INFORMATION TO USERS

While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example:

• Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

• Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages.

• Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print.

Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order Number 8726664

Organizational adaptation of Japanese companies in the United States

Ito, Kinko, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1987

Copyright ©1987 by Ito, Kinho. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark •/ .

1. Glossy photographs or pages_____

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides______of page

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in______spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print _ _ _ _ _

11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages _ _ / 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received v /

16. Other______

University Microfilms International ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION OF JAPANESE COMPANIES

IN THE UNITED STATES

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of the Ohio State University

By

Kinko Ito, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1987

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

R.C. Hinkle

G.J. Hinkle

T. Koizumi

Co-advisors Department of Sociology Copyright by Kinko Ito 1987 To My Parents

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Gisela J. Hinkle, Dr. Roscoe C. Hinkle, and Dr. Tetsunori Koizumi for their patience, support, and guidance throughout my graduate school days at the Ohio State University. Without them I would not have made it this far. I also want to thank the many faculty members, colleagues, and secretaries of the Department of Sociology who gave me insights about social life, psychological support, and fun. All these people made my stay in the department enjoyable and memorable.

Sociology is truly a human business. Since it studies human societies and human beings in social settings, its research requires cooperation from the people studied. I feel very lucky to have met all the mangers and workers, both Japanese and American, by chance and also through the networks of their friends, acquaintances, and relatives. Had it not been for their understanding, help, and encouragement, this dissertation would have been impossible. I thank them for their kindness and contribution.

I am very grateful to my friends, many of whom are international students themselves, for their understanding, friendship, and support. I will always remember those bowling nights, Casa Lupita nights, visiting Cedar Point (especially Demon Drop!), and many paseos.

To my "producers", Kunio Ito and Teruko Ito, I offer sincere thanks for their unspoken yet very strong love and support throughout the years when I was absent from Japan. I am a modern woman and I may appear to value my individual aspiration and success over my filial duty, but you are always in my thoughts. To my brother Seiji, thanks for your understanding. VITA

October 20th, 1957...... Born in Kasugai, Japan

1980...... B.A. (English), Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan

1982...... M.A. (Sociology), The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1982-1987...... Graduate Teaching Associate Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Sociology

Minor Field: Linguistics

Studies in Social Psychology Dr. Gisela Hinkle

Studies in Social Theory Dr. Roscoe Hinkle Dr. Gisela Hinkle

Studies in Complex Organization Dr. Ronald Corwin

Studies in Japanese Business Dr. Tetsunori Koizumi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii VITA...... iv

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE PROBLEM STATED...... 1

II. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATION...... 8 2.1 Organization and Society...... 9 2.2 Organization, Environment, and Adaptation...... 9 2.3 Culture as Environment...... 13 2.4 Organizations in the United States: Towad the Construction of a Hypothesis...... 21

III. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY...... 28 3.1 Review of Organizational Methodology...... 28 3.2 Ideal Types and History...... 30 3.3 Research Design - Triangulation...... 32 3.4 Settings...... 32 3.5 Entry by Networks...... 34 3.6 Japanese Customs and Manners - My Lebenswelt...... 39 3.7 Interview as Methodology...... 40 3.8 Making Appointments With Interviewees...... 41 3.9 Interview as Interaction...... 42 3.10 Interview Sites...... 43 3.11 Situational Talk As Source of Data...... 45 3.12 Participant Observation...... 47 3.13 Note Taking...... 48 3.14 Leaving The Field...... 49 3.15 Keeping In Touch...... 50 3 .16 Transcription of Interview Tapes...... 50 3.17 Survey Design...... 51 3.18 General Characteristics of The Manufacturing Sample....51 3.19 Date Collection...... 52 3.20 Validity...... 52

IV. HISTORY AND NATURE OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS IN JAPAN AND ABROAD...... 54 4.1 Brief Economic and Industrial History of Japan...... 54 4.2 Japanese Organizations in Japan...... 60 4.3 Structural Aspects of Japanese Organizations in Japan...... 63

v (1) Lifetime Commitment (Shushin koyo sei)...... 63 (2) Recruitment...... 66 (3) Training In Organization (Education and Socialization)...... 67 (4) The Nenko Pay System and "Holism"...... 70 (5) The Decision-Making Systen (Ringi &Nemawashi ).... 73 (6) Slow Evaluation and Promotion...... 75 4.4 Informal Organization And The Problem Of Solidarity....76 (1) Sense of Belonging -- Identification...... 76 (2) Tsukiai (Afterwork fraternalization)...... 77 (3) Oyabun-kobun (Godfather - Godson)...... 79 (4) Sempai-kohai (Senior -junior)...... 81 (5) Implicit Control Mechanisms...... 82 4.5 Japanese Organizations Abroad...... 83 (1) Kikkoman...... 84 (2) C. Itoh & Sumitomo...... 85 (3) Matsushita Quasar...... 88

V. A STUDY OF ADAPTATION OF JAPANESE BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE AMERICAN MIDWEST...... 96 5.1 Structural and Managerial Practices...... 96 (1) General Structure of Organization...... 96 (2) Recruitment...... 98 ( 3 ) Training...... 100 (4) The Pay System, Benefits, and Holism...... 100 (5) Ringi Decision-Making System...... 106 (6) Teamwork and Cooperation...... 108 (7) Egalitarianism...... 110 5 .2 Enhancing Social Solidarity in the United States...... Ill (1) Social Activities and Social Relations...... Ill (2) The Family Feeling and Job Satisfaction...... 115 5.3 Work Assessments of the American and Japanese Workers: Similarities and Differences...... 115 (1) The American Workers...... 118 (2) The American Attitude Toward The Japanese...... 120 (3) Americans' Utilitarian Orientation...... 121 (4) The "Mission" of Japanese Business...... 122 5.4 Organizational Acceptance: Japanese Business Practices and the American Core Values...... 124 (1) Pay - Material Comfort/Success...... 129 (2) Benefits - Humanitarian More...... 130 (3) Bonus & Promotion - Achievement & Success...... 130 (4) Uniform, Cafeteria, & Parking - Equality...... 131 (5) Ringi Decision-making System - Democracy...... 132 (6) Social Relations & Overtime - Activity & Work..... 133

VI. A STUDY OF COMMUNICATION-INTERACTION IN JAPANESE BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE AMERICAN MIDWEST...... 136 6.1 Introduction...... 136 6.2 Communication Problems in Japanese Organizations in The United States...... 138 (1) The Background...... 138

vi (2) The Problems...... 139 6.3 Attempts at Correction of the Communication Problems...147 (1) Raising the voice...... 147 (2) Speaking in a simple manner...... 148 (3) Avoiding possible misunderstanding...... 148 (4) Slowing down and speaking distinctively...... 148 (5) Listening carefully...... 148 (6) Visual Communication...... 149 (7) Use of Japanese Words...... 149 (8) English Study...... 150 (9) Socialization..;...... 151 (10) The Suggestion Box...... 152 (11) The Open Door Policy...... 153 6.4 Analysis of Communcation Problems...... 154 (1) Non-verbal Communication...... 157 (2) Communication Via Talk...... 161 (3) Rituals as Communication...... 170 (4) Recruitment and Its High Context Interviews...... 180 (5) Values, Self-ceoncept and Interaction...... 183 (6) Summary...... 192

VII. CONCLUSION...... 194

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 200

APPENDIX 220 Chapter 1 : The Problem Stated

In recent years, there has been a growing interest and concern among social scientists as to the reasons behind Japan's economic success and the high productivity of its labor and capital resources. It has also become an international political issue in regard to the U.S. trade deficit, Japan's protectionism, and its free ride on defense. Because of the country's success, much attention has been paid to Japanese business practices and to the distinctive character­ istics- -such as ringi (consensus) decision-making systems, lifetime commitment, small-group orientation (e.g., quality control circles [QC] and zero-deficit circles [ZD]), welfare and fringe benefits, and informal structure and interactional patterns. They pertain to stable and powerful business organizations in Japan. These organizational features and policies, along with the social, political, and cultural environment of Japan, have frequently been considered as the keys to the recent Japanese success (Abegglen 1958; Brown 1968; Cole 1971; Dore 1973; Koizumi 1982; Matsumoto 1982; McMillan 1984; Mito 1981; Moriguchi 1983; Ouchi 1981; Pascale & Athos 1981; Pegels 1984; Prasad 1968; Sethi et al.1984; Taylor 1983; Tsurumi 1978; Vogel 1979).

Today, Japanese technology, including production and management, is exported to many countries, both industrialized and developing, as they are pressed to follow Japanese economic development and success. As a matter of fact, the 1980s saw the advent of Japanese direct investment (operation of subsidiaries) in the United States, partially as the result of its international economic success and the U.S. government's insistence on mitigating the trade imbalance between the two nations. Millions of cars, motorcycles, electronic appliances, musical instruments, food products, and so on have already been, and still are being, produced by the U.S. labor force under Japanese brand names.

Theoretically, this study investigates the questions of adaptation of a Japanese organization to a new U.S. environment; specifically it examines several Japanese companies that expanded their business to the Midwest in the 1980s. If we consider these Japanese organizations as "open systems" which are isomorphic with their environment (Hawley 1950; 1968) and that there exists organizational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1984) in which their unique form and shape are retained for stability and accountability, then this question arises: Does an organization need to adapt to its new environment when it moves to a foreign country and if so, how? This poses additional related questions: Were there any significant

1 2 problems as a result of the fact that the Japanese organization took with it production technology (hardware) and managerial skills (software) to the United States? How does the organizational environment of the United States, such as laws, economy, quality of labor force, and work ethics, influence the life chances and survival of an organization? How does a Japanese organization adapt to its new and different environment, which is often filled with uncertainty and threats? How does it cope with participants whose cultural backgrounds are different?

If an organization is seen as an open system, it is seen as existing in its particular political, technological, and sociocultural environment. By definition, an environment of a system includes "everything that is not-system" (Scott 1981, p.165). The open rational system models which dominated the field since the early 1960s contend that organizations strive "to design their structures rationally" and "to develop the most effective and efficient structures" (Ibid, p.130) in order to attain their clear-cut goals. Executives and managers are involved in the rational planning of the organization as decision makers. The open natural system models emphasize the importance of environment as the determinant of the life chances and behavior of organizations. Survival takes precedence over goal attainment, and participants are viewed as having particular attitudes, ideas, expectations, interests, and motivations.

Fundamentally, organizations, as open systems, have to deal with two kinds of organizational environment: (1) the external environment and (2) the internal environment, both of which play an important role in determining organizational survival and life chances as well as prosperity. External environment refers to the broader, surrounding environment in which an organization exists. This encompasses elements such as the governments (federal, state, and local), economy (labor practices, laws such as affirmative-action laws, money market, etc.), the system of resources, other organizations, transportation systems, social structure (open class system, demography, urbanization, education, etc.), and the prevailing culture of the society. In a word, the external environment entails all the elements given to the organization.

As far as the external environment is concerned, organizations expanding their business abroad usually do not have control over and cannot exert influence on these pre-existing factors of the host society. As a result, the adaptation is one-sided. The organization must observe the federal, state, or local laws, it must respond appropriately to the U.S.economy, fit the social definition of what an organization is, and also accommodate the participants' feelings and emotions about certain things. In other words, impression management is not limited to individuals. Organizations need to "look good" in the eyes of the public, conforming to the societal norms and becoming isomorphic with their environment (Meyer and Rowan 1977). Gaining economic and social legitimacy, that is, obtaining acceptance by the environment, is crucial for organizational survival. 3

Internal environment refers to the organizational context of participants and focuses on aspects such as the managerial practices and policies and the latent social identity (Gouldner 1957; 1959) including norms, values, beliefs, and socialization of the participants. Unlike the external environment, the organization, however, has some control over its internal environment. It can change its managerial practices or adopt a new company philosophy to suit the participants' needs or train workers in such a way as to maximize the effects of its policies and goals.

If a Japanese company has a good market and is successful in Japan, then it is well adjusted to both external and internal environments. Though organizations generally have little control over the government and its policies, the Japanese government has traditionally worked with the private sector, guiding and protecting it by tax credits and economic planning through Tsusansho or the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), and Keizai Kikaku Cho (Economic Planning Agency). This unusually "friendly" external environment is considered to be one of the factors that has led to the miraculous success of Japanese business firms in the last few decades. Furthermore, as far as the internal social factors are concerned, Japan is a homogeneous country with one culture, language, and race, and, in general, most workers are more alike in their cultural, educational, and social backgrounds than is the case in the United States.

For the Japanese organization in the United States, on the other hand, the U.S. sociopolitical and cultural environments are very different from those at home and rather hostile and "turbulent," filled with uncertainties, threats, and interdependency. This obliges the Japanese organization to make adaptations to its new external and internal environments in order to survive.

Basically, there are two kinds of adaptation: (1) External, or organizational adaptation and (2) Internal adaptation, that is adaptation on the structural, group, or individual level. Although both kinds of adaptation are significant to this study, we will deal primarily with internal adaptation. _

In other words, this dissertation seeks to describe and analyze the internal adaptation that takes place when a new Japanese organization enters the U.S. setting. We will pay special attention to its sociocultural environment, including the U.S. workers. For instance, what aspects of the parent company are retained in the new organization? How does it accommodate the emotions and feelings of the participants of both cultural traditions? Can American and Japanese workers work in harmony? In order to address these questions of adaptation, as well as the others, we will present the reality of everyday life in a Japanese organization in the Midwest, including its structure, managerial practices, social activities, and relations. Then, we will pay special attention to how the 4

participants understand one another and work together in harmony despite their differences in values and expectations. The descriptive and explanatory part is a qualitative case study of a medium-sized manufacturing company in the Midwest done by open-ended and in-depth interviewing. Questionnaires with the Lickert scale of strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree were made from data gathered in this case study and were circulated in several Japanese organizations in the Midwest in order to test generalizability. The results of the survey are presented along with the answers to the interview questions.

Among the specific questions to be addressed are the following: 1. Do Japanese organizations in the United States operate differently compared with Japanese organizations in Japan? 2. If so, in what aspects do they differ, and what are the social, economic, political, and cultural factors affecting the difference? 3. How are sociocultural backgrounds and assumptions (i.e., norms, values, beliefs, ways of life, etc.) different from one culture to the other and how do they influence the U.S. and Japanese workers when they work together? 4. What kind of interactional problems do Americans and Japanese face when they work in the same place?

Significance of Study The socioeconomic phenomenon of the advent of Japanese organizations in the United States is a relatively new phenomenon that emerged in the last few decades, and especially in the 1980s. In the summer of 1945, no American could imagine that the Japanese, who unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Forces and whose country was totally- devastated during the World War II, would expand their business to the United States not only with the fruits of its modern technology but also by establishing branch offices and factories. To many Americans, this is nothing but a "crisis." With more and more Japanese investment in the U.S., the 1980s marked the end of one era and opening of another. The existence of Japanese companies in the U.S. economy is conspicuous. In a word, "migration" of Japanese businesses to the United States is still in the evolutionary process. This notion of the social process of "emergence" or "change" is firmly rooted in the tradition of American sociology (Hinkle 1980).

The notion of adaptation and evolution presupposes the preceding state from which the new emerges. Thus, it is possible to compare the original state with the result of adaptation/evolution. In our case, we are comparing Japanese organizations in Japan with those in the United States focusing on what kind of adaptation and change occur and why. The comparative method has been the core of the methodology of such classical sociologists as Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. The study of the evolutionary and adaptive process of the Japanese organizations in the United States thus contributes to sociological theory and especially social ontology. 5

The understanding of Japanese organizations and their impact on the United States is vital in times when more business are internationalized and the U.S. trade deficit has been creating antagonistic feelings towards Japan. Japanese organizations play an important role as "American" companies in the United States offering job opportunities to local workers and paying taxes. They have tremendous impact on the U.S. and international economy, often bringing social change to their immediate environment as well. For instance, the expanding organizations bring over many Japanese families, whose impacts on the community can be quite great in some cases. In one community in a Midwestern state, some of the elementary and junior high schools have Japanese students comprising more than 10% of the school population. Many new people mean new markets: they need houses, apartments, cars, supermarkets, shopping malls, restaurants, and so on, which may change the existing economic conditions of the community. Thus, these organizations bring institutional changes (e.g., economy, education, politics, etc.) to the host society.

The number of Japanese companies operating in the United States has been increasing, and there have been, and will be, more and more U.S. workers who will work with the Japanese and will be exposed to Japanese management style and culture. Fortune magazine reports that, "... Japanese corporations own 50% or more of at least 400 U.S. assembly or manufacturing companies, employing some 110,000 people" (Fortune, 12/22/1986, p.48). Newsweek also reports:

"According to the best statistics available, nearly 250,000 Americans work for Japan Inc., making it one of the largest and fastest-growing employers in the United States. Tokyo's Ministry of International Trade and Industry predicts Japanese investment will spawn an additional 840,000 American jobs in the next decade -- an estimate some analysts consider conservative." (Newsweek 2/2/1987, p.42)

On the organizational level, if the internal adaptation of a Japanese organization is problematic and conflict laden, this will influence the functioning of the organization and the well-being of the participants. Understanding how workers mitigate the cultural friction or conflict (if any) is thus important.

Unlike many economists who emphasize the universality of business organizations, we shall focus on this economic phenomenon, that is, operation of Japanese complex organizations in the United States, using sociocultural and historical frameworks. Since literature on complex organization tends to stress primarily aspects of organizational structure, such as size and technology, and quantitative analysis of it, the present study is particularly important. Following a Japanese precedent (Hamaguchi 1985; 1986), we shall adopt the distinction of culture and civilization. Culture 6

consists of specific material and non-material ways of life, including technology, beliefs, values, norms, and emotions. Civilization, on the other hand, is purely objective, more general and universal to many industrialized nations of the world today (Hamaguchi 1985, Pp.180-181). It includes complex division of labor, industrialization and urbanization. This study will deal with the organization on the cultural level, for the purpose of contributing to the understanding of the nature of problems which arise between the groups characterized by different cultures in a work place.

The intercultural examination of internal organizational adaptation and worker interaction is important not only as applied knowledge for management and the workers but also because it is often the case that organizational conflict comes from people's misunderstanding or misperception of one another, which is often on the unconscious level. What is taken for granted by the Japanese may not be what the Americans consider as common and vice versa. There are many culture-specific expectations and assumptions of one group that are not compatible with those of another. Modes of communication, work ethics, and orientations are examples. The executives or managers may lack anthropological and sociological knowledge, insights, and sensitivity to cultural aspects of business organizations and human behavior. This study will, I hope, shed some light on the problematic area of organization which comes from differences in participants' cultures and may be of interest to social scientists and also the general public, since the world is more and more internationalized in terms of the flow of information and the frequent contacts among nations.

Chapter 2 presents and discusses the theoretical orientations available in the social sciences. It also presents these perspectives in social organization and interaction which pertain to the problem of organizational adaptation, paying special attention to the open system models of complex organization and divergence theories. This chapter provides the theoretical framework for my research.

The first section of Chapter 3 reviews briefly the organizational methodologies used in the field of complex organizations. It presents the methodologies used in this study: methodologies of ideal types and historical sociology, survey design, and especially the problems of qualitative or ethnographic data gathering.

Chapter 4 includes a brief history of Japanese business, the construction of an ideal type of the Japanese companies in Japan and abroad, especially those in the United States, and theoretical discussions. This chapter describes and explains the unique features of Japanese business organizations in Japan which stem from the social, historical, economic, and cultural backgrounds of the country. The ideal type will help us compare the business organizations in 7

Japan to those abroad, enabling us to examine their adaptation to their new environments. The last section pays attention to the problems that three particular Japanese organizations in the United States have been facing and the adaptations they have had to make in the new environment.

.Ghapter 5 summarizes, discusses, and analyzes the research findings. It primarily deals with the problem of adaptation on the organizational level. It presents an ideal type of Japanese business organizations in the American Midwest. The structural and managerial practices are presented in a parallel manner to those in Chapter 4 so that we can see what kind of adaptation has actually taken place in the new environment.

The problem of intercultural communication and interaction is presented and discussed in Chapter 6. The problem of human interaction has been the focus of many sociologists including, Cooley, Mead, Blumer, as well as Goffman. The problems of communication-interaction are analyzed on the individual and group levels. The sociocultural framework of the anthropologist Edward Hall is used to analyze the problem.

Finally, Chapter 7 summarizes the research findings and discusses the contribution of this study to the field of complex organization, and suggests implications for further research. Chapter 2: Theoretical Perspectives on Organization

This chapter examines theoretical orientations and frameworks available in the literature of social sciences. Major perspective's in social organization and social interaction appropriate to the problem at hand are discussed with special attention to open systems models and divergence theories.

2.1 Organization and Society Ours is an organizational society, in which formal organizations from the supermarket to the government play important roles in everyday life and for the sustenance of society. Organizations form part of our relationship to society (Hall 1982) and are socially responsible institutions for employers, workers, customers, and communities (Etzioni-Halevy, 1981).

With the advent of modern industrialization, society and its institutions drastically changed. Today formal organizations have a greater impact on our economy, education, family life, religion, and culture than ever before. In particular, the private sector in the capitalistic social system has gained social, political, and economic power. The existence and operation of corporations influence our social life to a significant degree. For example, the decline of Detroit in the late 1970s brought many social problems. According to Douglas A. Fraser (1981), 240 thousand autoworkers at the Big Four (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors) were laid off in June 1980. In the winter of 1981, over 150 thousand workers still remained out of work. This massive increase in the rate of unemployment of U.S. autoworkers influenced the U.S. economy as a whole. As Fraser notes:

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, every job in auto creates 2.3 additional jobs in steel, rubber, glass, textiles and other industries. In terms of employment, the auto industry constitutes the largest single industrial sector in the U.S. economy." (Fraser 1982, p.57)

Unemployment became a very serious social and political issue, especially before the 1980 presidential election. Ironically "Engine Charlie" Wilson had said long before that "what is good for General Motors is good for the United States" (Christopher 1983, p.255).

8 «

One of the reasons for the lay off and unemployment was that car manufacturers in the United States did not respond, or adapt quickly enough, to the drastic change in their external environments. For example, the price of gas increased sixfold between 1970 and 1980, inflation caused a rise in the price of steel (raw materials) and the wages of employees, and the 1970s also saw the rise of environmental movements, which helped pass the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act in 1970 and 1972 respectively.

As a result, fuel-efficient Japanese compact and subcompact cars, which also satisfied the U.S. government's regulations for safety and pollution control, became very popular. According to Nippon Jidosha Kogyo Kai (Japan Auto Industry Association), 45% of Japanese car exports came to the United States in 1979. The popularity of the Japanese cars soon brought a setback for Detroit, changing the socioeconomic equilibrium that existed before. Many autoworkers made Japan a scapegoat and released their frustration and aggression by destroying Toyotas and Nissans in public.

The U.S. car manufacturers lagged behind the Japanese car manufacturers in terms of technological invention (production of subcompact and compact fuel-efficient cars with pollution-control devices) and creating new markets. They stuck to their old models, refusing to believe that consumer tastes had shifted from big, luxurious, gas-inefficient cars to small, practical, highly energy- efficient cars due to the higher prices of oil (Shimokawa 1981, Pp. 5-6, 211-217).

Organizational adaptation to the changing environment was crucial to the survival and growth of the Big Three, which had to invest a total of 80 billion dollars a year to renovate the outdated production facilities and processes that they had used since the 1930s before they could regain their economic strength in 1984. Organizations have to meet not only the domestic demands but also international competition and must adapt to their environment appropriately in order to succeed. Organizations play a more important role in an industrialized society and the world at large, influencing economic and political power as well as the psychological satisfaction and well-being of the workers.

