Oct 2, 2009
Convergence/divergence: a temporal review of the Japanese enterprise and its management (Dunphy, 1987)
Dunphy, D. (1987). Convergence/divergence: a temporal review of the Japanese enterprise and its management.
“Evidence for and against convergence between Japanese and Western organizations is reviewed during specific historical periods, and the adequacy of competing models that explain differences between managerial practices in Japanese and Western enterprises is examined.”
Key issues in the convergence debate:
- “How do Western and Japanese organizations differ?”
- “Are these differences disappearing over time (convergence hypothesis) or being maintained (divergence hypothesis)?”
- “What theoretical viewpoint(s) best explains these trends?”
> Before 1970 – The Rise of Convergence Theory
Before 1970 convergence theory dominated and Japanese management practices were viewed (in the West) as an obstacle to Japanese economic growth. This was not an unanimous view, some obervers predicted selective adaptation of Western practice.
Others (e.g. Abegglen) saw the Japanese system as being founded in cultural and social systems which, while different from the West were not necessarily worse. Japanese writers tended to view their firms even more negatively than those in the West (e.g. Takezawa, Odaka, Imai) and argued for the introduction of a merit-based system. During the 50s and 60s Japanese firms (supported by the government) imported American technology and management practices and considered disposing of the seniority and lifetime employment systems but by the late 60s they decided that their systems were superior (based on Japanese success in the international arena).
At this point, American firms in Japan began to consider taking on Japanese practices and research focused on the differences between the two styles of organization. Such research focused on the ‘collective’ or ‘familial’ nature of the Japanese workplace, harmony, reciprocal obligation, and group motivation. Lacking here were explanations of (1) how such social values influenced managers and workers, and (2) how the system changes over time. Education levels were cited as one driver of change – better educated workers were more open to change, with their promotion to management level leading to the growth of more flexible organizations.
> 1970-1973 – Growing Doubts About Convergence With The West
A period of new theoretical exposition. Dore argued that Japan was creating new organizational and management forms which the West needed to converge to. Evans argued that Japanese systems were culture bound and thus convergence was irrelevant. Cole viewed Japanese management in terms of functional alternatives.
The lifetime employment system became one focal point of debate. Some noted the lower level of employee mobility in Japan but stressed that ‘lifetime employment’ was not an accurate term. Others saw lifetime employment as the rational response of employees to the reward structures of their employers and not necessarily a culture-based system.
Another stream of research furthered understanding of the relationship (or lack of relationship) between Japanese values and business practice. This led to interest in the practices of Japanese firms abroad.
> 1974-1977 – Strategic Choice Versus Determinism
A period of detailed case studies of Japanese organizations (e.g. Harmony and Strength (Rohlen, 1974)) illustrated how cultural values were conciously selected by management to support company policy/ideology. Other case studies focused on the link between strategy and structure (particularly Zaibatsu and Zaibatsu-like structures). Some studies noted the way that Japanese managers employed Western practices in the pursuit of Japanese goals.
Personnel practices were also examined.
The exportabilty of Japanese practices came under consideration. Some predicted eventual convergence to Western norms while others argued that uniquely Japanese practices would lead to acceptance and success internationally. The majority of empirical work focused on firms in the U.S. and reported the success of such practices to varying degrees.
England’s manager-employee comparative value studies showed a particularly homogeneous manager class (pragmatic, competence and acheivement valuing) which developed in response to both industrialization-stage and cultural factors. Other studies illustrated the power of unique culture on employee values.
> 1978-1980 – Comparative Studies of Personnel Practices
The majority of studies focusing on Japanese operations in the U.S. did not identify large differences in terms of performance and management practices (apart from manager initiated communication, consultative decision making, reduced job specialization) between U.S. companies and U.S. subsidiaries of Japanese firms. Other studies identified clearer differences.
Together, these studies suggest company culture is determined by
- industrialization-stage,
- parent company national culture, and
- local culture.
Ouichi and colleagues’ described a new form of organization – Type Z - which was a hybrid of Type A (Western) and Type J (Japanese and Chinese).
Power and control, paternalism and seniority based systems of employment in Japan also become topics of interest.
> 1981-1983 The Emergence of Voluntarism
Continued disagreement about convergence. One the one hand it was argued that the Japanese system was unique and had developed from a specific social and cultural context which, barring major social change, prevented convergence on management practices. On the other hand increasing convergence was noted, and hybrid models of management continued to be promoted. Other studies continued the argument that while Japanese practices are unique they are not culture-bound, nor does culture prevent the introduction of new ideas.
Concerning the high performance of Japanese firms, some maintained that personnel practices were the key while others cited alternative factors such as production management techniques.
A metacultural perspective offered by Howard and Teramoto (1981) suggested that the Japanese were able to understand and deal with social practices beacause of their ‘more elaborate vocabulary for social processes’.
Dunphy, D. (1987). Convergence/divergence: a temporal review of the Japanese enterprise and its management. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 445-58.
