired, his suitability for a vacant position is checked using methods such as competition, assessment of knowledge and skills in special “assessment centers”, passing exams for a position. Remuneration of labor and its advancement along the "career" ladder occurs depending on the individual results and merits of the employee. In the United States, only a vertical career is traditionally considered successful (when an employee is promoted in the structure of his organization). Therefore, workers usually change their place of work once every few years, moving to firms where they are offered a higher salary or better working conditions.
Organization of production and labor. In Japan, the following principles apply on this issue: the main attention is paid to the workshop - the lower level of production; the system "just in time" (Kanban) is used without the creation of stocks and backlogs. The work of quality groups (circles) and the implementation of strict quality control at all stages of the production process by all employees of the company. Duties between employees are not strictly distributed, as already mentioned, employees perform various types of work depending on the situation; motto - "act according to the situation."
In the USA, the focus is not on production, but on adaptation with the external environment. Employees act on the basis of strict execution of job descriptions. Pay rates are strictly defined depending on the position, work performed and qualifications. Salary is set in accordance with supply and demand in the labor market.
Recently, American corporations have begun to introduce innovations that have led Japanese firms to significant success. However, not all management methods used in Japan take root on American soil. This applies to the system of long-term or "lifelong employment" of workers, the formation of funds from deductions from the company's profits to meet the needs of workers, etc.
Stimulation of employees. In Japan, with a favorable financial situation, bonuses are paid twice a year (each time two to three monthly salaries). Payments and benefits are made from social funds: partial or full payment for housing, medical insurance and maintenance costs, contributions to pension funds, delivery to work by company transport, organization of collective recreation, etc.
In America, employee incentives are much lower than in Japan, although the income of the president of a large American corporation is, on average, three times higher than that of the president of a Japanese firm.
financial policy. Part of the profits of the branch of the Japanese company (up to 40%) is used by them independently. The profit is directed to the rationalization of production, to the reduction of material costs and the introduction of new resource-saving technologies, to the modernization of equipment. Borrowing is widespread.
In America, the administration of the company redistributes profits between departments. Expansion of production through the purchase (acquisition, merger) of other corporations. Self-financed corporations.
Each of the models of organization management that we have considered has its pros and cons for a particular culture, a particular country. It is impossible to transfer one management model to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.
Conclusion
1) American management has made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of management. The experience of management and planning in US firms and corporations, taking into account specific conditions and specifics, can be used in practice in large Russian holdings, corporations and joint-stock companies.
2) The Japanese management model has also significantly influenced the theory and practice of management. Firstly, it is a complex of forms and methods of personnel management, used in leading Japanese companies and providing an increased return on hired personnel. These are the recruitment system, remuneration, incentive system and methods, vocational training and advanced training; secondly, the methodology and practice of making and implementing management decisions; thirdly, the system of organizational and managerial measures used to increase labor productivity, production efficiency and product quality. Japanese managers have developed a specific management mechanism that makes more active use of the "human factor" in management, directing the hidden creative abilities of employees to ensure profit maximization.
3) Currently, a new, Russian model of economic management is being formed, and each of its successes or failures has an impact on the standard of living of the population. New terms are being formed, a new understanding of the role of those involved in management. In other words, the image of a modern entrepreneur is beginning to take shape - a person who owns property, uses hired labor, takes on the functions of strategic management in order to maximize profits. A leader of a new type should be based on universal ethical values, master the theory, technique and art of influencing people around him, be open to innovations, to everything new.
Bibliography:
Imai M. - Kaizen: the key to the success of Japanese companies / Moscow 2006.
Kuritsyn A.N. - Secrets of effective work: experience of the USA and Japan / Moscow, 2001.
Dokuchaev M.V. - ECO // Problems of Corporate Governance in the USA, 2004 N1.
Klyuchko V.N. - Management in Russia and abroad // Corporate governance in Japan: features, models and development trends, 2006 N2.
Yurlov S., Levitsky P., Bregadze K. - The art of management // Seven "samurai", 2004 N4-5.