2.2 Organization. Environment, and Adaptation No organization exists in a vacuum. Organizations are open systems that exist within a larger social system and its specific economic, political, demographic, ecological, cultural, and technological environments (Scott 1981, p.17). As subsystems of society, organizations, their structure and behavior reflect history, social institutions, interactional patterns, and culture--prevailing values, beliefs, meanings, and customs of the society in which they exist. 10

It is only from the 1960s on that sociologists studying complex organizations came to recognize the social environment as having an impact on organizations. This newer orientation, which is called the open system perspective, has roots in such works as those by Selznick (1947) and Hawley (1950; 1968). It has attracted much attention and considerable effort has been devoted since then to the development of the various models and theories within the framework.

In chapter 1, two specific kinds of organizational environment were discussed, namely, (1) the external environment, a broader environment in which an organization exists, including the government, economy, social structure, systems of resources, community, local demography, quality of labor, climate, and transportation systems; and (2) the internal environment, which includes managerial practices, company policies, philosophies, and activities. Organizations have some control over the internal environment while the elements of the external environment are given and are hard to manipulate. The following section discusses the interrelationship between organizations and their environment. It also examines theories of open system models (i.e., open rational system models and open natural system models), especially those that are relevant to Japanese organizations in the United States.

The resource dependence model (open natural system model) of organization considers that the environment has crucial influences on organizational survival. As Perrow notes, an environment is "always both a threat and a resource" (1970, p.112) and it often determines the fate and life chances of an organization. An organization needs to take in resources available (e.g., raw materials, finances, personnel, tax breaks, etc.) in the environment depends on other organizations for other resources. According to Koya Azumi, resources are "physical, social, and cultural items that entail at least some utility, and include natural resources, labor wealth, knowledge, legitimacy, coercive power, and any others that could conceivably be used for the attainment of some ends" (1972, p.93). Organizations are interdependent on their external environment: the products and services have to be desirable to and in demand by its environment. They need to contribute to the broader society in order to gain legitimacy.

Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) claim that no organization is self- sufficient, and"each owes its existence and legitimacy to its external environment. For example, a Japanese organization that expands its business to the United States must develop a symbiotic relationship with the new environment ir. terms of resources and outputs and comply with the U.S. regulations and laws in order to gain legitimacy. It cannot expect as amicable and supportive a relationship with the U.S. government, as with the Japanese government. The operation of the Japanese organization is also influenced by other aspects of its external environment such as the U.S. economy, its industrial structure, quality of local labor force available, domestic and international markets, and the dollar-yen 11 exchange rate, all of which influence the success of the company to a significant degree.

For example, Osumi and Matsushita (1983) consider it an important task for the Japanese automakers that expanded to the United States to make as much profit as they do in Japan because of the U.S. economic and industrial system of production, which differs from that of Japan. In Japan, the automakers depend on their subsidiaries for more than 75% of parts. The Japanese dual economic system contains multilayers of specialized subcontract organizations, which are functional to the automakers as a buffer in times of change in quantity of orders and prices. They are the first to go out of business. This base of production increases price competitiveness for the larger manufacturers in Japan (Ibid, p.51).

Gaining legitimacy in an organizational environment is a very important factor in the survival and possible growth of an organization. Organizations must survive in an environment that is often turbulent--unpredictable, uncertain, and unstable. According to resource dependence theorists, organizations go through structural changes in order to neutralize these elements of environmental uncertainty. For example, Thompson (1967) argues that organizations create closed systems in their most important areas (i.e., structural units with primary or core technology), by rationally buffering their core technology, and sealing and protecting it from outside disturbances. This buffering is possible since organizations are relatively loosely coupled systems whose strata or departments have a life of their own, at the same time as they are interdependent on each other.

There are several buffering and bridging strategies that reduce uncertain elements in the environment and enhance chances of organizational survival: coding, leveling, forecasting, bargaining, contracting, cooptation, joint ventures, mergers, and governmental connections (Scott 1981, Pp.190-203). Once legitimacy is gained, reciprocal impact and influence exist between an organization and its environment. As Pfeffer and Salancik note, "'Environment' is not only a given, to be absorbed, avoided, or accepted. It is itself the dynamic outcome of the actions of many formal organizations seeking their own interests" (1978, p.190).

Philip Selznick, in his book TVA and the Grass Roots. introduced a novel and significant concept of cooptation which refers to an organizational mechanism of incorporating outside people into "the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization" (1949, p.13) in order to gain support from the organizations these leaders represent. Cooptation reduces external threats and increases the organizational stability in the environment. Selznick pointed out that an organization actively Interacts with its environment, the effect of which alters both the organization and its environment. Institutionalization (Selznick 1957) in which organizations get infused with the social norms, ideologies, and values often takes 12 place as the result of the interaction.

Organizations attempt to deal with and manipulate the environment to their own benefit. They make strategic choices that best suit the present conditions that they face, utilize their alternatives, and adjust their organizational structure and managerial practices appropriately. This perspective which is called rational adaptation theory, emphasizes the role of the management (or the dominant coalitions within the organization) as decision makers. The decisions "are made within the internal political context" (Hall, 1982, p.317). Variations in organizational types are the result of organizational planning that intends to cope with the environment to their best advantage.

The environment as a source of information and a stock of resources plays an important role for organizational adaptation (Aldrich & Mindlin 1978). Lawrence and Lorsch's contingency theory (1967) argues that organizations and their subunits have to adapt to the requirements imposed by different environments. They studied organizations in the plastics, food processing, and standardized container industries and found that the subunits of the organization develop differentiated characteristics depending on uncertainty and rates of change in technologies or market conditions. Their structures may be more or less highly formalized and hierarchical, exhibiting a higher or lower goal specificity due to their environmental requirements.

Organizations can make strategic choices, but there are limitations because of legal and economic barriers and market change. The external environment is a vital factor for the success of organizations, especially those that expand their business to another country, society, and culture since the organizations often have little or no control over it. They must justify their right to exist in their new environments, and this legitimacy is subject to change because of its conferred status. It is bound up with social norms and values as Pfeffer and Salancik say:

"Because organizations are only components of a larger social system and depend upon that system's support for their continued existence, organizational goals and activities must be legitimate or of worth to that larger social system" (1978, p.193).

Meyer and Rowan (1977), who use an institutional approach, or the open natural system model, consider that organizations must rationally adapt to their environment and social institutions in order to survive. The natural system model maintains that organizational survival is the first priority of an organization and that goal attainment is possible only with secured survival. The normative aspects of organization and organizing are emphasized in their theory. The organizational structures must not only incorporate, imitate, and adopt the prevailing social and cultural 13 values, Ideologies, norms, and practices but also conform to the nation's laws and policies.

The rationalized formal structures that emerge from the adaptation to the larger institutional demands are called "myths" (Meyer & Rowan 1977), because they cannot be empirically verified but are widely believed. Many organizations adopt them ceremonially in order to gain resources, increase their legitimacy, and secure chances of survival. Conformity to the prevailing cultural and social norms neutralizes possible sources of threat or uncertainty in the organization's environment. Organizations thus tend to become structurally isomorphic (Hawley 1950; 1968) with their environments by adopting these myths and ceremonies uncritically. An organization needs to look good in the eyes of the public, and good impression management is not limited to individuals. Organizations need to fit the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckman 1967); they must conform to the general public's ideal image of them. Though myths are often adopted at the expense of organizational efficiency, organizations must also give the impression that these "myths" are actually working "efficiently."

Meyer and Rowan (1977) claim that many universities, for example, hire Nobel Prize winners as their faculty members, paying them much higher salaries and providing technologically advanced (and thus very expensive) devices for their future research. This practice does not lead to an immediate and improved productivity, but their renowned names attract more research grants and funding from outside sources, and brighter students. They gain for the institution national and international reputation, and prestige, thus benefitting it as a whole in the long run. This ritualistic practice of hiring the Nobel Prize winners, "maintains appearances and validates an organization" (Meyer & Rowan 1977, p.545). As Meyer and Rowan note, "organizations that incorporate societally legitimated rationalized elements in their formal structures maximize their legitimacy and increase their resources and survival capabilities" (Ibid p.543). Organizational adaptation is thus indispensible for survival in the environment. One problem with this model is that there is no clear- cut criteria for myth and ceremonial structures. For example, while hiring the Nobel Prize Winners may be ceremonial, they, nevertheless, bring their specialized knowledge and hard work. Their functions are not merely ceremonial.

2.3 Culture as Environment The importance of the organizational environment has been recognized again in recent years (Lawrence & Lorsch 1967; Perrow 1967; Thompson 1967; Meyer & Rowan 1977; Aldrich & Mindlin 1978; Pfeffer & Salancik 1978; Hannan & Freeman 1977, 1984), but in general culture has been treated as rather a residual category in the literature of complex organizations within sociology, and is "the most neglected aspect of environment-organization relation" (Scott 1981, p.165). The concept of culture as environment has not 14

"received nearly as much attention as has its subcomponent, technology" (Azuni & Hull 1981, p.200), and relatively little progress has been made in the area of the cultural aspects of organizations.

The experiences of multinational corporations and projects often give us the impression that culture, including the values and behavior patterns of the people, does affect how organizations are structured and work. However, as Richard Hall notes, it is still to be determined "whether culture overrides other factors in determining how an organization is shaped and operates" (1982, p.232).

Smircich (1983) examined the significance of the concept of culture for organizational analysis. Culture has been an important concept not only for anthropology but also for several other social sciences, such as economics, sociology, and management. Unfortunately, no consensus exists for its definition, and even within the fields of anthropology there exist diverse definitions that emphasize different aspects of culture.

Smircich categorized research in several "thematic," or content, areas dealing with culture and organization, as follows:

1. cross-cultural or comparative management 2. corporate culture 3. organizational cognition 4. organizational symbolism 5. unconscious process and organization (1983, p.342)

Each category has a different concept or idea of culture. For example, both the cross-cultural or comparative management and corporate-culture perspective conceive organizations as organisms, but the former considers culture as part of environment, while the latter views it as a result of human enactment. The organization- cognition perspective perceives organizations as systems of knowledge, and culture as a system of shared cognitions, while the organization-symbolism perspective views organizations as patterns of symbolic discourse and culture as a system of shared meanings. The unconscious-process and organization perspective stems from Levi- Strauss's structuralism and focuses on organizational forms and practices as the manifestations of unconscious process.

There has been a line of research which sheds light upon the notion of culture as organizational context and environment in the area of cross-cultural or comparative management. They can be broadly categorized into convergence theories and divergence theories. Some of these studies are descriptive and explanatory case studies while others are comparative using quantitative data.

Convergence theories emphasize organizational contextual variables such as technology and size as determining factors accounting for organizational structural variables such as 15 formalization and specialization. Convergence theories (e.g., Hickson et al. 1974; Tracy & Azumi 1976; Lincoln et al. 1978; Marsh & Mannari 1981) argue that there is no relation between culture and structural variables. Organizational structures (e.g., specialization, centralization, formalization) are similar if they share certain common characteristics such as size and technology, regardless of the country from which they originate.

For example, Woodward (1965) pointed out that the nature of technology which an organization utilizes generally determines several critical organizational structure. Technical complexity (i.e., unit and small batch production, large batch and mass production, and process production) is consistently related to the features of the management that include chain of command, span of control, size of administrative structure and flexibility of managerial system (Woodward 1965, Pp.51-67).

Marsh & Mannari (1981) in their studies of Japanese factories found that structural differentiation and formalization were determined more by the size of the factory while technology was a major determinant for certain other aspects of organization such as labor inputs, union recognition, costs and wages, etc.

A series of studies done by the Aston Group of the University of Aston in Birmingham, England in the 1960s and 1970s (The latter studies are replications and extensions of the original studies.) emphasize the impact of size on organizational structure. They sampled manufacturing organizations, some government agencies, and labor unions in England and found that size is positively related to structural differentiation and negatively to concentration of authority. According to them, size is more important than other variables such as culture and environment (i.e., social, political, technological, and economic conditions).

Hickson et al. (1974) studied comparatively 70 manufacturing units in the United States, Britain, and Canada and found that the relationships between size and specialization and formalization, and those between dependence and autonomy hold true for work organizations in all these societies. However, their data were gathered only in three Western, industrialized, Anglo-Saxon societies. Further investigation is needed to confirm whether their conclusion applies to organizations somewhere else.

Kerr et al. (1973) pointed out that industrial societies will become much more alike in their institutions regardless of their original societal forms. This logic of industrialism states that each society's unique tradition will be less visible and that highly industrialized societies tend to resemble one another. The same will hold true for management and managerial practices.

Max Weber's theory on modernization is also relevant here (1930; 1947). In his theory much attention is paid to the issue of social 16 change and the process of social transition. Weber considered that the world as a whole was becoming more rational and demystified. Particular ways of an administration, and justice which rule under rational laws, and bureaucracy characterize both socioeconomic and political organizations of a modern society. The concept of modernization has often been equated with Westernization, and virtually this type of the most "rational" form of organizations will be conspicuous in all industrialized nations.

Though modernization may take place at different times in different places, according to convergence theorists, all societies will eventually share common features such as an industrialized market economy, continuous economic growth, a high degree of division of labor, bureaucracy, a high rate of literacy, social mobility, low birth and death rates and even certain personality traits. Accordingly social organizations, including complex organizations, eventually look alike regardless of their origin.

It seems that convergence theory has much explanatory power in categorizing various organizations worldwide today. Development in technology, organizational migration (i.e., multinational organizations), increase of international communication and rationalization all characterize modern society and the modern world at large. For example, organizations involved in high technology, such as computer companies, share certain structural features, regardless of their cultural, social, and historical contexts. As Hall notes:

"There is evidence suggesting that organizations at an equivalent technological level -- for example, at the same degree of automation of production -- are quite similar in most respects . it appears that the more routine and standardized the technology, the less the impact of cultural factors" (1982, p.232).

Convergence theories view organizations in terms of civilization which is universal to many countries of the world (e.g., complex division of labor, high technology in production and military, urbanization, etc). According to them, organizations are basically alike if they are of the same size, and use the same technology. The organization of production of automobiles, for example, is the same whether it is done in the United States or China. Culture, however, is distinctive in each society and people and it should not be confused with civilization (Hamaguchi 1985). Unlike civilization, not all aspects of culture can be transmitted easily or successfully. Usually aspects of material culture are adopted more and faster than those of non-material culture. All industrialized societies may eventually be alike on the level of civilization but the traditions and the way of life nurtured over many centuries are not likely to disappear quickly with the advent of modern technology. For example, it is very likely for Japanese men to accept such modern Western technology as computers and nuclear physics but it would take them 17

time and effort to accept feminism which is also a recent phenomenon in the West. The social relationships between Japanese men and women are not likely to change drastically. The same is true for social relations within Japanese organizations in Japan. There often exists a gap among aspects of social system when there is change in one part of it and not in others, which Ogburn (1964) called cultural lag in a society.

Divergence theorists or cultural diversity theorists consider that sociocultural factors, such as, tradition, values, and norms, influence how an organization structures and operates itself: cultural factors account for various types of organizations existing in different societies. No organization exists in a cultural vacuum: unique organizational structures are rooted in a society and reflect its history, social structures (class structure, family, economic, and educational systems, etc), its people's interaction patterns and its culture, the modal national personality (social psychological traits of the people), religious beliefs and practices, customs and manners, and so on. According to divergence theorists, differences in managerial practices and styles will prevail as long as they remain as semi-permanent features of the managerial system.

Lammers and Hickson (1979) suggested that cultural patterns-- generalized social values, norms, and roles--affect organizations. They came up with three distinctive cultural forms of organization: a Latin type (French, Italian, and Spanish organizations); an Anglo- Saxon type (British, United States, and Scandinavian organizations); and a traditional type (Third Wcrld nations). The differences among these various types are the degree of centralization, bureaucratic control, power distribution, cooperation, morale, rule application, and stratification patterns (number of levels).

Stephen Richardson (1956) studied a U.S. and a British merchant - marine cargo ship. The function and technology of the two ships were thus identical. He found differences in the patterns of human relations and authority relationships between the two ships. In a British ship, there are fewer rules than in the U.S. counterpart, and the traditional deference to authority and elitism in Britain are the factors accounting for this difference. A U.S. ship relies heavily on a great number of impersonal rules on authority relationships, since the American culture in general values egalitarianism, specificity, efficiency, achievement, and success. This study shows that the prevailing social tradition, norms, and values intervene with the structuring of organizations and their interactional processes. Organization does not exist by itself. It is people who actually make up the organization and run it. The members' sentiments and values also have to be accommodated in an organization.

Crozier (1964) studied a governmental agency in Paris and several tabacco factories in France (the Industrial Monopoly) and concluded that French bureaucracy is not as efficient as it should be because of several cultural factors. In his structural analysis of the French 18

bureaucracy, he points out the following cultural characteristics. (1) avoidance of face-to-face contacts (the isolation of the individual), (2) prevalence of formal activities and relations rather than informal ones, (3) isolation of strata characterized by bon plasir (Bon plasir [the absolute authority of the king] refers to the law of formal apparatus or the absolutist conception of French authority, that is, authority in each echelon is absolute and the bureaucrats are not interfered with by the levels above or below. Consequently, there are no checks and balances, and the amount of autonomy is high.), and (4) maximum privilege is sought by everyone. In addition, an extreme degree of ritualism often takes place: workers observe rules for the sake of rules because this influences the evaluation of their performance by the management.

Crozier, nevertheless, understands that the French bureaucracy best fits the French modal personality and social relations. These characteristics make up a perfect solution to the basic dilemma over authority, since the Frenchmen dislike change, disorder, and conflict which bring uncontrolled relationships. It is the only way out of the inevitable contradiction that they have to face in their social relationships within bureaucracy.

Bayley (1966), in his study of bureaucracy in developing nations, points out that corruption, which is often considered a dysfunction of bureaucracy in Western nations, serves a beneficial function with positive consequences. Corruption comes in many forms and sizes, and it is socially and culturally defined. An official receiving a bribe or misappropriating public goods in a developing nation may simply be conforming to his/her own group norms. For example, in India, bribery is called "speed money" which oils the wheels of the bureaucratic machine for efficient and effective operation. It is an indispensible part of Indian everyday life, especially on a lower level of bureaucracy to "get things done" fast. Thus, to the local people, it is a perfectly rational solution to the problem. It forms a prominent characteristic of the bureaucratic life. Whenever we apply Max Weber’s model of bureaucracy as the "ideal" type to non-Western nations, we must be aware of its cultural relevance or cultural relativity. Elements of culture must be seen on their own terms and not on the basis of some assumed universal standards.

Williams et al.(1966) compared workers in two large electrical utility companies in Peru and the United States in order to study how different cultures affect personality formation and worker responses to supervisors. Their study reveals that there are cross-cultural differences in worker attitude toward and perception of their supervisors. They found several differences between the U.S. and the Peruvian workers. For example, though the levels are about the same, the Peruvians have a positive correlation between perceived closeness of supervision and general satisfaction while that of the U.S. workers is negative, i.e., the Peruvians prefer closer supervision while Americans like more general supervision. 19

Peruvians are also apt to show lesser faith in people while research in the U.S. shows a high level of interest in the work group. The former identify with a work group much less than the latter, which leads to isolation of the individual and less practical support from the group. The practical implication is that human relations approach is of limited value and use in the Peruvian culture and possibly in other Latin American cultures. Williams et al. argue that two cultural dimensions influence organizational behavior personality dimension (faith in people or interpersonal trust) and dimension of perceptions of organizations.

In The Achieving Society. McClelland (1961) pointed out that there are certain psychological traits that fit in with modern institutional patterns. He found correlation between economic development and the achievement motive of the people which is distinguishable from other needs and drives. The achievement motive occurs to a different extent in individuals and cultures. Internalization of modern values and motivations is a very important factor for economic development. Personality traits also explain differences in management styles.

Stinchcombe (1965) points out that organizations formed at a particular time and space in history are different from those formed at another because organizations reflect history and especially the history of industrialization. They also differ because of their environments which include the social structure, resources, technology, economic and labor markets which are available at the time of the organizations' formation. Stinchcombe considers the following general environmental factors also as the keys to the emergence of new organizations: widespread literacy among the people, education, urbanization, a money economy, political revolution, and the density of social life. New organizations must rely on general skills possessed by the population and must also learn new roles in new situations.

Stinchcombe's study portrays the stability of the structural characteristics of organizations over time. New organizations, and especially new organizational forms have higher death rates since they lack established ties with the larger society. This is called liability of newness. Organizations need to learn and establish new social relations among the "strangers." Once they gain legitimacy, organizations do not usually change their structural features easily or quickly. The structure of railroad companies, for example, remained the same over many years. Organizational inertia, or organizational imprinting in which the organizational form and shape of the founding organization are retained, contributes to the stability and accountability of an organization (Hannan 6c Freeman 1984).

The principle of isomorphism (Hawley 1950; 1968) partially answers the question "Why are there so many kinds of organizations?" Hawley, like Hannan and Freeman (1977), views organizations as 20

populations rather than individual systems. He uses a- Darwinian natural selection model in which the environment selects certain types of organization which best fit the environment to survive. The fit between the organizational form and its environment is called isomorphism. This ecological perspective emphasizes the impact of organizational environment. Hawley claims that there are different types of organizations because of their adaptation to different kinds of environments. Hannan and Freeman (1977) modified and supplemented the principle of isomorphism by emphasizing environmental selection and by adding a competitive theory, arguing that organizations whose forms successfully compete with others survive and flourish in certain environmental circumstances.

Hannan and Freeman's (1977) population ecology theory is "the most extreme version of utilizing environmental factors to explain organizational phenomena" (Hall 1982, p.314). It views organizations as a social system which must adapt to the environment. Environment determines and affects the behavior and life chances of organizations and their structures. They claim that organizations which best fit the demands of a particular environment have a higher rate of survival. Hannan and Freeman's unit of analysis is a population of organizations, that is, a total population of one type of organizations--aggregates of organizations that are alike in certain aspects. Organizations must find appropriate "niches" where their organizational goals and activities best fit the environmental demands. The evolutionists' notions of "the survival of the fittest," natural selection, and "the struggle for existence" are relevant to the notion of organizational survival.

Hannan and Freeman claim the inertia pressures which come from internal structural arrangements and environmental constraints are as follows: (1) an organization's investment in capital equipment and training of personnel which limit the change in the sturcture, (2) constraints on the transfer and processing of information, (3) cost of upsetting the political equilibria, and (4) conservative forces of history and tradition which are of the organization's own making.

The external pressures which also work on the inertia of organizations are as follows. (1) There are legal and fiscal barriers to entry and exit from markets; (2) The acquisition of relevant information about the new environment (which is often turbulent) is costly; (3) Legitimacy tends to limit the adaptation; and (4) There is the problem of the collective rationality. These are the obvious limitations on the ability of an organization to adapt to the environment. Thus, organizations do not change easily or quickly because of the costs entailed in the internal structural changes, and they also acquire reliability and accountability by remaining the same structurally. As Hannan and Freeman note, "Selection within organizational populations tends to eliminate organizations with low reliability and accountability" (1984, p.154). 21

Hannan and Freeman's notion of ecological selection is theoretically sound and innovating, offering an historical perspective which has been largely ignored by other theories and indicating the importance of environment to an extreme degree. However, Hannan and Freeman place too much emphasis on the power of environment, which is not the case for many large organizations (e.g., monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, and trusts). Organizations can change environments as well. The theory ignores the sources of the original variations and the ways the fit between the organization and the environment can be achieved. Hannan and Freeman make many analogies between biological systems and organizations. Consequently, organizational strategies and discretion, or the ability to choose among alternatives, are largely undermined. Their theory also misses the internal dynamics of organizations, and the variety of niches.

2.4 Organizational Adaptation of Japanese Organizations in the United States: Toward The Construction Of A Hypothesis Japanese organizations which are expanding their business to the United States have to cope with both their external and internal environments. Setting up a factory in the United States is very risky because of its economic and political situations. The Japanese company has to deal with the quality of labor force available and the huge investment as well as business and union environments, all of which are very different from those at home. However, the amount of Japanese direct investment has been increasing at an astonishing rate in the 1980s.

Questions arise: "How do Japanese companies survive in their new environment and succeed?" "How is adaptation done?" "Is the . adaptation really necessary?" We will primarily focus on internal adaptation of expanding Japanese companies in this section.

The notion of organizational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1984) enables us to assume that an expanding Japanese organization in a foreign country retains and brings along some of Its histo-socio- cultural traits and especially their structural characteristics which may or may not be compatible with those of the host society. Not only product-related technologies but also institution-related technologies, such as management skills and company policies are often brought along when an organization moves into another country. Large Japanese organizations have certain unique characteristics which derive from Japanese history and culture, such as the lifetime commitment, the ringi decision-making system, morning meetings, quality control circles, and "paternalistic" welfare system.

Contingency theorists such as Thompson (1967) and the institutional approach (Meyer & Rowan 1977) would argue that Japanese organizations in the United States must adapt to their new U.S. political, social, economic, and cultural environment to reduce possible environmental conflict and threat, mitigating cultural differences of the participants. As Deutch notes: 22

"In America the Japanese company is faced with many challenges: Americanization, unionization, bad media coverage, the need to compete in an economy that is undergoing serious and unpredictable changes, an occasionally unfriendly government, and sometimes actually hostile legislation" (1983 p.66).

The new environment increases the uncertainty of success (liability of newness) and the primary goal of the Japanese organization is survival for the first few years. Japanese organizations expanding their business to the United States have to confront not only the external environment but also the internal environment, especially the participants whose sociocultural backgrounds, language, and nationality are different. Thus, the internal environment comes to have the characteristics of "external" environment which is often uncontrollable for the Japanese organizations in the United States. Socialization of the participants in the organization, or in Argyris and Schon's words, organizational learning (1978), in the new social and cultural institutions is thus necessary. As Perrow says, "The process of institutionalization is the process of organic growth, wherein the organization adapts to the strivings of internal groups and the values of the external society" (1986, p.167).

Following cultural theorists, we may consider that the Japanese people, society, culture and "luck" are what made Japan what it is today. In other words, the Japanese people's "N Ach (Achievement Motive)" (McClelland 1961) brought the economic success. It then becomes crucial for a new Japanese organization in the U.S. to recruit the right kind cf employees who would understand the Japanese ways of organizational life, including values, norms, company philosophies, work ethics, and dedication to the company. As Richard Hall says,

"if the people coming into the organization have skills and values that are relevant for the organization, the task of developing the organization is simpler. The liability of newness is reduced when there is a ’disciplined and responsible work force' (Stinchcombe:149:1965)" (1982, pp.223-224).

The natural system models of complex organizations view organizations as collectives with characteristics of social groups and pay more attention to "the normative and the behavioral structures of organizations" (Scott 1981, p.80). Organization, as a self-maintaining system, must satisfy its internal needs as well as adapt to its external environment for survival. The natural system theorists advocate that "the ’social' characteristics of personnel may shape organizational policy and behavior" (Gouldner 1959, p.411). As Pfeffer also notes: 23

"Differences in background, socialization, training, and information all may cause differences in beliefs about the likely outcomes of organizational actions. Additionally, there may simply be not enough information to assess the connections between actions and results. Frequently, organizations confront novel situations and lacking experience, are uncertain about the effectiveness of alternative decisions" (1984, p.232).

The Human Relations School (e.g., Roethlisberger & Dickson [1939]; Mayo [1945]) revealed the importance of participants' multiple motives, values, interests, and feelings which affect productivity. Series of experiments were conducted at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company by researchers from the Harvard Business School in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Much attention paid by the researchers motivated the workers, both in the control and experimental groups, to produce more regardless of their working conditions. The workers were pleased to be chosen for the experiment and tried their best. The research revealed the importance of workers' informal organization, commitment, work roles, motives, social relations and interpretation on the operation of organizations. This unexpected result of the experiment or the bias that the researchers unwittingly introduced in the experiment came to be known as "the Hawthorne Effect."

As Scott says organizations are open systems which are like an organism "shaped in reaction to the characteristics and commitments of participants as well as to influences from the external environment" (1981, p.91) and "employees come to the organization with heavy cultural and social baggage obtained from interactions in other social contexts" (Ibid, p.17). People who have relevant skills and values for the organization will facilitate the new organization's process of forming and developing (Stinchcombe 1965).

Personnel is one of the most vital resources an .organization needs. The location of a new Japanese organization in the United States thus becomes crucial to its survival because the local workers consciously or unconsciously bring their socialized selves into the organization, and they can influence organizational success.

If we assume that Americans and Japanese are different in their personality types, values, norms, and work ethics, then socialization of the U.S. workers into a new "culture" becomes extremely important for the Japanese organizations in order to be effective and efficient in its organizational operation. The homogeneity of personnel in terms of age, sex, ideology, socioeconomic status, values, and beliefs is often a crucial factor in their construction of reality. Decision-making, for example, is influenced by how the environment is perceived by the actors within the organizations. As Thomas (1923) noted, "If we define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." Since different participants often have different sources of information, the more similar the backgrounds and training 24

of the personnel, the more similarities in their perception of reality and in choices they make, leading to less conflict among the participants (Kanter 1977). There also must be mutual trust between the participants so that eaOh of them will live up to the others' expectations (Durkheim 1933). Organizations, as with a society, are based on a common moral order.

The branch of cognitive anthropology called ethnoscience (Goodenough 1971) conceives of organizations as parallel to culture with networks of subjective meanings, shared knowledge, frames of reference, and normative communicative rules. Organizations are seen as systems of knowledge in which members perceive themselves as a collectivity and share not only thinking but also actions.

Communication within an organization is often crucial to the sharing of information and social construction of reality (Berger & Luckman 1967), but the difference in the perception, manner, and efficiency of communication between the Americans and the Japanese can be a problem in a new Japanese organization in the United States. For example, Americans come from a low context culture in which communication is mostly done in the explicit code. The Japanese, on the other hand, come from a high context culture in which tacit understanding is more common (Hall 1977).

For both Americans and the Japanese who work in the same organization, the work place is where the two cultures, namely, a high context and a low context culture meet. Often a problem of miscommunication arises because the presumed shared understanding is left implicit in a Japanese organization. As Sethi et al. note:

"The process of communication within a Japanese organi- . zation is very much akin to the mating dance of penguins. Communications resort to both verbal and nonverbal com­ munication. A great deal of ritualistic communication precedes and follows any substantive discussion. Participants know and understand who is going to say what, and to whom, before it actually takes place" (1984 ,p.37).

The cultural difference in communication may be problematic when the Japanese and American workers interact.

The Japanese organization is characterized by unique practices, all of which were practices nurtured in Japan within its social, historical and cultural contexts. When Japanese companies migrate to the United States, there arise several questions pertaining to the American character: "Are they willing to work overtime?" "Are they loyal to their company like the Japanese?" Americans bring with them their own values, beliefs, behavior patterns, and so on which may or may not be compatible with those of the Japanese. These latent social identities are defined by Gouldner (1957; 1959) as "identities which are not culturally prescribed as relevant to or within rational 25 organizations — and that these do intrude upon and influence organizational behavior in interesting ways" (1959 p.412).

One's ascribed status such as age, sex, and race are considered as latent social identities as well. For example, a female commander in the army evokes different reactions in her subordinates because of her sex and position. Gouldner states that the study of latent social identities and roles is fruitful because they are often the cause of organizational tension. "The" Japanese managerial practices have strong ties to the modal personalities of the Japanese people, morals, values, customs and manners, Japanese economic history and structure, and so on. The principle and theory of operation will continue as long as Japanese enterprise exists (Hamaguchi 1987). However, according to the open systems theorists they must be adjusted and adapted to the U.S. environment, including participants, in order to be effective when the company comes over to the United States.

If a Japanese organization in the United States does not adapt to the new external and internal environment, it will suffer from the discrepancy between the Japanese managerial philosophy and the U.S. workers who may bring 5.nto the organization incompatible expectations, standards, norms, and values. The Japanese are rather generalists, working for the same company until they retire knowing well that they and the company are in the same boat. The good of their company thus leads to their own good life. If the workers decide what they are doing is good for the company, they stay at the company till late at night and work on the projects up to the extent of sacrificing their family life. Japanese organizations do provide "a sense of belonging and a sense of pride to workers, who believe their future is best served by the success of their company" (Vogel 1979 p.157).

On the other hand, it is generally said that Americans separate their company life and private life more distinctively than the Japanese (Mito 1981; Sato 1983). They are said to do well what is written in their job descriptions, but some do not bother to go an extra mile for the benefit of the company. Each worker's responsibility and division of labor are more clearly defined in U.S. organizations, and one is not supposed to go beyond one's territory, invading others' duties and responsibilities. The social relationships within U.S. organizations reflect the Western contractual society, where involvement is only partial and individualism is valued.

NBC News reported in 1984 that many American workers who had been working for Japanese organizations in the United States said that the honeymoon with the Japanese company ends when production demands increase and the workers have to work harder and for longer hours, something which is taken for granted in Japan. They feel that the Japanese companies should do as the American companies do in the United States. 26

Nevertheless, it seems that the nationality and cultural differences as well as the workers' mentality and upbringing do not matter as much if the management takes into consideration the typical sociocultural, organizational, and behavioral patterns of the host society and mix them well with the Japanese managerial practices with some modification. These differences may no longer be constraints to an organization. As Ouchi observes:

"The typical Japanese firm in the United States employs an approach to management distinctively different from the typical American firm. Rather than replicate the form developed in their native Japan, the firms modified their management to suit United States needs. Nonetheless, they retain a good deal of Japanese style and remain very different from most American firms (1981 p.12)."

The present research explores the relationship between Japanese organizations in the United States and external and internal environments with special attention to the adaptation processes both of the participants and the structure of the organization. If organizational inertia is retained and the organization fails to adopt the host society's norms and values as well as ignores the attitudes and feelings of American workers, there may be conflicts between the Japanese and American workers because of their sociocultural backgrounds, communication skills, values, norms, beliefs, and so on. The following are the lists of the ideal types of the Japanese society, culture, and organization contrasted with those of the United States. The first chart was derived from the existent literature in sociology, anthropology, history and economics. The second chart is from Ouchi (1981).

JaDanese Society & Culture American Society & Culture Long history Short history Small island nation Vast territory Limited natural resources Abundant natural resources Racially homogeneous Multiracial and multicultural Relative unity of beliefs and Diversity in beliefs and ideologies ideologies stemming from Frontier society agrarian society Confucianism Protestanism Strong tradition Rationalism Group orientation Individualistic orientation (Collectivism) (Individualism) Interdependence Independence Mutual obligation Self-sufficiency (Reciprocity)

Chart 1 27

Japanese Organizations American Organizations Lifetime Employment Short-term Employment Slow Evaluation and Promotion Rapid Evaluation and Promotion Non-specialized Career Paths Specialized Career Paths Implicit Control Mechanisms Explicit Control Mechanisms Collective Decision Making Individual Decision Making Collective Responsibility Individual Responsibility Holistic Concern Segmental Concern

(Ouchi 1981, pp.48-49) Chart 2

It is legitimate to assume that the Japanese management is faced with the question of mitigating these gaps stemming from sociocultural backgrounds and expectations of the participants. It is a problem how they can make the American workers understand the importance of collectivism in fostering company solidarity when the latter have already internalized the importance of individualism through their socialization. The management must adapt certain managerial policies and practices to suit its U.S. workers' attitudes and feelings.

*****

A useful theoretical framework for studying organizational adaptation has been provided in this chapter, including the open system models of complex organization and divergence theories. The relationship between formal organizations and their environments has been elaborated with special attention to their shared sociocultural elements. The last section of this chapter addressed the problem of organizational adaptation and its implication in the form of a hypothesis construction: when organizations move into a new environment, they must change their managerial practices and structures in order to be successful. It is important for them to acommodate the feelings and emotions of the local participants as well as to comply with the social and cultural norms prevalent in the host society.

The following chapter reviews methodologies used in this research. Since the theoretical framework of this study is quite different from other organizational research, it presents and discusses an overview of organizational methodologies, and especially the ethnographic data which I obtained during my interviews and observations. Chapter 3: Review of Methodology

The first section of this chapter briefly reviews organizational methodology, and the second part presents an overview of the methodology used in my research as well as some of the methodological problems encountered.

3.1 Review of Organizational Methodology Writing a dissertation today in sociology in the form of case study is considered rather outdated when the discipline along with other social and behavioral sciences is leaning toward more quantitative, comparative, and statistically sophisticated, and linear "scientific" methodologies. A case study or an in-depth study of a particular social setting by qualitative methodology may sound "soft", "non-scientific," "naive," and "useless" to many sociologists (Berger & Kellner 1981). As Pondy & Mitroff observe "Single case studies, especially qualitative analysis, have been out of fashion for the last 15 years" (1979, p.33). Within sociology, a so-called "cult of quantification" (Berger & Kellner 1981, p.128) has been wide­ spread along with a presumption that "one could understand phenomena at a class level, without needing to understand the individual organizations that make up the class" (Pondy & Mitroff, 1979, p.33). However, sociologists should recognize that developing a theory of the individual case is meaningful to the discipline (Ibid, p.28).

As the name "complex organization" properly suggests, organizations vary in size, age, technology, structure, participants, and environment. We thus cannot find "the" organization empirically. Units of analysis for organizational research also vary from individuals, groups, departments, an entire organization, to organizational sets, and the relationship between the organization and environment.

Many early studies from the 1930s to late 1950s were published in the case study form. An organization was considered as a closed system (except Selznick [1949]) and only one organization was studied with special focus oh individuals and groups of individuals, i.e., informal structure. So-called classic studies in complex organizations (Selznick 1949; Gouldner 1954; Blau 1955) utilized qualitative methodology such as participant observation and informant interviewing, which are more sensitive to, and focus on actual social behaviors of the people, by seeking to describe, decode, and translate the meanings of naturally occurring social phenomena, with the presentation of the holistic reality that the members create socially in a particular setting. As Berger & Kellner note, sociological research entails "interpretation of the meanings of

28 29

others through a complex interaction and interpenetration of relevance structures, meaning systems and bodies of knowledge" (1981, p.37).

Selznick's examination of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (1949) and Gouldner's research on a gypsum mine and factory (1954) which studied managerial succession gave birth to the natural systems model of organizational analysis which views an organization as a collectivity and pays more attention to its normative and behavioral structures (Scott 1981). Blau (1955) similarly examined effects of impersonal rules in two governmental agencies. The foci of these . studies were individuals in groups, especially in bureaucracy, and their interactions.

Case studies present detailed accounts of a particular organization and its internal dynamics between individual workers or between departments. A descriptive and ethnographic case study explores the social setting as an on-going social process. For example, experiments conducted at the Hawthorne plant of General Electrics in the 1920s and 1930s show many detailed descriptions of the importance and dynamics of the informal structure, and the workers' motives and interests (Roeslisberger & Dickson 1939; Mayo 1945). However, the generalizability or representativeness of case studies could be limited since organizations are indeed complex, and human participants and organizational environment add to the complexity. As Nord notes, "The importance and configuration of these forces are neither constant for any one organization nor identical for various organizations" (1972, p.xvx). McKelvey & Aldrich also maintain that "In the field of organizational science, one is never really certain that findings about organizations actually sampled apply without exception to organizations not sampled" (1983. p.103). Thus, what is true for one organization at one time may not hold true at another time or for another organization.

The 1960s saw an emergence of key taxonomic, explanatory, and predictive typologies for all kinds of organizations. Some of them were conceptually formulated (e.g., Weber [1947], Parsons [1960], Etzioni [1961] and Blau & Scott [1962]), while others were empirically derived (e.g., Woodward [1965], the Aston Group [1963, 1967, 1968] ■). However vigorous their attempts were, no comprehensive typology or taxonomy for all organizations could be derived because of the complexity of organizations (Hall 1982).

There has been a significant development in the methodology of public opinion polling and market research since 1930s, and surveys have become very popular in the United States, especially since World War II. Newer techniques for organizational research had been devised by such sociologists as Likert, Stouffer, and Lazarsfeld. Hard, generalizable, quantitative survey data have come to be preferred by many sociologists who have tried hard to make sociology a "science" since then (Sieber 1972). 30

This new trend in methodology matches the shift in theoretical interests in organizational research. At first, there was a pure theory approach such as Max Weber's (1947). Then there were spurts of empirical and qualitative case studies (e.g., Selznick [1947], Gouldner [1954], Blau [1955]) which dealt with a single organization. This trend was followed by comparative studies (e.g., Hage & Aiken [1969], Burns & Stalker [1961]), and then quantitative studies which studies a large number of organizations and respondents in the 1970s. The nature of the theoretical interest determines the proper methodology, and the feasibility of data gathering is also often an important practical concern for organizational research.

Recently the unit of analysis has shifted from individuals in an organization to a population of organizations. The focus has moved from microsociology to macrosociology. The recent studies are more nomothetic and quantitative than ideographic and qualitative.

3.2 Ideal Types And History Organizations have been "continually analyzed from a variety of perspectives" (Hall 1982, p.4) and on different levels ranging from the individual to the network of organizations.

It is generally said that the fit between sociology and the field of complex organization is tenuous since organizational research tends to be influenced by other disciplines such as economics and business administration as well as psychology and anthropology. However, research in complex organization within sociology utilizes general sociological methods like interviewing, observation, and the comparative method.

Traditionally, many sociologists, including such classical theorists as Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and Karl Marx, have employed the comparative method in their studies. Max Weber, an influencial sociologist and economist, introduced the methodology of the ideal type, a form of a comparative method. An ideal type is an analytical construct used to facilitate comparison and to make generalizations. The term "ideal" does not imply any evaluation as in "an ideal car" or "an ideal society."

Though Weber was at times inconsistent in using the term (Ritzer 1983, p.128), an ideal type refers to a concept created "by a social scientist to capture the principal features of some social phenomenon" (Ibid) . Ideal types are not descriptions of any existing structure or sociocultural reality. They are hypothetical, social, cultural, or psychological units or entities created by extracting the major characteristic aspects which are present in a real phenomenon. The ideal type thus derived emphasizes major similarities and neglects or omits minor differences. The exaggeration or omission is necessary in order to create a pure logical form which facilitates comparison of concrete cases. An ideal type is one step away from concrete reality. 31

An ideal type is a useful measuring rod for comparison, and Weber distinguished three kinds of ideal types based on their levels of abstraction (Coser 1977, p.224). The first type is rooted in historical particulars, the second pertains to abstract elements of social reality found in a variety of historical and cultural contexts, and the third is concerned with the ways in which people motivated by economic rationality behave (Ibid).

An example of an ideal type is Weber's study of bureaucracy. The methodology enabled him to abstract elements of organizational structure and to compare bureaucracies. Weber identified the follpwing characteristics: (1) division of labor, (2) hierarchy of authority, (3) rules governing incumbents' behavior, (4) impersonal contact, and (5) careers of professional incumbents (Weber 1964).

Closely related to his methodology of ideal type is Weber's notion of the relationship between sociology and history. He combined the two despite the differences in the subject of study. As Ritzer notes, Weber's "sociology was oriented to the development of clear concepts so that he could perform a causal analysis of historical phenomena. We can think of Weber as a historical sociologist" (Ritzer 1983, p.124).

Historical sociology, according to Weber, is concerned with both ideographic actions and events and nomothetic laws. The unification of the two orientations can be achieved through the construction of ideal types which help the comparison of and deteremine the causes for difference in each case. Though history contains a variety of specific phenomena, the ideal type privides a social scientist with a grip for studying unique events.

Chapter 4 of this dissertation aims at the construction of the ideal type of relatively large and stable Japanese business organizations in Japan which are most likely to expand their business abroad. Chapter 5 deals with the Japanese business organizations in the United States. Since the notion of adaptation presupposes the conditions before and after a particular adaptation takes place, comparison of these two ideal types will reveal what kind of adaptaiton has taken place in the new environment.

At the beginning of Chapter 5, a brief history of Japanese business is presented in order to provide a context or contexts which lie behind the contemporary socioeconomic phenomenon of the advancement of Japanese business to the United States. The context or background must be delineated and elaborated in order to understand the present phenomenon properly. Contexts "possess both a spatial and a temporary character" (Hinkle 1980, p.22) which have implications for the emergence of a new phenomenon. The advent of the Japanese business as well as the ideal types can only be appropriately understood with the knowledge of what lies behind. 32

The ideal types presented in Chapters 5 and 6 will also serve as a comparative tool for future research which may take place in a different historical, social, and cultural context. As Coser notes: "Ideal types enable one to construct hypotheses linking them with the conditions that brought the phenomenon or event into prominence, or with consequences that follow its emergence" (Coser 1977, p.223).

Since the phenomenon of organizational adaptation of the Japanese business organizations in the United States is relatively new and likely to persist at least for a while, the methodology of the ideal type is quite appropriate for the purpose of this research.

3.3 Research Design - Triangulation My research used the methodology of triangulation in order to present detailed descriptions of a setting, and to increase the validity of the data and its generalizability. The two methodologies are complementary to each other and enhance the richness of the data (Collins & Makowsky 1984).

The first step entailed studying two Japanese companies A and B through in-depth intensive interviews and participant observation, respectively. The reality of the workers' everyday life was explored and grasped from the managements' and workers' points of view. The second step involved drawing generalizations from these case studies. The survey questionnaire was formulated from the qualitative data and a Likert scale was constructed. The survey was distributed among several Japanese companies in the Midwest.

Qualitative and quantitative methodologies have been considered at the opposite ends of a continuum, or "historically antagonistic styles of research" (Sieber 1972, p.1336). The methodologies have both strengths and weaknesses as well as bias. Triangulation, which combines both deep, rich qualitative fieldwork and hard, generalizable survey research, covers their weaknesses and reinforces strengths. As Sieber notes "by drawing upon its special strength, one technique may contribute substantially to the utilization of the other technique" (1972, p.1340).

3.4 Settings Several Japanese companies in the American Midwest participated in this research. In order to protect their identities, they are named only as Companies A, B, C, and D. I also interviewed informally a number of Japanese managers and workers both in Japan and in the United States, taking advantage of such occasions as visiting their offices and homes and eating out at the restaurantes. All of them work for middle to large sized companies in Japan. They are not cited as individuals in my dissertation since they do not work for companies mentioned above. However, my discussions with them gave me a working knowledge of the Japanese companies in Japan, corporate practices, and social relations which appear in Chapter 4. The following section briefly describes the settings of my fieldwork. 33

(1) Company A The qualitative data were gathered at two Japanese based companies in the Midwest. Company A is a medium sized manufacturing organization located in a small town, in a rather isolated agricultural area along an Interstate highway. The town has a population of several thousand people, many of who are descendants of German and British immigrants who first settled the region between 120 and 130 years ago. The majority have engaged in agricultural production (corn, soy beans, and dairy products) for generations and social mobility has been extremely low. The population is racially homogeneous: Caucasians consist 97% of the population.

The residents seem to enjoy rural town life in which everybody knows everybody else. The local newspaper prints the names of traffic law offenders on the front page every day. The people are religious and there are more than a dor.en churches. On Sundays cars crowd the streets before and after the masses and services. Some of the workers at Company A asked the president to give them a room for prayer before starting work.

The town had been a major distribution center for agricultural products because of its location before several American factories opened, seeking surplus agricultural labor a few decades ago. This brought new people to the town. However, some of them did not succeed, and the overall unemployment rate of the county was between 13 and 14% at one time, the worst in the state. Company A and several other Japanese companies advanced to the region in the 1980s, lured by generous offers from the state government in regard to tax, roads, electricity, and sewage. The state had been promoting business for Japanese industries for the last several years. The Governor himself visited Japan several times to meet prospective investors and company presidents. Tokyo branch of International Trade and Business was opened a few years ago. Climate, culture, transportation costs, and availability of nearby markets and suppliers were other factors.