TABLE 1 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT MODELS
|
Comparison criterion |
American management model |
Japanese management model |
German (European) management model | |
|
States where the model is used |
USA, UK |
Japan |
Germany, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, France, Belgium | |
|
General characteristics |
A significant number of individual shareholders, independent, not related to the activities of the company. The developed legislative framework defines the rights and obligations of participants |
A significant number of banks and companies are the shareholders of the corporation. |
Participation of banks as long-term shareholders and representatives are elected to the board of directors. Bank financing is preferable to equity financing. | |
|
Key contributors |
Managers, directors, shareholders, exchanges, government |
Key bank and financial industrial network, board, government |
Banks, corporations | |
|
Shareholding structure |
Institutional investors (USA - 60%, UK - 65%), individual investors - 20% |
Insurance companies - 50%, foreign investors - 5%, corporations - 25%. |
Banks - 30%, corporations - 45%, pension funds - 3%, individual shareholders - 4% | |
|
Representation in management (board of directors) |
Insiders (persons who work for the company or are closely associated with it) Outsiders (persons not directly related to the corporation) Quantity from 13 to 15 people. |
Completely from internal participants. The State may name its representative. Quantity - up to 50 people. |
Bicameral Board of Directors: Supervisory Board (representatives of workers and shareholders) and Management Board. The number of members of the Supervisory Board from 9 to 20 people is established by law. | |
|
Information transparency requirements |
Quarterly report, annual report, including information about the directors, the number of shares they hold, salaries, data on shareholders owning more than 5% of the shares, information and mergers and acquisitions. |
Semi-annual report providing information on the capital structure, Board of Directors meetings, information on proposed mergers, amendments to the charter. The 10 largest shareholders of the corporation are reported. |
Semi-annual report indicating the capital structure, shareholders with 5% or more shares, information on possible mergers and acquisitions. | |
|
Decisions Requiring Shareholder Approval |
Election of directors, appointment of auditors, issue of shares, mergers, acquisitions, amendments to the articles of association. |
Payment of dividends, election of directors, amendments to the charter, mergers, acquisitions. |
Distribution of income, ratification of decisions of the Supervisory Board and the Board, elections of the Supervisory Board | |
|
Relationships and interests of participants |
Shareholders may exercise their voting rights by mail or power of attorney without being present at the shareholders' meeting. |
Corporations are interested in long-term and affiliated shareholders. Annual meetings of shareholders are formal. |
Most German corporation shares are bearer shares. Banks, with the consent of shareholders, dispose of the votes at their own discretion. There is no possibility of absentee voting, the obligatory presence of a shareholder at a meeting or the transfer of this right to a bank. |
TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF AMERICAN AND JAPANESE MANAGEMENT MODELS
|
Japanese management model |
American management model | |
|
1. Management decisions are made collectively. 2. Collective responsibility. 3. Non-standard, flexible management structure. 4. Informal organization of control. 5. Collective control. 6. Slow evaluation of the employee's work and career growth. 7. The main quality of a leader is the ability to coordinate actions and control. 8. Orientation of actions to the group. 9. Evaluation of management to achieve harmony in the team and the collective result. 10. Personal informal relationships with subordinates. 11. Promotion by seniority and length of service. 12. Training of leaders of a universal type. 13. Remuneration of labor according to the performance of the group, seniority. 14. Long-term employment of the head in the company. |
1. Individual nature of decision-making. 2. Individual responsibility. 3. Strictly formalized management structure. 4. Clearly formalized control procedure. 5. Individual control 6. Rapid assessment of the result of labor, accelerated promotion. 7. The main quality of a leader is professionalism and initiative. 8. Orientation of management to an individual. 9. Evaluation of management by individual result. 10. Formal relationship with subordinates. 11. Business career is driven by personal results. 12. Highly specialized managers. 13. Remuneration based on individual achievements. 14. Employment for a short period. |
TABLE 3 The main characteristics of the status of the group in the management system and their use in different cultures of the national economy
|
Group work as a goal |
Group work as a means |
|
Way of life |
The path to rationalization |
|
natural behavior |
Implemented Behavior |
|
Habit |
Consciousness |
|
Efficiency |
Performance |
|
Quality and/or way to do better |
Way to do it cheaper |
One of the characteristic features of the development of management theory and practice in the West was the "Japanese breakthrough" of the late 70s - early 80s. It consists in recognizing certain advantages of production management in modern Japan in comparison with American management. Comparison of the characteristic features of the "Japanese style" of management with the American one is of considerable interest. Consideration of the "Japanese model" of management is all the more important because in the previous topics the emphasis was placed on the American experience of economic management.