The area, economically devastated by high unemployment rate and low choice of occupation, benefited from the advancement of these Japanese companies in terms of job opportunities, tax money which improved education, reduction of water and sewage rates, and more business in the local community.

Majority of workers comes from small towns and villages in the few counties surrounding the area. It is a general belief among the Japanese executives that the maximum commuting time which Americans would bear everyday is between 30 and 40 minutes. Thus, the workers were recruited among the local people. Many workers' families have been living there for generations and they expect to be there in the years to come. Many male workers are the second or the third sons of farming families. According to the executives of these companies, the turnover rate and absenteeism of the American workers are very low due to their work ethic and attendance bonuses. 34

The data fo:r Company A were gathered by intensive interviews with 16 workers (6 Japanese and 10 Americans) including the Japanese president of the company. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes and two hours. A couple of months after my interviews, an official statistics of all the workers on the working condition was taken at the company. They used a standard questionnaire form (Gutman Scale) which is widely used among the American companies. Both the president and the American vice president agreed upon my using the statistics for my dissertation as supplementary data.

(2) Company B Company B is a small-sized service organization with less than 100 workers, is located in an outskirts of a metropolis which has been economically growing. Several skyscrapers have been constructed in the downtown area in the last several years. The city is proud of a diversified economy that is balanced between manufacturing, service, trade, and securities. The population growth between 1970 and 1980 was more than 8%. The distribution of population of the city in terms of race and class is considered as the average U.S. city.

There are two kinds of workers at Company B. Some are engineers and clerks who work in the office while others work in the service center, repairing products sent in from the customers. The former are engaged in creating new products. Communication between them and the Tokyo office is indispensable for product developments and marketing. Company B advanced to the United States several years ago and had been quite successful. It now has several branches all over the States.

The data for Company B was gathered by participant observation and situational talks (informal interviews) with both the American and Japanese workers. Fifteen Americans, both men and women, and eight Japanese males were observed once a week over the period of 13 months. These data provided me the first hand information which was vital to the study.

3.5 Entry By Networks (1) Company A Generally speaking, the process of entry into a social setting is like that of bargaining since getting an entry with formal organizations is generally considered very difficult due to their concern with company "secrets." However, the most interesting thing about my getting entries to my research settings was the webs of human relationships which I found mainly by chance. Later I used these already established contacts to seek entries easily.

In the spring quarter of 1983, I was taking a course in comparative organizations and working on a research paper on Japanese organizations in the United States, which was intended as a preliminary study to this dissertation. A Japanese student at my 35

university and I had had a couple of lunches together in the cafeteria when I told him that I had been studying Japanese organizations in the United States. He mentioned that he knew a Japanese girl in his dorm whose father is a president of a Japanese company in the States. Later I happened to see him on campus and asked him if he could introduce me to his Japanese friend. The next day he called me up and gave me her number so that I could talk to her.

The president's daughter told her father my intentions and interests. He told her that I could call him at his house. When I called, the president said that I could visit his house with his daughter the next weekend along with her Japanese girlfriend, but I thought I should not let him sacrifice his private time, and I made an appointment for an interview at his company. (It was a surprise to me that he even invited me to come to his house! As his wife said to me a few years later, "We would like to do our best in helping our Japanese students in the state as much as we can. We all come from the same small country, don't we?")

My acquaintance with Shirano, a Japanese foreman at Company A, took place rather unexpectedly, too. One day in the summer of 1984, I had been watching TV at my friend's when Mrs. B visited him with her friends. My friend used to work for an American factory with Mrs. B., a Japanese woman who is married to an American.

Mrs. B seemed very interested in talking to me in Japanese during the movie. She said that she was very glad to meet another Japanese woman since she is one of the very few who lives in her city. She incessantly asked me what I was doing at my university, what my interests were, and so on. I told her that I wanted to do research on Japanese organizations in the United States. She said, "I know a Japanese man who works for Company A. He is a good friend of mine and he often visits my house for dinner." "Oh, my!" I thought. I told her that I was very interested in meeting him and Mrs. B arranged a "date" for me. She said, "You'll enjoy meeting him. He would, too, since he doesn't have a girlfriend." I called up Shirano and we set-up time for lunch.

The following Saturday, Shirano and I went to a Chinese branch and talked for about an hour. He was very interested in my topic and I think he got some kind of ego massage since I asked him so many questions about him and his job. He was surprised to hear that I had interviewed the president of Company A a year before. I also told him about myself and my university life. He said that he sometimes got very bored with his social relations in the small town, seeing the same people over and over again. There was not many opportunities for him to meet new people, especially young Japanese women, outside his company setting since he was always busy, working 12 to 15 hours a day. He obviously seemed to enjoy the lunch and told me that I could freely call him whenever I had questions or felt like eating oriental food. I sent him a Thank You card later telling him that I 36

appreciated his time.

I felt very lucky about this chance meeting with Mrs. B who later let me stay at her house over weekends and drove me to my interviewees' houses. Shirano later became one of my best informants who helped me clarify my thinking and writing, a vital source of information on Company A. He supported me throughout my research by calling me up once in a while asking me how I was doing. I kept in touch with him and we became sort of "friends". He actually said once on the phone that it was nice knowing a friend like me with whom he could talk about his job and whose interests in life were so different from his. Shirano had introduced me to several other Japanese co-workers with whom I had intensive interviews later. When he said he wanted to meet a new Japanese girl, I introduced my girlfriend in my dorm and arranged a date for him. I was happy to reciprocate his favors.

In June, 1934, I had to write a proposal for my dissertation and I wrote a letter to the president of Company A asking if I could do research for my dissertation at his factory at that time. I briefly explained my research topics, methodologies, ethics of research, and significance of my research. I enclosed a self-stamped envelop for him to reply.

Waiting for his reply was a nerve breaking experience. I waited for his mail impatiently every day checking my mailbox a few times a day. It seemed that my life was in his hands. There was nothing for me to do but wait. At last his reply arrived three weeks later! The president, apologizing for his delay in answering my letter, mentioned that he could help if: (1) I include some questions that he wants to ask the workers but he cannot due to his position. (These were very similar to my questions anyway.), and (2) I should give him- feedback. He stated that it is their rule not to let anyone do research on the company or the workers. However, he was interested in my questions and he even told me that I could interview the workers during the company time if it is necessary.

In February 1985, I wrote a letter to the president of Company A inquiring when I could start my research. Tt;e president called me up and told me that he would rather see me in person. I went to Company A to talk with both the president and the vice president about my research framework and methodology. Both of them seemed very interested in my research and were very friendly. They granted me a permission with certain conditions. The president told me that my research would contribute to his and other people's understanding of the workers and the working conditions. He later selected about a dozen American workers, sending me a list of their names, telephone numbers, and addresses.

I thus had both formal and informal entries to Company A: one through the president and the other through Shirano's network. This was very ideal since I had various kinds of people for my interviews. 37

I was lucky to have met those people who later played a very important role for my data gathering. Since entry is hard, it seems that the researcher depends on his/her luck to meet the right kind of people at the right time and place to a certain extent. Social science is a human business and sociologists owe much to people's willingness to share their lives and information.

(2) Company B It was during the summer of 1980 when there was a Japanese friendship party and picnic held in one of the municipal parks. I met president of Company B, his wife and daughter for the first time there. The family was standing next to me when the introduction of the people was done. I was then a graduate student in linguistics and his daughter, who also started graduate school that summer, married a Japanese friend of mine later.

In the spring quarter, 1983, I asked her to arrange an interview with her father for my paper in complex organizations. I visited the president at his house with his daughter and her husband for about two hours. The president talked most of the time, lecturing me on Japanese organizations, and social relations. At the end of the interview he said that I could call him again if I had questions.

In April 1985 a Japanese friend of mine offered me a part time job to translate Company B's facsimiles sent from Tokyo once a week. He knew both the president and the Japanese vice president. At that time, I had been interviewing workers of Company A for three consecutive weekends in addition to teaching part time, which had exhausted me. Thus, I declined the offer right away. About a month later I was asked again by their translator who lived in my dorm. He needed help for a few hours. I thought the idea of going to Company B once a week was not such a bad idea since I had never worked in a company and I would become a member of the organization, an insider, not an outside researcher. I could also get the first hand information about the company. I thought that the direct involvement and experience would enhance my knowledge about complex organizations.

I met both the president and the vice president in front of their offices on the last day of April. The president did not recognize me at first. My friend (translator) introduced me to them and I said, "Nice meeting you," in Japanese. The president said, "Kinko-chan!?" I said, "Yes!" with a big smile. .1 said, "I really appreciated the interview we had two years ago." He said, "I'm sorry I didn't recognize you right away!"

The president suggested that we should go into his office and talk for a while. I told them that I was very interested in Japanese organizations in the United States and hoped to write a dissertation on the topic. I asked them whether I could observe and talk to the American and Japanese workers at Company B as I worked. They encouraged me to do so and they were very interested in my topic. The 38 vice president said, "Miss Ito's knowledge may be very useful to our company in the years to come." The president started to tell me several interesting episodes which took place in Company B and so did the vice president. I really wished that I had had a tape recorder with me. We talked for about 40 minutes.

The vice president said that he would take my friend and me to their service center and the engineers' offices. He introduced us to the workers, saying "These two are our new translators. This is Mr. S and this is Miss Ito." The atmosphere was very friendly and I really liked the feeling that I was becoming a member of Company B. I felt very excited.

After the tour of the center, we went to the offices, the lab, and back to the president's office. We were introduced to the American executives: a vice president, personnel manager, and a head of business development. We shook hands and we talked for a while. They showed much interest in me and asked many questions, which was almost like a job interview! I told them what I was doing for my dissertation and then they started talking about their experiences with Company B and the Japanese staff. The talk was very beneficial in that it oriented me toward what are the issues at the company, and their interest in my research supported me to a significant degree.

At the company, I was given a desk, a chair and a computer for word processing. I was to share the office area with two American engineers, Michael and Roy. They were very friendly and seemed to like talking with me on different topics to help me understand their job, their company, or to break monotony of work. They were interested in what I was writing in my dissertation, how my teaching was, my travels and so on. They became my colleagues who shared boredom, bad weather, and the breakdown of the computer. After 6 months with Company B, Sawada, a Japanese engineer from Tokyo came to share the space with us, occupying one of the cubicles. He was very helpful in translation of technical terms, teaching me his expertise and we also talked a lot about other things. It was his very first time living in the United States and I became a sort of teacher to him explaining him the American society, customs and manners, English expressions and so on.

Week by week, my acquaintances at Company B increased. Cindy, an American secretary, who often used another computer in the adjoining area, and I became good friends. We talked just about everything from complaints about job, vacation plans, to family life. Cindy introduced me to other American women workers in the storage room as we waited for the printouts or in the lady's room, which was very helpful, since I found it a little difficult to take an initiative in introducing myself to everyone. Cindy always introduced me as "Kinko, our translator." The American women workers did not mind talking about their company and jobs since I was an insider who shared fun, experiences, emotions, and feelings about certain things, including our bosses! Had they known that I was an outsider, they would not 39

have talked the way they did.

3.6 Japanese Customs And Manners--Mv Lebenswelt J.t is a well-known phenomenological tenet that sociologists cannot be truly objective in a scientific sense in doing their research due to their own lebenswelt (life world)--life world which includes common sense, tradition, and socialization which affect their observation and interpretation. A researcher should be aware of this already embedded "bias."

In addition, a researcher is housed in a body. However much he/she tries to be non-reactive to his/her interviewees or observees, a particular figure--whether it is a person's ascribed status such as age, sex, race, and appearance or his/her social position (student, professor, etc), cause certain kinds of reactions. The researcher is also engulfed by his/her cultural bubble which is a product of his/her particular socialization in which culture gives him/her standards of behavior, norms, rules, and values in both subtle and major ways. I had both advantage and disadvantage about my own being a young Japanese female.

When I had my first interview with the president of Company A, I brought a big box of chocolate. In Japan, gift giving is customary when one asks another a favor. He said that I need not do so, but I thought it was appropriate. I brought him a bottle of Japanese plum wine two years later when I visited the factory again. The president thanked me, and reminded me again that I did not have to bring anything. Though I have been living in the United States last several years, my cultural bubble is that of a Japanese when I deal with the Japanese people, rio matter where we are. Gift giving, usage of respectful and polite language, bowing, and so on all go with the cultural bubble and I must behave appropriately for my sex, age, and status.

I could afford to buy gifts to the president, but I could not afford to buy gifts for several other Japanese men from Company A whom I interviewed. I felt extremely bad about it, but if I had given cne person a gift, I had to give them all. However, I did not have any negative reactions from them. They understood that I was a poor foreign student. To a certain extent I played a role of a naive and poor oriental female who could not afford to buy gifts for them but who wanted to do the research desperately.

At each interview I had to apologize for not bringing any gifts, but I was somehow relieved when they said a student need not do so at all. The Japanese men were older and making much more money than I was. All of them were very understanding of my situation and they seemed not to mind sparing some time with me. I sent them Thank You cards after the interviews, which was the only way that I could show my gratitude to them. 40

These Japanese men obviously enjoyed my attention. They consider that work is everyday aspect of their life and take it for granted. Nobody, even their wives are not interested in their work as much as I do. One of the middle-aged men said to me in the middle of the interview, "Miss Ito, I alii very flattered — to receive so much attention from a young and attractive woman." I did not know what to say but was very flattered myself.

Kato, Shirano's closest Japanese friend, was exceptionally nice. On the day of the interview, Mrs. B came into his apartment with me whispering, "I know he is a nice guy. But, I feel like I'm your mother. I cannot let an unmarried Japanese man and a woman remain in the same room." Mrs. B's worry was gone right away when Kato politely introduced himself, told us to come in and offered us freshly brewed coffee! After the interview, he said I could call him to ask questions and I did so on several occasions. He said that he could take me out for Japanese dinner whenever I felt like it.

I thought it a good idea to "have a date" with my Japanese subjects at Japanese restaurants sinceI could get more data and they always insisted on paying the bill. My data for Company A were gathered solely by intensive interviews, though I toured the factory once with the president. From eating out with them I could get a better picture of Company A as a whole as I asked the Japanese men more questions, and testing my theory.

I went out for dinner with Kato one Saturday evening that summer in order to gather additional data and explanations. He told me his perspectives on his work, and his American colleagues. When he dropped me off in front of my dorm, he said, "I hope to see you again. Call me when you come back from your vacation." He also said that I should come and visit him at his apartment. I understood that these single men do not have many opportunities to meet Japanese women, but I did not want to go beyond a researcher-subject relationship. I told him that it was difficult to visit him since I did not have a car--a reasonable excuse. The researcher has his or her own self image and concept, but it is often the case that others do not perceive the researcher the way that he or she does. I could use my ascribed status (Japanese, young, single) to the maximum. However, it seemed unnecessary and unethical to get involved with them since I could lose objectivity.

The Japanese men seemed to enjoy the dinner and my attention very much. I did not bring my tape recorder to the restaurants since I thought it inappropriate to do so. I was busy taking mental notes as I ate.

3.7 Interview as Methodology Company A is a manufacturing company and there were practical constraints for participant observation. First of all, there was a problem of safety. The company does not want a layperson to engage in work which entails some danger and careful attention. Secondly, there 41

was q. problem of company secrets. Company A's markets are very competitive in terms of technology and the management does not want any outsiders to obtain information about its newest technology. And thirdly, the distance between my residence and the company was not suitable for commuting.

Due to the above reasons, an alternative methodology was sought--intensive interviewing. The president and the vice president granted me permission to interview their workers whom they selected. I was very afraid that this would lead to sampling bias since the interviewees were not randomly chosen. However, the survey results proved that the samples were homogeneous and representative.

I used semi-structured open ended interviewing since my approach was inductive and draws upon the procedures of the grounded theory (Glazer & Strauss 1967). I formulated several broader questions by reading various articles and books in the literature of complex organizations. Basically I asked my interviewees questions in sequence. At times I spontaneously added several related questions pertaining to the particular interviewee. The flow of the interviews was free and natural.

3.8 Making Appointments With Interviewees My interviews with the Japanese men from Company A did not go smoothly at first. I asked Mrs. B to get in touch with Shirano and set up a time for my interview since I was going to stay with Mrs. B overnight one weekend. When I went to Mrs. B's house and called Shirano to make sure that he knew I was coming, there was no answer. I tried calling him up several times in vain.

Later that night, Shirano called me up and said that he was with a Japanese man who was visiting Company A for a week from Tokyo. Since the weather was so nice that afternoon, they went to play golf I thought that he could have called Mrs. B and told her about it beforehand. I felt very upset, but realized that a researcher is always at the mercy of her/his interviewees and must and can not inflict any coercive power on them. I asked Shirano if the next day was all right with him, since I was going to stay with Mrs. B that night any way. He said that he was invited to a party by the Chamber of Commerce, and suggested that I should join him. He said that I could call his friend and ark him to take me there, because Shirano was also going with the Japanese visitor after they went shopping. I told him that I would not want to ask a total stranger to take me and I would just go home that weekend.

I was very furious, aggravated, and frustrated. It was my fault that I depended on Mrs. B for the arrangement of the interviews and I did not get in touch with Shirano myself. I was supposed to have two interviews that weekend. I felt very bad about it and saw black clouds blocking my future. 42

Spring had come to the Midwestern States after a long winter and the weather was very beautiful the next weekend. I had contacted Kato and Iida, my Japanese interviewees, the previous week and set up a time for interviews. Mrs. B-drove me to Iida's apartment first. I had made an appointment with him at one o'clock. Mrs. B and I arrived at his apartment there a little before one o'clock but nobody answered the door. We thought we had gone to a wrong unit, but his American neighbor said that he lived next door.

We waited for about 20 minutes hoping that he would eventually show up in front of the apartment complex. I thought, "Not again!!" He did not show up and we decided to go and see Kato first and call Iida from his house. Kato was very surprised since we showed up an hour earlier for his interview. We explained the situation to him and he called Iida a couple of times without luck. We had been talking for a while when the telephone rang. It was Iida. Kato told him that we were staying with him and were coming to his apartment right away.

Upon our arrival at Iida's apartment, he said, "I am very sorry I am late, but I went fishing today. I told my American co-worker that I had to leave and go home for your interview. I asked him the time and Gosh! It was an hour later! I did not know that the time changed last night." Iida had just arrived from Japan only weeks before and he did not know that the Americans use the summer time.

The informal ties a researcher obtains from his/her informants are very helpful and eliminates the necessity of introduction, anxieties, and worries which often accompany him/her. However, the researcher is more dependent on his/her informants for arranging things, their will, and actions. The lesson learned: do not rely on somebody else for interview appointments.

3.9 Interview As Interaction One of the interviews with Japanese men was done at Mrs. B's house the next week. She invited me and Shirano for dinner and I suggested to her that I should make use of the chance for my research. I decided to interview Shirano and he brought Sakai, his co-worker who had just arrived in the United States and was working at Company A on a short term basis. We talked a lot about the Japanese and Americans at the table. I really wished that my tape recorder was running then, since Shirano and Sakai told us so many interesting experiences of theirs in the United States.

After dinner Shirano, Sakai, and I went to the den to have an interview. It went very well for about an hour. They were very serious, at the same time frank and funny. Shirano was rather nervous at the beginning of the interview, saying "Let's stop that tape recorder. I'm too conscious of it." He said so a couple of times and after a while he picked up a golf ball and played with it throughout the interview, (some kind of security blanket?) 43

Later they noticed that Mr. B had a bunch of Playboys and Pent Houses in his magazine rack in the den. They started looking at the pictures as they answered my questions. One of them calked to me while the other looked at the pictures. They uttered, "Hey, look at this woman! Isn’t she cute?" "I think American women have beautiful breasts!" I did not have any control over them. I could demand that they should stop doing so right away and behave themselves since I was doing my research in a very serious manner. However, I did not give them any gifts and I thought of Japanese women's virtue to be submissive and subservient rather than aggressive and demanding. This is a good example of a researcher's helpless position: she is at the mercy of her interviewees' willingness to talk and share information.

Since interviewing is symbolic interaction, a number of interactional features can influence the success of the interview. My interview with Shirano and Sakai had been very successful for a little longer than an hour until they started to look at the magazines. It is true that the researcher's ascribed status such as sex, age, social status, and appearance affect the course of interview since both the researcher and the interviewee(s) view one another as a particular social type. As Dexter notes, being what a researcher really is would "evoke different role conceptions in enough interviewees to make a difference in the responses" (1970, p.148). Not only personal factors but also the total atmosphere influence the interview data. For Shirano who had known me for over a half year, I was rather a "friend" than a serious researcher. He said that the tape recorded interview was too formal for us and got very nervous at the beginning.

The atmosphere of the setting, Mrs. B's den, was very homy, cozy, and convenient. However, it might have given Sakai an impression that the interview was between "friends" and not that serious. The researcher should know that interviewees respond not only to words as stimuli but also to the total setting since an interview is not a naturally occurring and common encounter.

Interviewing Shirano and Sakai at the same time provided useful information about their company and their lives. Shirano had been in the States for three years while Sakai had been there for only a month. This contrast in their experience made the interview very lively. As we proceeded, Sakai also asked questions which pertained to the company setting. This stimulated Shirano to talk and explain more.

3.10 Interview Sites All the American and Japanese workers of Company A were interviewed at their home except a few. The president and an American supervisor were interviewed at the factory for their convenience and similarly a Japanese worker came to my dorm which is located near an oriental food store where he often shops. 44

An interviewee's house may be one of the most appropriate places for an interview because it is a familiar setting for the interviewee and also gives the researcher some extra cues and information about the interviewee. I felt very lucky that my interviewees agreed to have interviews at their home for this reason. The following discussion of three interviews of American workers will reveal how interviewing is beneficial for attaining additional information.

Ralph, for example, talked about his Japanese co-workers' generosity during the interview. He said, "Gh, the Japanese are very giving people." After the interview was over, his wife brought us some pop and she joined our conversation. Ralph brought all the gifts his Japanese co-workers had given him and showed them to me one by one: two T-shirts, a set of silverware, a Japanese calendar, a teddy bear that Shirano's mother made, Japanese coins, and so on. As Ralph showed these items he talked more about his social relations with his Japanese co-workers, this time in a less reserved manner since the tape recorder was out of his view. Had the interview not taken place at his house, he might not have mentioned about the presents, how he got them, or his feelings toward the Japanese. Surrounded by his own possessions and secure in a familiar situation, Ralph took the initiative in talking about these things.

Similarly, Larry showed me gifts from the Japanese workers as he showed me around the house. He said, "They always bring gifts to me even though I tell them not to," he said smiling. "They love to play ping pong downstairs when they come over," he said. Larry had cut out a newspaper article of a local paper and he gave it to me saying, "I thought it would help you in some way." I really appreciated Larry's interest in my dissertation and support for it.

During my interview with Debbie, again, I gathered more information that I would not have obtained if the interview had not taken place at her house. She gave me a sheet of handout given to her by her co-worker during work. It contained codes for bad words and phrases. She had been telling me about obscene words spoken on the assembly line when she remembered she had this paper which had been left near the telephone. "Here-, you can take this home for your data," she said and handed it to me.

Although the interviewee's house provides a friendly setting, certain disturbances can happen. At Ralph's house, his wife and baby stayed in the kitchen which adjoins the living room and I found myself occasionally distracted. From where I sat, I saw Ralph's wife wash dishes, prepare milk for the baby, and cut fruit. At Larry's, the telephone rang at the end of the interview. Even though it was for his wife, it somehow stopped the flow of the interview. Larry's wife came to the living room where we were having an interview and asked us if we wanted anything to drink. Larry introduced me right away to her. While her intentions was to be courteous, there are moments when an interviewer would rather keep the interviewee talking than be offered a glass of soda. 45

At Iida's house, I interviewed him in the dining room which had a low oriental table. We sat on the floor with the table between us. He had put his fishing rods on it and he touched them occasionally as he talked. This generated some data on his social relations with other workers, i.e., he loved to go fishing with his colleagues, but his touching and looking at the rods was very distracting at times.

Dogs and cats can be disturbing, too. They come into the room where we are interviewing, distracting the interviewee's attention when he/she is talking on the most important question. "Oh, Fluffy! Come here and say "hi" to Kinko!" is not something a researcher wants in the middle of the serious discussion.

Whenever an interview occurs in a home, some disturbances will usually happen ranging from a telephone call to a warm welcome of a friendly dog during the discussion. Though these disturbances break concentration and break the flow of interview, interviewing at home is ideal in that it can offer additional information and generate unanticipated discussion. I benefitted much from it.

3.11 Situational Talk as Source of Data In the subfield of complex organization, formal interviewing is a popular and common sociological method to obtain data. Interviewing is a both qualitative and quantitative method best suited for collecting data which cannot be obtained from participant observation or by secondary analysis alone. Through interviews, the researcher can directly obtain information on the meanings, feelings and structures of the social setting and interaction. Douglas (1976), however emphasized that interviewing has shortcomings as well. For example, the researcher is at the mercy of the interviewee's willingness to talk openly and frankly. Evasion, lies, front, misunderstanding and so on do take place, often without the researcher's knowledge. Reaction is another problem. Many people get somewhat formal during the interview and some become very conscious of and often nervous or even intimidated by the presence of the tape recorder.

Many researchers have noted the importance of interviewing as a vital source of information, fccusing more on the formal aspects of the interviewing; making appointments with the interviewees, selecting an interview site, tape recording, and so on.

Situational talk or informal interviewing which occurs naturally and spontaneous can also be a vital part of data collection. The social setting and interaction is more natural, informal and relaxed. There is no reaction whether on the part of the "interviewer" or "interviewee." Everyday speech is used and more true confessions are made since it is a casual conversation. These data collected in situ are very important in that certain social activities take place only in a certain situation or place at a certain time. 46

At "Company B, I gathered data by participant observation and informal situational talk in the setting. I became a member of the company by being there for several hours each week. I came to know many American workers as I worked and attended several different social events such as potluck lunches and a Christmas dinner. I also talked with them as I took coffee breaks for 15 minutes or so.

The workers were very friendly and seemed to enjoy my company. Michael and Roy used to say, "Oh, boy! It's Thursday again since Kinko is here." Conversation with them was fun. Michael, who is rather talkative, was happy to have me around when he got bored and often he initiated the conversation. Roy always helped me by lending his scissors, tapes, stapler, and paper, and sometimes with fixing the printing machine. I asked Roy and Michael questions such as "Do you think you'd be happy if you can spend more time with your baby?" "How do you take vacations?" "Do you think the Japanese work too hard?" and "What are the differences between the American and Japanese workers?"

Several secretaries and other clerks such as Melanie, Kelly, Cindy, and Linda became especially close to me since we talked very often. Some of them had important information about the executives and the company and they often told me "stories" off the record. This was due to the fact that I was not an outsider but a member of the company. I really enjoyed the friendly atmosphere of Company B.

The workers were easy to work with and also frank with m e . The job itself was not that exciting, but the reality I was finding "out there" was. I had fun listening to them complain, complement or gossip with each other. For example, a few Japanese engineers said to me in Japanese, "You know, these American engineers, their level of competence is that of a vocational school student. They can do one thing better than I, though. They write better English manual," "That guy (American executive) is stupid. He doesn't know anything," and "Jerry (another executive) is funny. He gets too excited about his business trips and goes home so early to pack his luggage without doing anything here." The American workers do not know what these Japanese men are saying since they are speaking in Japanese!

American workers on the other hand said about the Japanese staff, "Oh, that guy is very demanding. Well, he knows exactly what should be done and I just do what he tells me. That's all. He is not friendly at all," "I wish the parent company write facsimiles in English so that I can understand them right away," and so on. I was in situ with the workers and thus could understand the contexts of what they said.

I also had opportunities to talk with family members of the Japanese workers by visiting their homes. Mr. Ochi of Company B invited me to dinner at his house a few times. As we had dinner together, Mr. and Mrs. Ochi often talked about the workers at Company B and the managerial practices. When I quit working at Company B, Mr. Ochi told me to call him up, keep in touch, and stop by at his house. 47

I took advantage of my networks of friends and their relatives to obtain more information. For example, Mr. Marui works for Company D as a manager and I came to know him through his son who was a high school student and who knew my friend. Mr. & Mrs. Marui invited me to their house for dinner several times along with my friend and I obtained very important data by talking with them. For instance, their sons told me that their father works many hours a day, go to work even on Saturdays, plays golf with workers from Company D, and so on. Mrs. Marui told me about the problems the workers' wives and children have in adapting to the U.S. society and especially the school system. These situational talks became very crucial as they supplemented the data which I obtained from interviewing. Much can be gathered at these informal social settings when the researcher least expects it. People are often off guard and tend to say what they really think and feel at these informal and naturally occurring occasions. A researcher should maximize the opportunities which fall on them by chance.

3.12 Participant Observation The social setting is where the dynamic, on-going, social process, and activities take place. Participant observation or field observation aims at making a qualitative analysis by being in or around the setting. The direct phenomenological experience enables the researcher to deal with the structures and the reality arising from members' interaction, their subjective meanings, intentions and motivations which are not attainable by other methodologies. To a certain degree, a participant observer fits Simmel's social type of "the stranger" who is an element of the social setting but does not belong there completely. By being "the stranger" a researcher can obtain objectivity since the involvement with the group affairs is partial and at the same time he/she can experience as the participants. The researcher is able to have access to certain places, situations, or information that are usually off limits to outsiders. As Lofland notes, participant observation is "the most directly involving and therefore the most intimate and morally hazardous method of social research (1971, p.93)," and the data are gathered by "close, detailed, dense acquaintanceship with a particular locale of social life based on free-flowing and prolonged immersion" (1978, p.7).

I went to Company B once a week over the period of one year. At Company B, I learned many things from using a word processor, a printer, technical terms, to their jargon used in their business. I came to know people by name and their jobs as time went on. I, as a participant observer, took part in the socialization process which reflects the unity and the structure of the whole setting. Being in the situation enables the researcher to experience the on-going and naturally occurring social interactions and activities. As Heidegger claims, being entails understanding; Dasein or "being there." The knowledge that a participant observer gains is both erleben (lived experience) and erfahrung (acquired knowledge such as tradition, commonsense wisdom, practical knowledge, etc.). Since the 48 understanding comes from within, participant observation enriches the data to a significant degree.

Acceptance by the members of the social setting is often problematic for a participant observer, but my case was out of question. I went to the setting already as "a member" of the organization and did not invoke any suspicion among the American cr the Japanese workers. Since I wanted to be sincere and honest, I introduced myself as a sociologist studying Japanese organizations in the United States. The workers showed much interest in my dissertation and we often discussed on informal occasions. I could gain firsthand, spontaneous, and frank opinions, feelings, and ‘ emotions of the workers.

My social relationship with the workers became better and encompassing as time went by. The former president invited me to dinner at his house and so did Mr. Ochi, a senior engineer. A Japanese accountant asked me to write Japanese letters for advertisement while an American woman asked me to translate a jewelry advertisement in a newspaper for the Japanese population in town. I bought a color TV at a very cheap price from one of the American workers. When my cousin, a TV director in Japan was visiting me, an American worker took us to one of the local TV stations where he used to work. I enjoyed all the social gatherings and I really felt that I was lucky to have all these opportunities. When I announced that I was going to quit, all the American workers said, "We're gonna miss you!" "You should stop by here some time." This convinced me that I was actually a member of Company B and not a mere outside researcher. Keeping good relationships with my subjects was very beneficial in terms of my data gathering and private life. As Cicourel notes, the researcher's relationship to the subjects may alter "the kinds of activities to which the observer will be exposed" (1964, p.42).

3.13 Note Taking Note taking during participant observation enables the observer stimulation for recalling events and what the people in the social setting said. It is a "hard and time-consuming work" (Cicourel 1964, p.45). In my case, I did not take many notes at Company B, since I considered it distracting in the natural flow of interaction. I, however, jotted down key words and sentences on a small piece of paper later and put it into my bag. I also wrote several sentences and words on the way back home as my friends gave me rides. I typed observational, methodological and theoretical notes when I was home the same night. I tried to minimize the temporal span between observation and notetaking.

I had dinner with workers of Company A and Company B on several occasions, whether it was in a Japanese restaurant or at their homes. As we ate, I always tried to take advantage of the occasion and asked them questions. They seemed to enjoy my attention. They talked about their opinions, feelings, and attitudes "off the record" and what they said was true and honest. I had to remember what they said 49

(mental note taking!) since it was inappropriate to take notes at a dinner table, not to mention tape recording of the conversation.

During my interviews with the workers of Company A, I jotted down key words and concepts as the interview proceeded. This was very helpful in transcribing tapes and also for later analysis. The notes served as an outline of the interview.

Note taking is not limited to participant observation or interviews. It was very interesting that good ideas struck me when I was least concerned with my dissertation. Reading various books, journals, and articles, watching national news, watching comedies on TV, etc gave me quite a lot of insight. I made a "Think Tank" out of a big box and put it on my desk. I started to throw new ideas, comments, concepts, and so on into this box. This turned out to be a very efficient way of organizing ideas, analysing, and writing up at a later time.

3.14 Leaving The Field When a researcher comes to the stage of saturation in which nothing new takes place or no more new ideas and concepts are generated, this is the time to leave the field. It is the last process of data gathering.

With Company A, the exit was very easy since I used interviews as major procedure to obtain data. For majority of my interviews, it was once-for-all occasion, though I kept in touch with several Japanese and American workers.

At Company B, I had told the company that I would work for it for a year and possibly a year and a half and I knew I was going to quit. After thirteen months since I started, the new president decided that all the facsimiles should be written in English whether they were between the Japanese engineers or between Tokyo and the United States. The facsimiles written in Japanese had cost the company in terms of efficiency of communication and finance. The accountant told me that they wanted me to quit within two months since there would be no need for me. I told him that I would rather quit then instead of waiting for two months.

The American workers showed me their concern and few of them gave me their phone numbers so that I could call them. I felt very thankful to these employees who supported me, cheered me up occasionally, and showed me so much concern for my dissertation. I was happy to leave, but I felt bad about leaving them behind. They showed me the way how reality is out there outside campus. They gave me their honest remarks, sometimes in whisper. These mixture of emotions and feelings are the proof that social research is indeed a human business.

3.15 Keeping In Touch The research does not end when the researcher exits the setting. Keeping in touch with the workers was one of the most important and 50

beneficial steps of my research. At the end of each interview, I asked my interviewees whether I could get in touch with them if I had questions or needed additional information and confirmation later on. Every one of them said "Any time!" and "I'll be happy to be of your help" with a big smile. I was very thankful for their willingness to cooperate with me and contribute to my dissertation. I was actually very nervous when I asked them additional favor.

As I had expected, there were certain times when I needed to call some of my interviewees to check on some information, meanings, and examples. This was because I had overlooked certain things before I actually started writing up my data and analysis. The workers were always very courteous and seemed to be interested in my progress. They gave me support, encouragement, and energy to go on. "I cannot let these people down by not finishing my dissertation," I often thought.

Other than telephone calls and brief visits, the workers and I exchanged Christmas cards and letters. One of the Japanese managers who went back to Japan wrote that it was nice knowing me and he wanted to see me in Japan some time. When an American woman got married, I sent her a card. I fully realized through my research that sociology is indeed a human business and sociologists cannot do without their subjects' willingness to share their lives. Writing a dissertation was really a social and sociological phenomenon to me due to these wonderful people who got involved with my research.

3.16 Transcription Of Interview Tapes I did not have any major technical problems with tape recording of all the interviews, except some of the tapes missed the very first part of Side B. All the tapes turned out to be clear and easy to listen to. However, transcription of the tapes was much harder and required much more patience and determination than I had expected. Generally speaking, it is said that it takes more than nine hours per one hour of interview to transcribe the tape. I did learn this fact soon after I started transcribing. I had noted down key words, names, phrases, and sentences as I interviewed, which helped me greatly in transcription.

I did all the transcriptions myself. It was a physically and mentally painful and demanding task. It was a nightmare. I wrote all the sentences on pieces of paper (on every other line) after listening to a few sentences at a time. After all the sentences were spelled out, whether perfect or not, I typed them into the word processor and printed them out. Then, I listened to the tape again, filling in words and making corrections. I had tried typing as I listened to the tape, since it seemed faster. However, this exhausted me and I found that ray attention span was limited. I often had to listen to the tape several times at some points. Especially those tapes from the group interview which I did with four American women at a time, was very hard since they often talked simultaneously. It was very frustrating not to be able to figure out what the interviewees were saying. 51

For the interviews conducted in Japanese, I transcribed in Japanese. 1 translated simultaneously those sentences I quoted as I wrote the chapters. It did not make much sense to translate every sentence, since translation is time consuming.

The word processor was my best friend over the period of four months. I started to have pains in my fingers from writing, and in wrists and shoulders from typing. I complained to my advisor about the pain and my fate as a researcher who needs to transcribe the tapes for data. She recommended me to buy an arthritis cream to get rid of the pain!

Not only physical pain but also impatience was bad enough for my mental health. In addition, the piles of the tapes in front of me seemed never to become smaller. "Am I really going to finish this project?" I wondered many times. It seems very important for a researcher to have patience in transcription. (I asked Mr. Ochi of Company B whether Company B can invent a transcription machine and his answer was in affirmative. I think transcription machines would definitely shorten the period needed for research for many sociologists.)

3.17 Survey Design The quantitative data for this research consist of two survey results. One survey was conducted at several manufacturing companies (Company A type) and another at several service organizations (Company B type). Though both data are important, we will deal primarily with those of manufacturing organizations for our analysis. Except intercultural interactions between the American and Japanese workers, the two sets of organizations differ in production processes, occupational structures, and company policies. Thus, mixing of both sets of data will cause complication. The survey results of service organizations will be used somewhere else.

3.18 General Characteristics of the Manufacturing Sample The population included 69 Americans who were currently employed full time by several Japanese American companies in the Midwest. (The number of the Japanese workers are extremely small, and though they participated in the survey, they are not included in the data analysis.) Twenty seven and half percent (27.5%) of the sample classified themselves as supervisors and 72.5% as regulars. Fifty two and two tenths percent (52.2%) were men and 47.8% women. The number of years worked in the company ranged from less than one year (52.2%), between one and two years (24.6%), between two and three years (2.9%), between three and four years (10.1%), to more than four years (10.1%). Majority of the workers (82.6%) were employed by other companies when they got their current jobs while 14.5% were unemployed and 2.9% stayed home as housewives.

3.19 Data Collection An explanatory cover letter introducing the researcher, a letter 52

of recommendation from a Japanese economist-, and the survey questionnaire were sent to 19 manufacturing and service organizations. These companies were selected by the criteria of homogeneity of size and products. Among the 19,.only 6 granted me a permission. One manufacturing organization had been under construction and nobody had yet been hired. Another manufacturing company was no longer affiliated with the Japanese parent company. The major reason for rejection, according to several Japanese managers who wrote me letters or called me up, was because my survey accentuated the differences between American and Japanese companies. They considered it inappropriate since their companies have been doing their best to implement the idea that their company is "American" and not "Japanese."

The survey consisted of three parts. The first section provided information on a worker's sex, length of service, position, what he/she did before getting the current job and so on. The second section asked only supervisors to answer questions pertaining to frequency of meetings and interaction. The third section consisted 50 Likert-type statements. Four answers of strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree were provided. These statements were derived from the qualitative data obtained by intensive interviewing and participant observation. The survey is included in Appendix A. The survey results were analyzed using the SPSS programs.

3.20 Validity The data collection instrument was reviewed by a few of knowledgeable social and behavioral scientists for constructing validity. A Japanese manager of a manufacturing organization and an American foreman at Company A reviewed all the statements in order to check wording and make them clear. Several statements were duplicated from a Japanese social psychologist's survey on workers' attitude in Japan. He gave me permission to use them and also some advice in creating the questionnaire. A pilot study was conducted with 11 white collar workers at a Company which replied to my cover letter the next day I sent it.

*****

Various sociological methodologies used in my research were the focus of this chapter. An overview of methodology generally used in the field of complex organization and that of my research procedures were presented along with the problems of ethnographic data gathering. The latter were discussed in detail since the major portion of my data comes from the fieldwork of intensive interviewing and participant observation. Additionally, this chapter indicated the rationale for employing each methodology.

The next chapter briefly reviews Japanese business history which influenced the formation of Japanese organizations. It is very important to know the historical context of the contemporary social phenomenon in order to understand it properly. Also, the ideal type of relatively large and stable Japanese business organizations is 53 constructed in order to facilitate the comparison between the Japanese companies in Japan and those abroad in order to see what kind of adaptation has been taking place in the U.S. environment. Chapter 4: History and Nature of Business Organizations In Japan and Abroad

The first section of this chapter briefly reviews Japanese business history which affected the formation of today's Japanese organizations. The particular structural and managerial practices of Japanese organizations in Japan are then reviewed in order to construct the ideal type which will enable comparison between them and those operating in the United States. This ideal type will help us examine the type and extent of organizational adaptation which took place in the States due to the change in environment. Subsequently, several specific examples of both external and internal adaptations are discussed.

4.1 Brief Economic and Industrial History of Japan Japan, the first non-Western society in the world which has achieved industrialization, has experienced a modernization which has been unique in its historical, political, economic, social, and cultural contexts. Many developing nations aim at achieving a comparable industrialization, but the programs which were effective in Japan may not be adopted efficiently due to the particular contexts of the Japanese development (Cole 1971; Dore 1973).

Only 120 years ago, Japan was a backward agricultural country under the sovereignty of Shogun, the military leader of the feudal regime.- The Meiji Restoration, which was a bloodless political revolution initiated by a handful of young elite samurai in 1868, marked the birth of a new nation based on capitalism and the Western notion of State.

Japan lagged behind the advanced industrialized Western nations in terms of economy, social systems, technology and science due to the very social structure of the preceding Tokugawa Era. The Industrial Revolution had started in England around 1775 and France in 1818, fifty years before the Meiji Restoration. The modernization of the economy and especially industrialization were a must for the new Meiji government in order to keep its independent state, catch up with the West, and increase its military strength. There was always a threat of colonization by the Western powers.

As a latecomer to the competitive world economy, Japan could take advantage of what was already available--the industrial technology, resources, and institutional models of Western nations. Japan absorbed these into the society at a very rapid rate, reaching the level of a post industrial society (Bell 1973) in about a century. Japan proved the Gershenkron hypothesis of economic

-54- 55

development (Koizumi 1982). However, much of the old traditional culture remained intact within the social institutions.

The First World War, which broke out in 1914, turned out to be the "God's Blessing" to the Japanese industry and economy because war orders from Europe and Russia brought the nation unprecedented prosperity. Starting with the Manchurian Incident in 1931, the Japanese economy came to be under the influence and control of rising militarism and fanatic nationalism. Japan literally entered imto a Spencerian "militant society" where cooperation was compulsory and people existed for the sake of the state. Acquisition of Manchuria brought more natural resources such as iron, ore, and coal, enabling Japan to recover quickly from the persisting depression which started in the late 1920s.

In spite of its initial success, the country was totally devastated during WWII, and it literally had to be rebuilt from scratch. The unconditional surrender and total destruction of the nation was an enormous shock to the Japanese who had been made to believe by the prevailing ideology that their country was protected by the divine. They had to bear the unbearable and experience hardship in reconstructing the nation, which was considered a developing nation well into the 1950s.

However, history often takes interesting turns. The advantage in installing machinery with the foremost technology available at the time resulted in greater productivity and efficiency of Japanese industry in the 1960s and 1970s, as compared with that of the West. Today, the Japanese steel industry, for example, enjoys the status of being the largest and the most modern in the world with a very competitive edge: the lowest cost and highest quality (Pegels 1984). Since the 1960s a tremendous amount of steel has been exported from Japan to the United States. Japan's success in the United States is in part due to its advanced technology. The American steel industry's retention of obsolete facilities at the cost of higher short term profit margins has undermined the implementation of new technology and efficient productivity. Japanese business organizations in general have been very successful in the world economy, expanding their share in international markets in the last twenty years. The Japanese power and success in the international economy began to be intimidating to many industrialized nations in the 1980s and are seen as a major threat, especially to the faltering American economy.

Some of the reasons for Japan's economic achievements are what Koizumi (1982) calls the Japanese GNP fetishism and a strong governmental involvement in the private sector which has been a tradition since the beginning of the Meiji Era (Ibid). In 1983, Japan's Gross National Product (GNP) ranked second in the world, surpassing that of the U.S.S.R. for the first time. However, the Japanese GNP per capita does not rank high among the industrialized nations due to the large population. 56

Japan has become a new role model for both industrialized and developing nations and an increasingly significant force in the international economy. Concomitantly, it has been made a scapegoat in many situations in regard to trade friction. Much prejudice exists against Japan and misunderstanding of its trade policies prevails, especially of its protectionism. The intimate relationship between the government and the private sector has been notoriously labelled as "Japan Inc." by many foreign observers and has created resentment, envy, and antagonistic feelings from many nations. The United States has been calling Japanese exports to the U.S. the major cause of its trade deficit. However, the problem of commerce or trade conflict should be explained by taking into consideration all the aspects of national trade. Japan has a 35 billion dollar trade deficit with the Middle East (the OPEC nations) and a 6 billion dollar deficit with Canada and Australia while the United States is 16 billion dollars in the black in its trade with the European Community (E.C.) and also 35 billion dollars in the black with the petroleum producing nations. The dollar-yen exchange rate also adds problems in terms of the competitiveness of products and the flow of capital (Okita & Sato 1983, Pp. 2-4). It has often been mentioned in Japanese newspapers that emotions preclude rational thinking when the Americans criticize Japan of its trade policies.

The United States was the major force for modernization and especially democratization of Japan following WW II. The impact of the occupying U.S. force left on today's Japanese insitutions is quite significant. As Hirschmeier & Yui note, "The topmost concern of the GHQ was to remake Japan into a democracy after the American model with a strong middle class, deconcentration of economic power, a viable labor movement, democratic institutions of higher learning, and banishment for all times, of militarism in any form" (1975, p.229). Although the United States and Japan became allies, the United States deos not view the relationship between the two nations as advantageous. For example, the military spending of Japan is very small as compared with that of the United States because of its "free ride" on defense. The Japanese budget for defense was set at 1.004% of GNP by the Diet at the end of 1986.

The Americans also feel indignant toward certain Japanese business practices. For example, the middle of the 1980s saw South African apartheid become an international economic and political issue. The business withdrawal from South Africa has been considered by many industrialized nations vital to end this racial, political, and social problem and stratification. However, when GM withdrew, Toyota increased its sales, and Hitachi replaced the sales of IBM because Japan did not encourage its business to withdraw. To Americans, the perception is that the Japanese are sneaky, unloyal, and uncooperative with the U.S. policies. Money and profit seem to be their sole obsession.

Scarcity in natural resources and its limited market, as compared with those of the United States or the European Economic 57

Community (EEC) as a whole, has made Japanese industries dependant on foreign trade. The Japanese industry is characterized by "throughput" trade: raw materials are imported and processed in Japan; finished products are then exported in large numbers to many countries. Sogo shosha, or general trading companies, helped spread Japanese goods, virtually to every corner of the world.

In some industries, the existence of low market concentration and a large number of firms producing similar or identical products obliged Japanese organizations to be export-oriented. For example, in Japan there are 11 car and truck manufacturers (Daihatsu, Fuji, Hino, Honda, Isuzu, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki and Toyota) and at least 8 color TV manufacturers (Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NEC, Sanyo, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba) for a Japanese population of 119,000,000. Intense domestic competition in pricing and the pursuit of advanced technological innovation have aided in the acceptance of Japanese products in foreign markets as a result of their quality and cost competitiveness, though some twenty years ago "made in Japan" symbolized cheap imitations and easily broken goods produced by sweated labor.