In order to understand the systems of intra-company management in Japan and in comparison with American practice, one must first of all take into account the differences in the general economic and socio-cultural conditions of development in these countries. Here it is important to note the cultural traditions arising from the class structure of Japanese society in the past; developed psychology of subordination to power, relatively low social mobility of the population, the tendency of the Japanese to conformism, group cohesion.
The structure of financial capital in Japan is determined by the presence of a few powerful monopoly groups in it, headed by the largest banks, and is characterized by a close intertwining of interests of firms in them. In Japan, individual investors (individuals) own less than 1/10 of the capital of the 1000 largest corporations / 9-10 of it is owned by legal entities. Mutual share ownership is widespread, and the share of borrowed funds (80% versus 40%) in American corporations is high.
All activities in the management of Japanese corporations are greatly influenced by the subcontracting system - long-term relationships between a large parent company and many small and medium-sized enterprises (60% of all firms in the manufacturing industry participate in the subcontracting system).
Even a cursory comparison of the main management models allows us to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the last decade Americans have been making great efforts to clarify the essence of Japanese management methods and to apply elements of this experience in their enterprises. But there was a period when firms in Japan (in the 50s and 60s) adopted American principles of organizing production.
Table 7.1
Comparison of Japanese and American management systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Large firms in Japan pay workers compensation twice a year, which is the same percentage of their salary. This percentage depends only on the activities of the company as a whole. If the firm worked poorly, the payouts are less, if it works well, more. In the US, wages depend on the specific contribution of the worker, and it can rise, although the firm may be doing worse.
For those working in the PN system, rewards create a sense of belonging to the firm, because they are associated with it forever and, therefore, they know that an improvement in the position of the firm will necessarily affect their well-being. The regulation of payments makes it possible, in the event of a deterioration in the performance of the company, to reduce the salary fund to 30%, while not firing anyone. Every large firm in Japan has a large staff of temporary workers (mostly women, who are hired on MON only as a rare exception). They leave when the situation is unfavorable. There is no such category of employed in the USA.
The mechanism of using the factors of the PN system, such as trust, loyalty to the company and the desire for highly productive work, is the basis of theory 7. In contrast to Japanese specialists, in the United States, a highly qualified specialist is considered to be an employee who knows only his very narrow field of activity to the subtlety. A study of the service careers of senior management employees in fifty large US firms showed that they performed no more than two different functions in the process of promotion in the company, i.e. were, in essence, narrow specialists, and therefore their main concern was not the interests of the company, but the desire to keep the services they headed at a good level.
The functional narrowness of American executives also explains the phenomenon that was noticed by one of the Japanese managers, who worked as a link in an American firm for two years, which led him to bewilderment. We are talking about cocktails that American managers of various firms gather for and which, according to them, they simply hate.
It is known that some of the Japanese management innovations - "quality circles" and the "just in time" supply chain - originally originated in the United States, but did not spread there. However, the American methods of managing "human resources" did not take root on Japanese soil either.
American companies (General Motors), thanks to the "just in time" system, have significantly reduced the stock of raw materials, materials and components. The General Electric Company currently has about a thousand "quality circles" in its plants. About 2,000 American companies are members of the International Association of Quality Circles. The leaders of American firms are increasingly thinking about increasing the proportion of engineers in their factories, increasing the role of foremen in production, introducing targeted programs to increase labor productivity and save resources.