Recently, international trade has become a critical issue for Japan's foreign relations. The trade and economic friction between the United States and Japan has become even more serious in 1986. The two governments are becoming increasingly hostile toward each other's economic policies, which can be compared to an outbreak of an economic war. Trade sanctions were imposed on the Japanese made computer chips by the U.S. administration in April 1987.

The export quotas and tariffs imposed on Japanese products by some countries along with Japan's self-imposed quotas have also made many Japanese business organizations invest more in foreign markets or set up their own branch offices and local factories elsewhere in the world. The surveillance apparatus of the Ministry of Finance, which restricted Japanese foreign investments in the 1950s and 1960s, was drastically changed in 1972, thereby promoting direct investment abroad and internationalization of its markets. In general, one would think that when there is too much capital investment abroad, Japanese investors would hesitate to invest in the domestic market. However, the case does not hold for Japan due to its high savings rate. According to Newsweek, "The Japanese save money at an astonishing rate; of the 10 largest banks in the world, seven are in Japan (2/2/87, p.43)."

Many factories have been built in Asian countries during the last two decades since the cost of labor in Japan has been increasing and becoming comparable to its Western counterparts. With the advent of Japanese technology in many fields, production of technologically mature, labor intensive, and standardized products (so-called sunset industries) have been transferred to low wage countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Singapore which welcome capital and technologically intensive industries. Close proximity in 58

distance and culture has been an important factor in choosing these sites in terms of transportation cost, delivery time, and management.

As for the Middle East, Japan organized technological development projects after the oil shock in 1973. Many Japanese organizations such as construction companies, banks, and sogo shosha (general trading companies) have advanced there, constructing oil refineries and chemical plants and transplanting technology. Japan set up a functional reciprocity with the Middle East for economic benefits and technological developments on both sides.

The ugly image of Japanese as economic animals prevailed worldwide in the early 1970s. Not all of the Japanese organizations which advanced to other countries were successful or welcomed. In the fall of 1972, there was a protest against Japanese products and organizations in Bangkok, Thailand. From the end of 1972 to mid 1973, the Koreans criticized Japanese companies as paying the lowest wage rates among the companies of foreign origin. In January 1974, when the Prime Minister Tanaka visited Jakarta, Indonesian students and unemployed workers burned his effigy and Japanese offices were stoned and Japanese cars were burned (Tsurumi 1976).

It is very important to note here the historical experiences of the East Asians with the Japanese, especially in this century. Japan forcefully annexed Korea in 1910 and invaded Tsingtao, China in 1914. As it invaded and advanced to other parts of Asia and the South Pacific, beginning with the Manchurian Incident in 1931, Japan exploited raw materials and local labor, not to mention abusing the people physically and mentally, as occurred in Nanking where the Japanese literally slaughtered the Chinese. A strong militaristic regime emerged which had control over the national economy during the 1930s.

The emotional wounds of the East Asians have not yet been healed and perhaps never will be. Strong emotions and feelings toward the Japanese, which are often expressed in the form of contempt or covert aggression, still remain high among many Asians. The old actually experienced Japanese colonialism and imperialism and the young learn them in their history classes. Though they welcome Japanese economic investments to a certain extent, they perceive the Japanese economic advancement in the last few decades to be nothing but neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism in disguise (Halliday & McCormack 1973).

Japan's economic success entailed great sacrifices on the part of the natural environment and its people where nature had been considered as something to live in harmony with rather than as an object to be conquered. Yet, the urgent need to catch up with the West after WW II obliged Japanese industries to ignore the importance of the ecosystem, leading to devastating environmental destruction. Air and water pollution became part of everyday life. Serious diseases such as the Minamata disease linked to the mercury dumped by a 59

chemical compan}' disfigured and killed many people. Many local people abroad now accuse Japanese organizations of bringing these ecological and environmental pollution problems to their countries.

In spite of bitter and antagonistic feelings demonstrated by some countries, especially in Asia, there are certain merits for both Japan and the host countries when Japanese organizations expand their businesses which promote transmission of advanced technology, mitigation of trade imbalances, capital investment, creation of jobs for natives, and so on (Moriguchi 1983). Japanese organizations have been establishing plants and branch offices throughout Europe, North and South America, and Australia, often in the form of joint ventures and mergers. Japanese investment in the United States had already exceeded American investment in Japan in the late 1970s and its rate of growth is much faster than that of the latter (Vogel 1979). In 1985, Japan ranked third in foreign investment in the United States, following Britain and Netherlands. The Japanese investment increased from $4.7 billion in 1980 to $19.1 billion in 1985 (Fortune, 12/22/1986, p.48).

In the 1980s the U.S. Federal and State Governments as well as the American public have generally been pushing for even more Japanese organizations to build plants in the United States in ‘order to mitigate the trade deficit, and a growing number of Japanese companies have set up local factories in the United States. The Japanese newspaper the Yomiuri reports that there are more than 160 Japanese companies in Georgia alone, surpassing 150 British companies. High officials of the state government even have their business cards printed in English and Japanese. The Japan Airlines started a new direct service between Atlanta and Tokyo in due time (The Yomiuri, 9/5/1986).

U.S. tariffs have also played an important role in convincing Japanese organizations to shift production to the United States and to third world countries. For example, in the United States all trucks which are imported from Japan pay a 25% ad-valorem tax while the auto parts are taxed only 4%. This governmental policy encourages Knock Down (KD) production of Japanese trucks in the States using available local labor, as can be seen by Nissan's currently producing trucks in Tennessee. Some Japanese companies advanced their businesses to third nations in the Southeast Asia and established factories there in order to avoid import limits to the United States. In this way, a Japanese product is labeled "made in Taiwan" or "made in Hong Kong," and is sold in the U.S., while creating profit for Japan.

As for color TVs, the Electronic Industries Association (E.I.A.) reported to the Department of Treasury in 1968 that many Japanese companies were dumping their color TVs exported to the United States. As has been mentioned, the small Japanese domestic market obliges some of Japanese industries to seek their markets abroad. As executives of Sony had anticipated the future import-export friction between the United States and Japan, Sony decided to expand to the United States 60

and started manufacturing color TVs in San Diego in 1972, Several companies followed Sony: Matsushita (1974), Sanyo (1977), Mitsubishi (1978) , Toshiba (1978), Sharp (1979) and Hitachi (1979).

Their advance to the United States was timely since COMPACT (Committee to Protect American Color Television Sets) was formed among the American TV manufacturers and the electrical workers unions (IBEW and IUE). They successfully lobbied the International Trade Commission to recommend a drastic tariff increase on color TVs from Japan in March 1977 (Tsurumi 1977, p.17).

Various other Japanese companies soon followed suit. Kikkoman opened a factory in Walworth, Wisconsin in 1972 and started manufacturing soy sauce in 1973. Kawasaki started motorcycle production in Lincoln, Nebraska in 1975 and Honda had been thinking about building a factory for motorcycle and automobile production in the United States long before the cry for protectionism. Honda started manufacturing motor cycles in Marysville, Ohio in 1979 and cars in 1982.

Japanese organizations are conspicuous both in the urban and rural United States today. Many products are made by Americans under Japanese brand names such as Honda, Kawasaki, Sony, Yamaha, and Nissan, which have become part of the everyday vocabulary of American English. It seems inevitable that the amount of Japanese direct investment in the States will even increase in the years to come and that the role these Japanese companies play as "American" companies will be even more significant.

4.2 Japanese Organizations in Japan Though there is much literature on Japanese organizations, its industrial system, society, culture and psychology, sociological analysis has not been done extensively on these issues. Many articles and books have been written by various scholars in the last decade in the fields of the economic history of Japan (Ando 1980; Hirschmeier & Yui 1975; Nakagawa et al. 1979), anthropology (Nakane 1970; Rohlen 1979), journalism (Fukuoka 1980; Hotta 1981; Kato 1981; Kibi 1980; Oda 1980; Sagara 1980; Sakiya 1982; Urawa 1981; Yoshida 1986; Yoshii 1980), economics (Koizumi 1982; Sato 1983; Okita & Sato 1983), psychology (Doi 1977, 1981; Kimura 1980; Ozaki 1980; Tsurumi 1972; Wagatsuma 1985) and management (Brown 1968; Lee & Schwendiman 1982; Marsh & Mannari 1978; Mito 1981; Nakagawa 1985; Ouchi 1981; Pascale 1978; Pascale & Athos 1981; Pegels 1984; Prasad 1968; Sethi 1978; Sethi et al. 1984; Takamiya 1979, 1981; Tsurumi 1976, 1978; Yoshino 1968, 1975, 1976).

This section reviews sociologically relevant literature on Japanese organizations, society and culture (tradition, customs and manners, beliefs, values, etc,) which influenced the formation of the Japanese organizations. We shall focus on literature on Japanese organizations in Japan and propose an ideal type. 61

Constructing an ideal type of "the" Japanese business organization is rather difficult because of the diversities found among various Japanese companies. There are large organizations which have long histories and house traditions such as the zaibatsu organizations. Zaibatsu literally means "financial clique" and refers to "the large industrial and financial combines formed during the Meiji Era" (Hirschmeier & Yui 1975, p.322). Zaibatsu was dissolved in 1945 under the occupation by the Allied Forces, but was replaced by enterprise groupings (keiretsu).There are also those newer organizations with relatively short histories and unique and distinctive company philosophies such as Sony, Matsushita Electronics, and Honda Motors. For example, Matsushita is known for the familist spirit and indoctrination of "the seven attitudes." Sony and Honda stress "rationality, disdain of formalism and of college diplomas; their firms act quite according to Western efficiency principles -- yet these are made into their 'creed' and bequest as founders" (Hirschmeier & Yui 1975, p.254).

In addition, Japan has a dual economic structure which includes the large, stable and powerful business organizations, and a tremendous number of smaller and less advantaged organizations which are vulnerable during economic recessions. The latter are usually subsidiary or subcontract organizations of the former, and their workers "toil for substandard wages, work under unsafe conditions, and account for a greater part of the Japanese success" (Sethi et al. 1984, p. 48). The activities of the large organizations are supervised and guided by the Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI) and they enjoy various privileges given by the government whose economic planning has been considered one of the key factors for Japan's recent economic success. Most of the small firms exist "at the pleasure and at the mercy of the major firms" (Ouchi 1981, p.21), providing a considerable buffer for the larger companies in times of recession. While he recognizes the relationships among the large and small organizations, Clark (1979) calls this economic structure industrial gradation rather than industrial dualism. He claims that there is a continuous variation among different sizes of organizations and there is always a possibility of organizational growth.

In this study, we shall construct the ideal type of larger and more stable Japanese organizations since they are most likely to expand their business abroad. Japanese organizations and their particular social, historical, and cultural contexts are discussed in the framework of the open system model of organizations and divergence theories. According to the divergence theorists, there are variations among managerial and employee practices, attitudes, leadership, and organizational structure of different nations due to their unique sociocultural and historical backgrounds. The variation is also the result of organizational adaptation to the particular environment. 62

As Everett E. Hagan says in the foreword to Abegglen's The Japanese Factory, "principles of business administration are not absolute; they are relative to the culture of the society" (1957, p.vii). Yoshino also observes that Japanese managerial practices "are, indeed, different in a number of significant ways from their American counterparts, bearing the distinct social and cultural imprints of Japanese society" (1968, p.196).

Structural and interactional features of the Japanese organization such as a lifetime commitment, recruitment of personnel, the holistic concern for the workers, emphasis on group harmony or wa, and the decision-making process are connected to and reflect Japanese history, culture, and such social systems as education, family, economy as well as the tradition. These features are deeply rooted in organizational paternalism (Prasad 1968). As Abbeglen notes:

"... although the technology of modern industry was introduced into Japan, the factory organization at the same time developed consistence with the historical customs and attitudes of the Japanese and with the social system as it existed prior to the introduction of modern industry." (1957, p.97)

These paternalistic features of the Japanese organization distinguish them from those in different societies.

Dore (1973) points out the differences between the employment systems of Japan and Britain such as recruitment, training, benefits, and labor relations which stem from the historical origins and organizational adaptation and innovations. In spite of technological change, it seems that Japanese organizations are not likely to change their fundamental structures and managerial practices in a drastic manner in the years to come since they are deeply rooted and embedded in the history of industrialization, culture, and society. Since the employment system exists in the particular value system and historical experiences of Japan, adoption of the whole system or even partial adoption may not work quite well in a different society and culture (Cole 1971; Dore 1973).

Then, a question arises: "In what way are Japanese organizations unique and why?" Writers have emphasized many different characteristics as features of Japanese society, and its organizations. Before her industrialization, Japan was a backward agrarian country where collective responsibility, group loyalty, and commitment were crucial for the survival of the whole community. Some of the Japanese core values which were nurtured in the long history of the nation and which still linger in modern Japan are: (1) amae (dependence), (2) on (duty), (3) giri (social obligation), and (4) ninjo (human feelings) (Yoshino 1968; Sethi et al. 1984). These values and psychological traits, some of which reflect feudalistic ideologies, were nurtured in the agrarian society over two thousand 63

years and form the very basis of social interaction and relation in the Japanese everyday life including business organizations. They are not likely to change quickly even with the advent of the post industrial age.

Many scholars have emphasized that the characteristics of the Japanese organization derived from the traditional social and industrial structures. Nakagawa et al (1979) argue that these characteristics must also be seen in the light of the historical process of the Japanese industrialization which was accomplished before the emergence of a civil society based on profit-loss relationships among the independent and free civilians. Unlike the West, where the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism were nurtured (Weber 1905; 1930), there was no social justification for private profit making in Japan. The business ideal lay not in the pursuit of private profit but in that of national profit. Many Japanese entrepreneurs still consider their organization as "a servant of society" which "meets the needs of its society, its customers, its executives and its employees" (Pascale 6e Athos 1981, p.38). Since the Meiji era, the goal of Japanese private enterprise has overlapped with that of the nation — national economic development. As Abegglen notes, "..., Japanese management at all levels is prone to think in large national terms and is quite conscious of the interaction between business policy and national welfare" (1957, p.11). The national consciousness of these entrepreneurs and the government is still very high in today's Japan.

The intimate relationship between the Japanese government and Japanese business and the consciousness of "national business" have fostered collectivism in Japanese organizations: a Japanese enterprise is considered not as a collective of people pursuing individual profit but as an organization which contributes to the accomplishment of national profit. This consciousness makes the members feel that their organizational life is worth striving after and they identify strongly with the organization (Nakagawa et al. 1979, pp.444-445).

4.3 The Structural Aspects of Japanese Organizations This section presents the ideal type of the structure of the large Japanese organizations in Japan. The following features were selected because they are deeply rooted in the Japanese industrial history, culture, and society, distinct from those of other nations.

(1)Lifetime Commitment (Shushin koyo sei) The Japanese system of "lifetime commitment" or employment is rather a misnomer. A Japanese employee does not work for an organization until he/she dies. Most large organizations set a mandatory retirement age, usually between 55 and 65. (Recent Japanese longevity induced Japanese organizations to extend their retirement age by several years.) Lifetime commitment means one's commitment of his/her entire working career to one company. 64

Strictly speaking, the number of people who benefit from this system is limited. It is generally estimated that only 20% to 30% of the work force enjoy the system's benefits, that is, only those who work for organizations with 1,000 employees or more have the security. Small Japanese companies cannot offer job security even to their regular workers. There are masses of temporary, seasonal, or part-time workers who work for both large and small business organizations. These tend to be older male and middle-aged female workers without any benefits of the lifetime commitment system, who are the first ones to be laid off or fired in times of recession as the buffering mechanism of the employment of the regular workers, (For the discriminatory treatment of seasonal and women workers, see Kamata (1982) and Takenaka (1983).), However, as Prasad notes, "... the occurrence of lifetime employment is great compared to other industrialized countries" (1968, p.218).

Many scholars argue that the origin of lifetime commitment is in the family traditions of the old zaibatsu, some of which originated in the merchant houses of the Tokugawa Era. The Japanese merchant houses created a pseudo family institution which was very similar to the traditional concept of ie or the "house," which constituted the base of Japanese society. (Interestingly enough, before the new Constitution was issued in 1947, the smallest unit of Japanese society was not the individual but the family.) Merchant houses took in boys as apprentices and socialized them into talented and efficient employees/managers in their adult years. They were treated as members of the "family" and stayed in it until their retirement. Some of them married to the daughters of their master who did not have any sons and accordingly changed their last names to their master's to inherit the house. This is called yoshi engumi or "adoption," and is still widely practiced in Japan.

The industrial structure of the nation became more complex after 1910 when Japanese organizations faced severe competition with foreign enterprises. Thus, lifetime commitment became a form of labor control: it was a mechanism of direct employment by an organization rathet than an indirect employment system such as that of the craftsmen. It was more efficient because talented (well- trained) , efficient, and excellent workers work for the same organization for a long time. It had characteristics of the old master-vessel system of the feudal era.

The present form of lifetime employment emerged after WW II in response to labor shortage and mobility. The government promoted the system, which became a convenient mechanism for the prevention of both confrontations between management and labor and of labor unrest in the country. The lifetime employment system, which may seem pre­ modern and even feudalistic, was completed as a system during the economic boom of the 1960s (Kaneda 1978, p.8). 65

The system brings a high degree of stability of employment and income along with employee loyalty to the company and the job security to the workers, leading to the motive power of organizational development. As Yoshino says, "The Japanese employment relationship is an unconditional one, requiring total commitment on the part of employer and employee" (1968, p.229). Many Japanese consider their company as an organism filled with human soul. The company and the self are identical (Kume 1987, p.154).

When a Japanese is hired as a regular worker under the lifetime commitment system, he/she signs not a contract but an oath with the company which reads something as follows: "Once I become a member of the company, I will do my utmost best in working for it. In case of my causing trouble to the company, both my guarantor and the joint guarantor will compensate for it." In short, on becoming a member of the "family," one swears that one will work not only for oneself but also for the company, which often takes precedence. The worker's devotion to the company is expected once the oath is signed, and the responsibility rests with the worker and his/her guarantor(s) who is a person, usually the employee's parent or uncle who has the joint responsibility for his/her conduct in the organization. For example, if the worker misappropriates the corporate fund and is fired, the guarantor, along with the employee, has the responsibility to pay the company back. This notion of a "guarantor" does not exist in some other nations when hiring employees.

Along with the seniority pay system (the nenko pay system), it makes sense to stay in the same company until one retires as there is a reciprocal relationship and commitment between management and labor which is more than a mere exchange of labor and wages; the former, as a principle, does not lay off or discharge the latter for any arbitrary reasons (job security) and the latter will not quit. As Abegglen claims, there exists "... the tacit recognition by management that the relationship between the company and the worker is not simply a function of the economic convenience of the two parties" (1958, p.12).

Only in a very rare case, can an employee be fired in a Japanese company. Such cases entail misbehavior such as dishonest conduct, serious moral offenses, major criminal offenses, and misappropriation of corporate funds. Discharge from employment entails not only economic but also social costs on the part of the employee, since the lifetime commitment is basically a norm within the Japanese society.

Because of recent technological development, mid-career employment or scouting is more common these days, especially researchers in high tech fields are wanted everywhere. Many engineers, technicians and researchers are scouted in their mid­ career by other organizations in the same field. They have more job mobility than most Japanese white collar workers. Oftentimes they have a hard time fitting into a new organization due to the characteristics of the social relations in the company. 66

Lifetime commitment emerged as a rational solution to the problems of employment and income stability in the economic boom of the 1960s when there was labor shortage. It has been widely practiced since then, but it is not without problems in the 1980s. Appreciation of the Japanese yen against the U.S. dollar in 1987, for example, forced many companies to reconsider the lifetime employment. Economic recession obliges many companies to promote early retirement of their older employees by offering more retirement money and utilization of competent workers is often problematic due to the low interfirm mobility.

(2) Recruitment Due to the practice of lifetime commitment, selection of "bad apples" is often very costly in terms of organizational efficiency. The Japanese organization takes great efforts in and attach considerable importance to recruiting the right kind of new personnel.

Each worker is considered as human capital which can be transformed to fit the company climate or corporate culture. The company expects them to have higher morale as members of an organization. Most workers are recruited at the entry level; a regular worker, whether blue collar or white collar, is recruited when he/sne graduates from a university, 2 year college, vocational school or high school. This hiring system, geared to the academic year, started after World War II and in the late 1950s. The system became the established norm for middle and large sized organizations which needed to secure their personnel in order to meet the demands of high economic growth. The newly recruited are considered akin to tabula rasa. The Japanese organization will take them in and socialize them into "company people."

There used to be a gentlemen's agreement among business organizations in Japan that no personnel department should meet and interview the prospective seniors at colleges until October 1st, but this is no longer in effect. In July and August, seniors visit corporations where they want to be hired the following April. (The Japanese school year starts in April and ends in March.) Some of them who have connections with the executive class will have an informal interview with the officials from the personnel department and get general information on the job and company. Such prospective workers- to-be are contacted by the company and hired without going through the regular procedures of exams and interviews. Most of them will be notified by October 1st. This is a case of nepotism still practiced today.

For those students without any connections, there will be exams in October on general knowledge (current events, history, government, economy, literature, etc) and the English language along with other aptitude tests, psychology tests and ability tests. The recruitment 67

is done only once a year for all applicants, both blue and white collar, for regular positions. Although Japanese organizations prefer generalists, specialists are often desired in certain companies which hire researchers and engineers. High technology specialists are often recruited from Graduate Schools through professors and their connections. Like other workers, they go through the same training to become "company people" and to fit the company mold. They do have a sense of professionalism but tend to identify first with the company and then their profession or specialty. The way new workers are recruited has a significant implication for the formation of groups and relationships within an organization.

(3) Training In Organizations (Education & Socialization) On April 1st, most organizations have a ceremony and reception for the newly recruited, often attended by their parents. There are speeches by the president, vice president and other executives, all of which emphasize the new unity among the workers, their families, and the company. This rite of passage marks one's independence from one's parents and initiates one's new life as a member of a new "family" where one will stay until retirement.

The young workers are now in the hands of the company and are to be socialized into the corporate culture. The company usually starts its training program for the new recruits in the middle of March or at the beginning of April. The training is a socialization process for those at the entry level, which can be called an "in-house indoctrination program" (Sethi et al. 1984, p.34).

During the training session, the new recruits learn and are exposed to the functional aspects of the company as well as to the corporate philosophy and culture. (Dore 1973; Rohlen 1979; Tanaka; 1980) The training fosters the internalization of the norms, and rules of the organization as well as the company philosophy, values, and ideology. After the intensive training the workers will come to pursue their own interests at the same time as serving the interests of the organization as a whole. As Yoshino says "...Japanese management would emphasize loyalty and duty to the group, harmony and cooperation among group members, rather than individual functions and responsibilities" (1968, p.203). Fulfillment of the goals of the collectivity takes precedence over that of a individual.

Most large companies have their own facilities for training which are usually called the "Training Center" whose facilities include classrooms, dormitories, cafeterias, gyms, and other sport facilities. The length of the training varies from one company to another, but it is usually between 2 weeks and 6 months or more. This type of training has been adopted by many companies since around 1960. Once in the training, the trainees cannot leave the center overnight and social outings and drinking are also prohibited. This type of authoritarian control of one's private life is unimaginable somewhere else. The training center has characteristics of a total institution as described by Erving Goffman (1961): 68

(1) All aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the' same single authority.

(2) Each phase of the members' daily activity will be carried out in the immediate company of a large batch of others, all of whom are treated alike and required to do the same thing together.

(3) All phases of the day's activities are tightly scheduled, with one activity leading at a prearranged time * into the next, the whole circle of activities being imposed from above through a system of explicit formal rulings and a body of officials.

(4) The contents of the various enforced activities are brought together as parts of a single overall rational plan purportedly designed to fulfill the official aim of the institution" (1961, p.314).

The training is quite demanding on one's physical and mental energy. The program starts quite early in the morning and lasts until late at night. The transition from student life to company life is made in the total institution, which is very different from one's everyday life experiences. As one of the Japanese trainees at a biochemical company said, "How could I ever get myself involved in this kind of place!?"

The behavioral codes required in the organization are almost identical to those of the Japanese educational system which rewards and emphasizes conformity, cooperation, diligence, submissiveness, order, punctuality, discipline and obedience to authority. One works in a group though one is evaluated by one's ability. Through the experiences of Monday morning school-wide meetings in the gym, daily cleaning of classrooms and school yards and shugaku ryoko (school trip which takes from two days to a week visiting several places), Japanese children learn the way things are carried as a member of the larger entity called school. To some students conformity is achieved with some pain and irritation, while most of them uncritically follow what is told to do by the teachers. They learn to accept norms, rules, and values of the school and their choice of action is strictly within the school standard. The experiences of the Japanese at school prepare them for the organizational life which they encounter after graduation. The social relations of work are reflected in those pre-conditioning experiences and social relations at school (cf. Bowles & Gintis 1976).

One of the most emphasized aspects of the training is the development of cooperative ability and especially of wa (unity, team spirit, cohesiveness) among the participants. The so-called "team work spirit" is to be fostered along with conformity to the group 69

norms during this period. This will have a lasting effect on the trainees' career ir, the organization. The company teaches them not only rules and regulations but also the philosophy of the management. The fact that an individual belongs to the company is considered more important than the mere functional roles he/she plays within the organization.

* Lectures on the company, its various departments, factories and their functions, as well as general information and basic business skills are given during the training, and usually constitute 50 to 60% of the program. Many discussions and games are also included in the training. For example, a theme is given to a group after dinner. The members are to discuss it until they come to some kind of consensus which often lasts past one o'clock in the morning.

The training is more of an overall education. As Tsurumi notes, "..., Japanese management does ideologically accept employees as human capital (assets), and has concentrated on improving the productivity of this 'renewable' capital (resource) through intensive training both on and off the job11 (1977, p. 14).

One of the field games entails a pair of trainees to walk 6 kilometers with small fragmented maps to reach the destination designated by the instructor. The pair has to figure out how to get there as fast as possible. This game teaches them the importance of cooperation and compromises, fostering their ability to work as a team in the organization.

After the training the new recruits are allocated to various sections of the company regardless of their college major, except for those who will be working in research labs and as engineers. The Japanese organization prefers generalists rather than specialists. The former are especially important for managerial positions and are rotated among various jobs in the same organization. As Yoshino says, "Under the permanent employment system, managerial personnel are recruited not to fill specific positions, but to become members of the organization who will be given a wide variety of assignments in the course of their working career" (1968, p.230). The Japanese employee is more than a functional cog in a machine called organization.

The rotation helps managers-to-be learn more about the organization and know many personnel in various sections. Generalists, through in-company, on the job training and rotation, learn specific functions of each section and can contribute to the overall cohesiveness of the organization by their association with the workers in different sections and by the informal communication networks developed through daily activities. They are also valuable to the management during recessions, since they can fill just about any function in the organization. For example, when Mazda, an automobile manufacturer, faced a recession, its many factory workers were turned into salespersons and helped with the sale of their cars. 70

At Sharp, an electronic appliance manufacturer, the specialists (technicians), though suffering from a sense of crisis, continued their research when the price competition of calculators became very tough. The number of assemblers was small but they could not be fired since all of them had already gone through the training. The company helplessly appointed them to pull weeds on the company premises.

(4) The Nenko Pay System and "Holism" The nenko (seniority based pay) system is another characteristic of the Japanese organization which is deeply rooted in the features of Japanese society and culture as well as its history of industrialisation. As Brown notes, "The life-employment system and the seniority system are intimately related and appear to be two expressions of the typical social structure of a Japanese company." (1968, p.50) The nenko system was necessary in order to prevent skilled workers from moving to other companies when there was labor shortage during the period of high economic growth in the 1960s.

The primary factors determining pay are one's age and length of service. One's level of education at the time of entry, number of people in one's immediate family, location of the company are also used to determine one's wages or salary. These bear "no relation to work performance or factory output" (Abegglen 1958, p.35).

This peculiar pay system is still the dominant and prevalent organizational practice in Japan today. The longer one works for one's organization, the more contribution one would make through expanded capability. As Cole (1971) argues, the system is similar to the common practices of early industrialization, and at the same time, it is a highly sophisticated system of industrial relations which suits the traditional values of the Japanese society. As he notes, "...a ’backward' wage-rate structure has not inhibited economic growth. In fact, Japan’s economic success must in some measure be attributed to this highly functional wage-rate structure" (1971, pp.73-74).

The Japanese company views everything from a long terra perspective and the worker is rewarded for his/her service for the company within the context of his/her age and length of service. The nenko system of "seniority management" includes such matters as salary increases and promotions. Since the Japanese are more homogeneous in education, more years of service is often considered more ability.

The pay system works basically the same for both koin (factory laborer) and shokuin (staff employees) who are paid wages and salary respectively. The base (or standard) pay is a fixed amount which is increased once or twice a year depending on the organization. In addition to this base pay, there are several allowances that the workers get, usually they include (1) work allowance (paid for attendance), (2) family allowance (paid according to the numbers of members in an employee's immediate family). (3) age rank allowance, 71

(4) job rank allowance (eg.," supervisory position allowance), (5) semi-annual bonuses, (6) regional allowance (to cover higher cost of living in cities), (7) second/third shift allowance, (8) overtime, (9) holiday work allowance (for those holidays worked), (10) housing allowance (eg., company dormitories, apartments and houses), and (11) welfare (Abegglen 1958; Prasad 1968; Cole 1971).

It must be noted that those who benefit from the system are basically male regular workers. Most of the special allowances are not offered to women or seasonal or temporary workers. This is one reason why the Japanese organizations are often considered male chauvinistic and sexist. In 1986, equal employment opportunity law was put into effect and fewer cases of discrimination against women are expected in the years to come.

The Japanese management is concerned with its workers as human beings with not only economic but also social, psychological, and spiritual needs. The responsibilities of the Japanese management extend beyond the workshop. For example, the welfare benefits include company barber shops, cafeterias, health centers, convenience stores, dormitories for single workers, housing for families, company resort hotels, various sports and hobby clubs, commuting fare compensation, health and life insurance policies as well as pension plans. These fringe benefits are most characteristic of lifetime employment (Kaneda 1978, p.160). The pay system which obviously rhows the organization's holistic concern for its workers results from "both historical accident and underlying social and cultural forces" (Ouchi 1981, p.45).

Compared with the West, the family has traditionally been the most important multi-functional institution for the welfare of the individual in Japan. The Western institutions such as government, health, education, religion and economy were developed separately each with a distinctive function after its industrialization (Pascale & Athos 1981). The West saw the rise of capitalism and individualism and the traditional family came to be uni-functional (Smelser 1973), while in Japan the family tradition which emphasized collectivism remained multi-functional. Japan did not see the emergence of a civil society before her industrialization in the Meiji era. With the governmental policies of industrial promotion, industrialism literally rushed into the agrarian and basically feudalistic society. Waves of technological development and industrialization reached the rural population who needed to be accommodated at the factory which was so far away from home. The factory came to play the role of a "family" which "took care of" the workers. This holistic concern of the organization, which was a necessity in those days, is embedded in the present day pay system and fringe benefits. As Pascale & Athos note, the Japanese management assumes that "it is their task to attend to much more of the whole of the person, and not leave so much to other institutions" (1981, p.132). Akio Morita, president of Sony once said: "You know, in Japan, we think of a company as a family. The workers and the management are in the same boat. Harmony is the 72 most important element in an organization. It is a fate-sharing body" (1982, p.80).

A large lump sum bonus, is paid every 6 months as part of the pay system in June and in December. It constitutes a quarter to a half of one's annual income, depending on how well a company is doing and the economy in general. From the managerial point of view, the semi annual bonuses are very functional from the company's perspective. It is given basically as a gift to the workers and is a form of profit sharing that both the company and the workers enjoy, providing them with incentives to cooperate and work hard as well as a sense of accomplishment and belonging.

Bonuses, along with sub contracting and employment of temporary and part-time workers, add more flexibility to the organizational finance, working as a buffer. For example, in times of recession, the company reduces the amount of bonus instead of laying off its workers, who can still expect some kind of bonus or reward later on when the economy is doing good and their hard work has paid off. This possibility in the future (or Parson's "affective neutrality") increases workers' loyalty and commitment in spite of hardship experienced by everyone.

Another function of the bonus payment is that it can be a device "for protecting from union negotiation the base wage structure of the plant" (Abegglen 1958, p.45). The union negotiation, so-called Spring Offensives, is done every spring, usually in April, but the Japanese enterprise unions are known as rather cooperative and not militant enough. This is the reason why a Japanese company is called "a fate sharing community" or "a cooperative body" (Brown 1968, p.49).

The nenko pay system has merits and 'demerits. It reduces workers' resistance to technological change and innovation. For example, welding engineers do not have to feel threatened by the introduction of welding robots into their shopfloors. They will be assigned other jobs within the organization and they do not have to worry about their pay since it is determined basically by their age and length of service. As McMillan notes, "...in Japan, worker and technology are not viewed as being in conflict, such that new products or production processes are seen by workers as adding to their job security, not threatening it" (1984, p.182). Unlike Britain in the 19th century, luddism has been minimum in Japanese companies.

Since there is no reason for the workers to compete against one another, the nenko system also promotes harmonious group relationships. As Sethi et. al. note, "...each employee works for the benefit of the entire group, secure in the belief that he will prosper with the group and that, in due time, he will acquire the benefits that accrue for long and faithful service" (1984, p.44).

The nenko system is rather unfair to the young workers who find it frustrating that they are underpaid. As Abegglen claims: 73

"From the point of view of efficiency it makes no sense whatsoever that two men doing identical work side by side should, by reason of size of family, age, or some other consideration irrelevant to their work output, receive wholly different rewards" (1958, p.85).

Young workers are often faster to master technological innovations and are physically stronger. Many who are competent workers feel that the nenko pay system, rooted in the traditional Japanese culture, does not make sense any longer. They have to wait for a very long time for promotions and raises, which can be quite a frustrating experience. However, as Cole states, "Generally, this gradual increase in promotion expectation with advancing age must have profound consequences for increasing work satisfaction, reducing alienation and providing effective work incentives" (1971, p.103).

The system has difficulty in rewarding individual creativity, motivation, innovativeness and excellence. In the last decade some organizations have started different types of payment such as pay-by- type-of-work and pay-by-ability, which are more fair and rational to the workers. Thus, the Nenko system which was once called one of The Three Divine Treasures of Japanese Employment System has been recently changed. (Hamaguchi 1987, p.46). Watanabe (1982) points out the unfair payment system of larger Japanese organizations, in which one's income is determined not only by age and education but also one's union membership as well as evaluation by one's supervisor. Those who have good relations with their supervisors tend to get better evaluation and are rewarded most.

(5) The Decision-Making System (Ringi & Nemawashi) The most striking difference of the Japanese organizational system from that of the U.S. is the decision-making system calldd ringi (Abegglen 1958). The ringi system is a collective and consensus decision-making process under the centralized organizational authority in which new proposals and decisions are initiated by the lower to middle level workers and passed onto the top. The ringisho, the document which outlines the problems and states suggestions for solution is originated by those who are directly concerned and is circulated both horizontally and vertically within the organization. It collects official seals of approval or minor revisions as it passes each level and receives authorization. Rin means "submitting a proposal to one's superior and receiving his approval" and gi means "deliberations and decisions" (Yoshino 1968, p.254).

Nemawashi, or root binding, originally referred to a process of transplanting a tree. A tree, whether big or small like bonsai, is hard to pull up and transplant all at once because of the webs of big and small roots spreading here and there. If these roots are trimmed first and made manageable, it would be much easier to pull it up and transplant it. Nemawashi used in Japanese organizational settings refers to the behind-the-scene maneuvers, a process in which 74

everyone's consensus is taken into consideration when new proposals and decisions a::e suggested. Opposite opinions or disapprovals of these new plans are adjusted so that everyone virtually agrees with them. Under this system, there exists "an intentional ambiguity of who is responsible for what decisions" (Ouchi 1981, p.39), and "once a decision is reached, everyone affected by it will be likely to support it" (Ibid, p.37).

If a new proposal fails, no one can be blamed and no one suffers from embarrassment since the responsibility does not lie with a single person but with all those who were involved in the process. Responsibility is diffused and ambiguous. No one loses his/her face. As Abegglen says, "When a man must spend his entire career in one factory or company, it is important that his prestige and reputation and his relations with others retain their integrity" (1958, p.62).

Some of the decisions which involve life or death problems within a Japanese organization are made solely by the top management. Decisions made by the ringi system are usually not important enough to call a meeting of the board of directors which makes decisions of extreme importance such as: (1) Important policies relationg to production and sales, (2) Matters relating to the acquisition and disposal of important property, (3) Matters relating to entry into important contracts, (4) Matters relating to important litigation, (5) Matters relating to important organizational and personnel affairs, (6) Matters on which the board has been authorized by a general meeting of the shareholders to make decisions, and (7) Other matters of the company's functioning that are comparable in significance to those just mentioned (Yoshino 1968, p.198).

Ringi and nemawashi, or what Pascale & Athos (1981) call "the choice, generation process" are rather cumbersome processes as far as conditions of the external environment such as market and labor changes are concerned. Yet, once a decision is made, the implementation of the new project is rather fast and easy.

Ringi or a participative approach to decision-making gives workers a sense of involvement with the company and its fate as well as a higher level of morale. In a sense, the system is the integrator of many workers who work in different departments, units or levels of the same organization. The integration is achieved through communication, coordination, and interaction between uiiits and departments. As Ouchi says, "...a consensus approach yields much more creative decisions and more effective implementation than does individual decision-making" (1981, p.36). Some scholars argue that this kind of decision-making process can be found in a community meeting in the labor intensive agrarian society that Japan once was before her industrialization and urbanization.

In many Japanese organizations suggestion boxes are found as another form of the participative approach which may lead to new proposals and ideas. Suggestions or recommendations given by the 75

workers are often considered to be vital and instrumental for improving working conditions on the shop floor or sales in the market. One of Matsushita factories in Japan (makers of National, Panasonic, Technics and Quasar brands), for example, had 85,000 suggestions from its 6,500 workers in one year (Deutsch 1983, p.58). This system seems to lead to higher morale and less alienation since ventilation of anger or exertion of influence are possible.

Ringi and nemawashi have limitations as well. First of all, the number of workers who can get involved with a new project or plan is limited. All workers can contribute to it to the extent to which they are familiar with it cr feel competent, but often special technical knowledge is required. Second, they are very cumbersome and slow processes, not suited for crisis or quick environmental change.

Thirdly, the responsibility of decision-making is unclear and ambiguous. The responsibility is recorded in writing but it shows the people who attached their seal to the acceptance of the plan. It does not give those who are creative, brilliant, and can initiate new ideas incentives because it is rarely the case that they get visible and quick rewards or distinction for their personal efforts. A genius cannot be a genius unless his/her talent, creativity and ideas are recognized and approved by everyone in a Japanese organization. Lately, it has become popular among the high tech organizations to "steal” these brilliant, yet unsatisfied, "brains" from other corporations by offering them higher salaries and attractive opportunities for their innovations.

In the latter half of the 1950s, there was criticism and re­ examination of the Japanese managerial style. The ambiguity of authority of entrepreneurs or managers came to be considered problematic, especially in the ringi system. There have been movements to clarify authority and improve productivity and quality since then.

(6) Slow Evaluation and Promotion Evaluation and promotion in Japanese organizations are very slow when compared with their Western counterparts, since workers must pass the "many stages of gradual promotion" (Hirschmeier & Yui 1975, p.251). Evaluation is comprehensive in nature and is based on one's (1) work record, (?.) motivations, (3) effort, (4) ability, and (5) overall contribution to the organization. The slow processes obviously are related to the practice of lifetime employment in which both the company and the workers have a long term perspective on one's work performance and career development.

The company considers each worker a tabula rasa which can be molded into a "company person" over a long period of time. Since each worker is very likely to stay in the company until his/her retirement, no short term evaluation and promotion are necessary. The Japanese company has a long term perspective and evaluates how a worker thinks and how he/she can accomplish the group's goals with 76

others. Process of forming strategies, planning new projects and cooperation are emphasized while the American company tends to focus on the results since the management is more concerned with the short term profits. For the Japanese, a company is a place where one belongs while the American company is a means of displaying one's ability. A job in a Japanese company is considered to be a transitory stage in one's career and slow evaluation and promotions are tolerated (Mito 1981; Sato 1983; Kume 1987).

4.4 Informal Organization and the Problem of Solidarity

In this section, we will focus on the typical informal structure and social relations in Japanese organizations in Japan. Informal structure refers to those normative behaviors within an organization which are not specified or described in written forms but which persist even after the old personnel are replaced by new ones. In short, it reflects the way of life in a particular society--culture, customs and manners, religion, history and manner of communication, which are handed down from generation to generation. This section explores the patterns of Japanese social relations and interaction in their organizational life.

(1) Sense of Belonging — Identification It is a well-known fact that a major difference between American workers and Japanese workers lies in their attitude toward work: Americans work for the company while the Japanese belong to it. American complex organizations are goal-oriented and functional associations united by their contracts, authority relations, individual responsibilities and high degree of functional division of labor. They show characteristics of Gesselschaft where there exist diverse norms, groups, complementary roles, functions and impersonal relationships (Mito 1981; Sato 1983).

On the other hand, the Japanese form strong and close human relationships among themselves within an organization. The complex organization, under its surface structure, has characteristics of Gemeinschaft in which human groups share identity, feelings, trust, emotions and information with one another. Responsibilities lie not with individuals but within the whole group. Human relationships are rather intimate and enduring, and life is highly integrated. One's economic, social, psychological, and even spiritual needs are met within the organization (Mito 1981, Pp. 10-14). Indeed, Japanese organizations have been compared to a family institution or a community because the members share their company's fate. A Japanese complex organization often provides a philosophy of life, identity, economic security, education (job training), welfare and even leisure for its workers (Pascale & Athos 1981).

Japanese workers strongly identify themselves with their company in their courses of career. As Yoshino says, "each employee is strongly identified with the enterprise, even to the point that the 77 interests of the individual employee and the enterprise are the same and inseparable" (1968, p.203), and "one's security and identity depend largely on permanent membership in the firm, rather than on occupational specialty" (Ibid, p.230).

There are several traditional patterns of thought embedded in today's Japanese organizations and the concept of ie or "house" is one of them: one's identity comes from belonging to a family. This can be observed when a Japanese introduces him/herself to another Japanese. In oriental countries such as China, Korea, and Japan which were strongly influenced by Confucianism in their history, the family tie is stronger and one's last name is usually used for introduction whereas Americans may use their first names in such a situation. The Japanese do not lack "self" as in Western sense, but their selves are rather in their social relationships with others, especially their familiars, than with themselves. (Hamaguchi 1983) This accounts for such social phenomena as the lowest crime rate among the industrialized nations. The Japanese cannot commit crimes without referring to the effects of such conduct on their family and relatives (Smith 1985).

The Japanese organizations are characterized by their broader concern for their workers as whole persons. A Japanese worker is a member of the family called "company." Whenever the Japanese introduce themselves in a business situation, the company name is introduced first and then the worker's last name. They would say, "I'm Suzuki from Hitachi," or "I work for Sony. My name is...." They strongly identify with their corporation rather than their occupation or specialty due to the structural arrangement of Japanese organization in which lifetime commitment and rotation of workers make them generalists rather than specialists. The Japanese white collar employees tend to lack the concept of clear-cut job classification or specialty and identify with the company rather than occupation.

Closely related to their strong identification is what Sato (1983) calls "We-ism" of the Japanese, which is the opposite of the American "Me-ism." In Japan, individuals belong to "We-organizations" whether a company, an extended family, or a union. The Japanese function and act as a member of the "We-organization" which is governed by complete in-group consciousness (consciousness of a kind) and sense of belonging (Sato 1983, Pp.83-84).

(2) Tsukiai (Afterwork fraternalization) Traditionally, the communal eating, drinking, and activities have been the important aspect of the Japanese life in terms of material sustainance and spiritual needs (Yanagida 1976). Likewise, tsukiai is a very important part of Japanese organizational life and possibly the most important and significant of all informal organizational activities in Japan. Many men (and women) from the same section (ka) or the same company get together after work and go beer busting or bar hopping. It is very rare that even a newlywed husband goes home 78 straight after 5 o'clock. Most Japanese workers are expected to work overtime and declining an offer to go out drinking after work tends to entail some social costs in the long run.

Since the Japanese live in "rabbit hutches," as a French journalist commented on the Japanese housing conditions in a report prepared by an EC commission in March, 1979, they do not have a custom of inviting people from work to their home or have parties to entertain them after work (Christpher 1983). In rare cases, a supervisor may invite .his/her subordinates home, but it is customary not to invite those who are in the same rank or above. Thus, tsukiai almost always takes place outside the family and without wives and children.

The notion of men going out with the same sex does not create any "suspicions," and is widely accepted in the Japanese culture. Hostess bars, pubs, coffee shops and restaurants--both very expensive and cheap, are chosen on different occasions and different people. Many Japanese organizations have very generous allowances for "entertainment of clients" in their annual budgets and these allowances are often spent leniently since they are considered lubricant of human relationships and facilitating communication both within the organization and in dealing with their clients. As Graham notes, Japanese corporations spend very large kosai-hi (literally, entertainment expenses), and "corporate wining and dining accounts for 1.2 percent of the total national output" (1981, p.6). Tsukiai is indeed a company's informal investment in human relationships, strengthening interdependent social relationships among participants.

Many Japanese wives were raised to be patient with their husbands' going out with their work group and oftentimes "work" becomes a legitimate excuse to come home late and in some cases, every day. Some fathers and husbands are called weekend guests at home (Smith 1985, p.65). Not only weekday nights but also many Saturdays and Sundays are spent on tsukiai golf (playing golf with one's superordinates and clients). One of the most recent and popular TV commercials which was popular among Japanese housewives in 1986 was: "Teishu genkide rusugaii," which could be literally translated as "I would love it if my husband is healthy, works hard, and not at home." This absense of husbands at home is believed to have led to the declining authority of father in the family and increasing juvenile delinquency and problems in recent years. There also have been much dissatisfaction and frustration among the housewives who are appropriately named the "Kurenai Tribe" — a tribe suffering from alienation which comes from inattention from husbands and lack of control over dis-obedient children. Japanese mothers often become "kyoiku mama" ("education mamas") whose interests in life solely lie in their children's academic success, and who give their children all they can. This is the mirror image of the father who devotes all his time and energy to his company. It is now said that feminization of Japanese men is taking place in the traditionally male dominated society. 79

It is doubtful that drinking per se is an effective mechanism for the company's efficiency and productivity but it promotes better human feelings and emotions among the participants as they interact. It surely gives the workers social and psychological satisfaction and creates a special occasion for them in which formality and constraints are relaxed. It can also mend conflicts that arise in one's human relationships in the organization and it heals "on-the- job psychic injuries" (Pascale & Athos 1981, p.201), and personal problems at work by releasing tension, anxiety, and frustration. It is often the case that one's work group has the characteristics of Cooley's primary group, characterized by frequent and intimate face- to-face interaction and association, strong personal identity with the group, and multifaceted relationships. The group provides one with basic emotional and psychological support, and socialization. It is a "we" group (Cooley 1929). Tsukiai is important as Nakane notes:

"Indeed, conversation over drinks has a significant function for Japanese men, who are rather slow to speak out on formal occasions and feel considerable pressure from the rigid vertical system* When a formal meeting faces deadlock or when difficulties arise in personal relations a chat over drinks often proves effective (1970, p.125)."

Once drunk, the Japanese are free to say and do things as they wish, they can complain bitterly to their boss, tell them what is wrong with them, give them suggestions, and so on. Ouchi observes that "..., office parties with drinks and dinner permit the subordinates to adopt the guise of mild inebriation to tell the boss off and give opinions unspeakable under ordinary conditions" (1981, p.45).

Tsukiai works as a lubricant between superordinates and subordinates as well as people of the same rank, making their interaction in the company easier and more comfortable. In this respect, Japanese organizations fit a traditional type which is characterized by "paternalistic leadership patterns, implicit rather than explicit rules and lack of clear boundaries separating organizational from nonorganizational roles" (Scott 1981, p.167). Tsukiai often contributes to maintenance of a healthy work group through its nature of communication. It offers workers networks of informal communication which is no less vital in an organization in terms of human relations and needs. As a salaried man in Osaka commented, "Gossip and rumor within the company is just incredible. Everybody knows what everybody is doing!"

(3) Oyabun-kobun (Godfather - Godson) The way new workers are recruited in the Japanese company has a significant implication for the formation of groups and relationships. The relationship of oyabun - kobun can be observed in everyday corporation experience in Japan. A plant manager of one of 80 the leading auto manufacturing compnies in Japan said:

"I have 105 subordinates now. Some of them are fresh from high school and do not know anything about the world which goes on around them. It is important for me to take care of them not only in terms of their jobs but also their personal and private spheres of life. I give them help, suggestions, advice, guidance and counseling. For example, I have to take care of those who have had auto accidents — have to go visit them in the hospital, talk with them about insurance, injuries, when to start working again, etc. Sometimes I have to intervene with those who have entangled love affairs or mistresses. I have to deal with the loan companies which threaten our workers who have borrowed a lot of money from them but did not return it."

American managers, if they want to help and be involved with their subordinates in these situations, would be gently told by their subordinates to mind their own business.

These responsibilities are not written in this manager's job description, but they go with his rank and title in his organization. Excellent Japanese managers are said to be those who not only excel in their job but also have the capacity to deal with the problems of their subordinates if they are asked for help. Their abilities come from their seniority and reflect their experiences both within and outside of the organization. The role of middle management is important and vital for group harmony and the workers' well-being. Personal relationships are critical for them as Sethi et al note, "..., middle managers acquire these attributes through the system of job rotation from one function to another and the training programs that go with them. The system also encourages personal ties that enhance the efficiency of information flows" (1984, p.39).

As an oyabun (parent, Godfather/Godmother), a manager is a socializing agency to his/her subordinates. The extra work on counseling and helping is considered a process in which the boss infuses and transmit a common set of values and beliefs of their own and of the company. Japanese organizations see workers not as finished interchangeable parts but as persons developing toward human maturity as members of society and as flexible human beings who can be trained to fit the company mold. As Nakane says, the superordinate -subordinate relationship

"carries social and personal implications, appearing symbolically at the critical moments in a man's life. Indeed, the oyabun plays the role of the father, as the term suggests. And it is by no means exceptional for the oyabun to play a more important role than the father" (1970, p.43). 81

Managers also observe Japanese traditional customs and manners in their organizational life. They are asked to arrange marriages for single workers, bring gifts to their subordinates when they get married and attend cheir wedding reception parties which entail between $80 and $120 in cash gifts, which are not covered by his salary. When a couple has a baby, they have to give a present called "birth gift" and will receive a "return gift" later from them. Every employee has a black tie and a black arm ban for funerals in their lockers. If the subordinates' family member passes away, the boss and colleagues go to the wake and the funeral even on weekends.

The tradition, or the customs and manners of the society, permeate one's organizational life and they are often embedded in the organizational behavior though it is not explicitly written in any form. The customs of the society also become the norm within an organization, and are usually taken for granted in the everyday life of participants.

(4) Sempai-kohai (Senior - junior) Japanese society has been called "a homogeneous society built on a vertical organizational principle" (Nakane 1972, p.149), where there exists a fixed order based on age, sex, status, and popularity in every social relationship. The seniority system is an undeniable part of the Japanese culture. Without awareness of ranking order which is extremely important and is always carefully observed, a Japanese cannot speak and behave appropriately as a member of society.

There are basically three categories of people based on one's rank in Japan. There are sempai (seniors), kohai (juniors) and doryo (colleagues). The criteria for this categorization are one's age, year of graduation from school, or year of entry into an organization. Like the oyabun-kobun relationship, the sempai-kohai relationship is "probably one of the most constructive forces for productive and harmonious working relationships in Japanese companies" (Pascale & Athos 1981, p.213). It is compared to the mentor - protege relationships in which the older person teaches, supports and provides advice for the younger one. Unlike in the West, dependence is rather a positive aspect of social relationships in Japan. As Pascale & Athos note, "For the Japanese, independence in an organizational context has negative connotations; it implies disregard for others and self-contendness" (1981, p,193).

The younger, in turn, must show respect and obey their elders who have more experience. As Nakane notes "The precedence of elder over younger (cho- yo-no-jo) reflects the well-known moral ethic which was imported from China at a comparatively early stage in Japan's history" (1970, p.28).

These relationships are important in that the corporate culture, its values, beliefs, and philosophy, are transmitted or diffused 82

among all the members of an organization. Also important is the aspect of social control that these relationships impose on the participants.

(5) Implicit Control Mechanisms Generally speaking, the Japanese do not always say or tell what they want to say in an explicit manner. The Japanese manner of communication is rather implicit and indirect. The listener is supposed to understand or know the meanings or nuances from the situational context.

This is highly correlated to the nature of Japanese culture which is the "high-context" culture (Hall 1976). Japan is an insular country which is one of the most homogeneous in the world with one national language, one race and one major culture. Japan, since its foundation, did not receive any attacks or intrusions of foreign enemies except after WWII when the Allied Forces legitimately occupied the country. According to Edward Hall, in "high-context" culture, "...communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit transmitted part of the message" (1976, p.91). Yoshino also says, "As a means for organizing and motivating people, (the Japanese management system) relies more heavily on culturally induced values and less explicit defined formal organizational mechanisms" (1975, p.165).

Every culture and language differs in the degree to which explicitly and rationality are emphasized. The Japanese language is often felt to be excessively imprecise, vague, and often seems illogical and irrational to the Westerners. This frustration on the part of foreigners partially comes from the Japanese haragei (belly language) or "visceral communication" (Christopher 1983, p.43). The Japanese speak in an ambiguous or implicit language as they check on their listeners' facial expression, length of his/her silence, eye glances, etc. Christopher notes:

"... the great majority of Japanese simply do not wish to speak in clear, concise and logical fashion. In their conversations with each other -- and more often than not in their conversations with foreigners -- Japanese religiously shun explicit, carefully reasoned statements in favor of indirect and ambiguous ones basically designed not to communicate ideas but to feel out the other person's moods and attitudes" (1983, p.43).

As Pascale and Athos note, more socialization means more deftly utilized indirect means of communication among the participants (1981, p.169).

In Japanese organizations, there exists gyomu bunsho (code of business/service responsibilities) which specifies which section or department should do what job. However, there is no detailed job 83

description for each employee in Japanese organizations which prefer generalists and it is customary that they rotate personnel, for example, from accounting to business administration and vice versa. When a couple of sections or units work together in the form of an integrated project team, they do not refer to the gyomu bunsho as much. Not only vertical but also horizontal relationships between units and departments tend to become strong during the project.

It is often customary that a Japanese boss expects his subordinates to "know ten when told one," i.e., when he/she tells them only a couple of instructions or orders. This means that subordinates are not necessarily told what to do by their bossed. It is very important for the subordinates to "read" what their bosses want.

The ability to do so with only the foremen's "soft" supervision may come from the OJT (On the Job Training) system and the workers' higher morale. Most of the work is learned oii the job instead of from the workers' manuals. Some aggressive workers, especially the white collar, who can do their own work very well and are good at haragei may eventually expand their territories, and their ambition and abilities often lead to promotion.

The implicit control mechanism is possible in Japanese organizations because of the high context culture, workers' socialization, the system of lifetime commitment, and the loyalty which arises from these factors. The workers know that what is good for the company is good for their own life. Once the Japanese workers know that what they are doing is good for the company, they may stay at the company till late at night, sacrificing their own private life to a certain extent. Japanese organizations do provide "a sense of belonging and a sense of pride to workers, who believe their future is best served by the successes of their company" (Vogel 1979, p.157).

It seems that for the Japanese employees their company becomes the axis on which the world goes around. Many Japanese men that I interviewed take it for granted that they stay and work overtime, even though it involves sacrifice on the part of their wives and children. As one of the executives said, "I am the company and I am a 24 hour company man." This value is transmitted to the younger workers in their socialization at the company.

4.5 Japanese Organizations Abroad What happens to the organizational structures and managerial practices when a Japanese organization goes abroad and sets up a branch? Does it need to change them? What kind of adaptations are necessary to be successful and why? The following section focuses on the cases which exemplify the relationships between advancing Japanese organizations abroad and their new environment, with special attention to the United States and its social, political, economic, 84 and cultural environment which a Japanese organization must adapt to and at the same time work on for forming and developing a successful organizational structure and managerial practices. First of all, several specific examples are presented in order to illustrate cases of external and internal adaptation problems faced by these Japanese organizations in the United States.

(1) Kikkoman Kikkoman Soy Sauce Company originally started brewing soy sauce in Noda, a small town in Kanto Plain during the Tokugawa era, in the 17th century. It has been very successful to bring Kikkoman of Noda to Kikkoman of Japan after it opened its Kansai plant in the western part of Japan. Currently, its market share of soy sauce in Japan is 32%. Kikkoman now produces various other food items such as cutlet sauce, soup mix, seasonings, wine and so on besides soy sauce (Fukuoka 1980).

The company had a dream of internationalizing its soy sauce market for a long time and it exported soy sauce to the United States before World War II. Though the export was terminated with the opening of the Pacific War, it was resumed in 1949. The company established Kikkoman International Inc. in 1957 in the States and spread its branch offices to San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Atlanta. Little by little, soy sauce came to be known among Americans through its advertising strategies in the American mass media. The company wanted to make soy sauce the third S on the table, the first being salt, second, pepper (spice) and the third soy sauce.

Kikkoman did not have any problems in regards to resources such as soy beans, salt, wheat, and personnel when it tried to open a factory in. Walworth, Wisconsin in the early 1970s. The company had problems with the people in the community who opposed very strongly to the company's plan of turning 200 acres of agricultural land into the factory. Some residents in the community did not even have any idea of what soy sauce was. The community's opposition eventually became a social movement.

The Kikkoman staff started communicating their intents and interests to the people in the community, which lasted for a month and a half. Some of the topics and issues discussed included: (1) Kikkoman wants to be a local organization which gives priority to the local interests and maximize the profit for the local people; thus, recruitment is limited to the local people, (2) Kikkoman will buy raw materials available in the States and will import only certain kinds of machinery from Japan, (3) Kikkoman will arrange an executive committee consisting of local people which will be involved with the company's decision-making and (4) The Japanese employees and their families live apart from one another so as not to form a "Japan Town." Within a month and a half, the problems were solved in an amicable way. 85

In three years the production rate at the Kikkoman Walworth plant went up by 32%. Kikkoman was awarded as an enterprise which contributed to the community by the Wisconsin State Congress in 1976, four years after the company opened the factory (Fukuoka 1980). Shimokawa notes that Walworth is a region with extremely cold winter weather where those immigrants from Northern Europe had settled down. The descendents of these immigrants are hard working, responsible, and efficient workers. All 70 American employees of Kikkoman were recruited from Walworth county (1981, p.164).

This case illustrates that the community is a very important external environmental factor when deciding on the location of a factory or a branch office. Kikkoman faced a very strong opposition from the local people when it announced that its factory was to be built in Walworth. After negotiations with the community, the company opened a factory, started its operation in 1973, and it has been quite successful. For example, it has spread its sales network to Europe, since it is cheaper to export soy sauce from the United States than from Japan. The external environment is able to affect the organizational behavior and its life chances, but it must be recognized that organizations at the same time can change the environment either for the better or worse. Organizations are able to define, create and shape their environment (Perrow 1986, p.173) and the latter is controlled to be stable by the former.

The organization and its social, political and cultural environment are interrelated and interdependent once it gains its legitimacy. The organization becomes an integral part of a society, fulfilling its norms and goals. That is, it becomes isomorphic with its environment (Hawley 1950; 1968). The operation of an organization often means economic ups and downs of the community and even a society as a whole.

(2) C. Itoh & Sumitomo The socio-political, economic, and cultural contexts of the United States differ greatly from those of Japan. Japan is a homogeneous country and the labor force is much more similar in terms of education, socioeconomic background, status and ideologies than in the U.S.. In spite of the existing minority groups such as Koreans, Chinese, and the Ainu who are the aboriginals of Hokkaido, racial and ethnic relations in Japan have been a less conspicuous social problem as compared with those in the United States where de facto segregation, institutional racism, prejudice and discrimination are still part of everyday life. The Japanese minorities such as Buraku, the descendants of those underclass people who were labeled as eta (full of filth) and hinin (non-human) during the Tokugawa Era, have been discriminated against in the Japanese society in terms of residence, occupation, social status, social relations and so on. They have organized themselves and have been combatting against discrimination in employment and education. In recent years, reverse discrimination has also become an issue since the group often gets 86

better deals in housing or community development in the same residential area.

The homogeneity of the race is often considered as one of the factors which brought recent Japanese success in international economy. Since the participants in organization are more similar in their racial, economic, cultural, and social backgrounds, the company philosophy can be more easily permeated and the managerial practices are accepted rather uncritically by the participants. The differences in the people's values, beliefs, and behavior patterns are smaller as compared with those held by the Americans and the unity seems to be achieved more easily by the Comtean notion of consensus — a social oneness. As Koizumi notes "... it must be recognized that Japan owes her success to the uniqueness of a culture which has been able to maintain with the blessing of the racial and mental homogeneity of her people" (1982, p.203). The Japanese homogeneity has been said to be an important factor for the "collective effervescence" that the whole nation experienced in the economic boom of the 1960s and 1970s in order to catch up and pass the Western nations in terms of economic power and advancement of technology. (For a critical view on the consequences of Japanese economic development in organizational structure, pay and reward systems, working conditions etc in the 1960s and 1970s, see Watanabe [1982].)

The Japanese government has been spared spending so much time, effort, and money in an attempt to solve racial and ethnic problems as compared with the U.S. government. The already racially and culturally integrated society enables the public expenditure to be spent on solving other social problems as well as supporting economic and technological developments. However, job discrimination in screening process still prevails in many industries and many minorities, including women and the old, are obliged to work for "mom and pop" sweatshops or small business under substandard working conditions and without any security or benefits at all. Though there still exist both overt and covert discrimination and prejudice toward the minorities, the labor relations of a company does not usually get an intervention from the government in Japan. The racial and ethnic problem in occupation is rather invisible and unnoticed in Japan.

When Japanese organizations come over to the United States, they must face such laws as the affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. There have been legal cases in which the Japanese organizations operating in the United States were sued for their unfair and discriminatory practices against people of different race, age, sex, and national origin. C. Itoh and Sumitomo are such cases. Sethi et al. (1984) depict these two cases in detail.

C. Itoh and Sumitomo are two of the nine big sogo shosha (general trading company) of Japan. Both of them were sued for their discriminatory managerial and personnel relations practices in their branch offices in the United States. Three American executives of C. Itoh sued their company for their favoritism for the Japanese workers 87

in terms of compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges in 1975. Sumitomo was sued by the ex- and current female secretarial workers because it hired only male Japanese nationals for managerial positions, thus violating Title VII (discrimination on the basis of sex and national origin) (Sethi et al 1984, p.59). However, it must be noted that many other U.S. corporations do not promote women to the managerial rank as well, since the male colleagues view women managers as introducing uncertainties into trust-based transactions, violating widely shared norms of the "community" (Ranter 1977).

Both C. Itoh and Sumitomo made a distinction between the Japanese staff and the American staff and applied a separate management system for each group in terms of pay and benefits, resulting in a remarkable difference in each group's income and benefits. However, many multinational corporations, regardless of their nationality, maintain this system which is favorable to those native workers from the parent company and very unfair to the local workers. The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that Sumitomo which exists in the United States is an American organization and thus should comply with the laws and regulations of the United States. C.Itoh and Sumitomo are very obvious cases in which both of their managerial and personnel relations practices were at variance with the U.S. civil laws. As long as they are in the United States, they must be treated the same as other American companies and they must comply with the local laws. As Sethi et al. summarize, "The same activity that may be considered socially responsible at one time, under one set of circumstances, and in one culture may be socially irresponsible at another time, in another place, and under different circumstances." (1982, p.149) Performance of organization has to be congruent with societal norms, rules and values (Meyer & Rowan 1977).

The prospective Japanese organizations spend huge amount of money on doing research on the demographic data of their possible locations of factories and offices. The locations are carefully chosen after many detailed studies on the possible "problems" with the U.S. laws, since it makes a big difference to a company what kind of people it can recruit. The Japanese company prefers loyal, hard working, and rather docile labor force. For example, one of the Japanese managers of a large manufacturing company in the Midwest said:

"We had done much research on the possible locations of our factory. We did not want to go to ______since the labor force there is not the kind we want. We chose this region because there is a surplus of farm labor who have the work ethic akin to the Japanese and though most people have no previous experiences in a factory, they have experience with farming machineries. They own farms and houses and the labor is thus stable."

An American worker in a medium sized Japanese manufacturing company in the same region said: 88

"... probably this part of the country had a least amount of labor unrest and the most stable type of population than maybe in the ______area which has much labor unrest or in ______where there are unstable travelling people."

The new organization must depend on the general skills and educational level of the population it recruits. Thus, the selection of location becomes an extremely important and vital factor for the new organization's success abroad. Shimokawa (1981) points out that in recruiting American workers, the Japanese organizations should examine the general racial and ethnic backgrounds of the local people, religions and personality types in order to efficiently introduce the Japanese managerial system and be successful in their American factories. Training for excellent labor, development of group consciousness among workers and good mutual communication also need to be established (Ibid, Pp. 185-186). New organizations and more specifically new organizational forms suffer from liability of newness (Stinchcombe 1965), tending to fail more often than old and established organizations since new roles and social relationships must be learned and established in the new setting. They need to gain legitimacy in their new environment.

(3) Matsushita Quasar Matsushita Electric whose products are sold under the brand names of National, Panasonic, Quasar, and Technics ranks as one of the 50 largest corporations in the world (Pascale & Athos 1981, p.37). The company is well-known for its excellent managerial philosophy and business ideals. It is the first Japanese company to have a company song and a code of values. Konosuke Matsushita, the founder of the company, has distinct personal style of management which views people as the critical resource of the company.

In 1974, Matsushita acquired Motorola’s problem laden TV assembly with an "aging work force, poor morale, terrible quality problems, internecine strife among managers and a loss of $19M per year" (Ibid, Pp.53-54). Upon taking over the company, Matsushita sent its American key executives to Japan for training, rationalized its structure by such measures as forcing early retirements, demoting redundant supervisors, instituting weekly department meetings, creation of task forces and so on. By 1980, workers' morale and quality of products had significantly improved. Today Matsushita Quasar hires 2500 local workers and most managers, including the president, are Americans (Shimokawa 1981, p.168).

Theoretically, Matsushita's business strategies and ideals can be applied to any company in any nation. However, Shimokawa has a reservation in saying so. He argues that there would be a big difference in the successful adaptation of them when they are applied to a company in a different culture. Social climates such as homogeneity of language, culture, and educational standard will 89

affect the success (Shimokawa 1981, p.169). At Matsushita, the American managers adopted and modified the Japanese managerial styles to suit the American needs. Modification is necessary since the American managerial system is rooted in the Western tradition and culture which is characterized by the contractual relationships and individual responsibilities, which differ from the basis of the Japanese system. Among the practices adopted from Japan are, (1) Morning meetings to improve communication between supervisors and subordinates as well as themselves, (2) Human contact in labor and personnel management is emphasized, and (3) Promotion of recreational activities for employees and welfare. These implementations drastically reduced the turnover rate and absenteeism as compared with those which was previously obtained by the management of Motorola (Pascale & Athos 1981, Shimokawa 1981).

This case is an example of successful implementation of the Japanese managerial practices in the U. S. setting. Though there are differences in the social climates of both nations, adaptation of the managerial skills are possible and can lead to success as shown in Ouchi's Theory Z (1981).

The above three cases dealt with organizational adaptation to the external environment which includes all elements given to the organization. Organizations usually have little or some control over the external environment but they can cope with and even influence it successfully. These cases prove Meyer & Rowan's (1977) theory that organizations must conform to the societal norms and values and become isomorphic (Hawley 1950; 1968) with their environment.

The following section reviews literature on the internal adaptation of Japanese organizations in the United States.

Research done by Ouchi (1981) and his colleagues (1978) suggests that the country of origin is very important in the formation of an organization, and they found that the American version cf prototypical Japanese firms, called Type Z organizations, in the United States resemble the Japanese model rather than the American counterpart. IBM, Hewlett Packard and Jewel Tea Company are examples.

Ouchi & Johnson (1978) found different control structures in Japanese and American organizations which come from the differences in history, society and culture. They argue that national cultures do have an impact on organizational structure, especially as a result of adaptation to a specific social environment. For example, the Type A (the prototypical American work organization) has a tighter control system than the Type Z. This "highly specialized, specific, contractual, and measurable mechanism of control" is due to its adaptation to high rates of turnover and inter-firm mobility in the United States (1978, p.296).

On the other hand, the Type Z controls its participants through such mechanisms as "a process of acculturation or socialization of 90 employees," (1978, p.294) and it provides emotional stability and well-being by sets of primary relations within the organization. The Type Z organization fits the notion of Gemeinshaft (Toennies 1940), and is also characterized by loyalty, honesty and ability of the participants as their central values of the company (1978, p.301).

Most Japanese organizations in the United States take the best from both American and Japanese managerial practices and elements. They have adopted the American managerial system to the extent that works the best for the Japanese managerial practices as well as the American employees, thus creating a mixed type of management. Organizations have to meet the sociocultural background of the participants as well as their feelings and sentiments. By the mixed management, the organization can make the incompatible constraints existing between the managerial philosophy of the organization and culture of the host society minimum.

For example, Kikkoman in Walworth does not have a nenko (seniority pay) system or a lifetime commitment, but as its basic policy, it does not lay off its employees. However, as in Japan, their employee handbook states that in case the company's profit goes down, there will be a wage cut for all from the general manager to the employees at the same rate. The company also compensates the cost of gas used for commuting, which is customary in Japan. Interestingly enough, Kikkoman hoists only the Stars and Stripes instead of the Japanese national flag, which is often associated with the extreme right wing or nationalism in Japan. Many managers and foremen are Americans and Kikkoman's organizational identity is rather more American than Japanese though it has a mixed management style. There exists a consciousness within the company that Kikkoman is a member of American society (Fukuoka 1980).

The management of Kyocera (formerly Kyoto Ceramic) in San Diego utilizes both the modal personality of serious, hard-working, and dedicated Japanese and strategic Americans. It is not exclusively an American or a Japanese manage- ment but one which transcends both with international and universal managerial ideals. The current organizational practices of Kyocera are the product of arguments among the Japanese and American managers over which way, Japanese or American, best fits the company in the last 10 years. Kyocera also has a non-lay-off policy. Tsukiai parties where both the American and Japanese workers can mingle over drinks were started by the president in order to foster understanding and friendship among them. Entertainment allowance is the company's investment in better human relationships, understanding and feelings among the workers which fosters company solidarity and increases overall productivity (Sagara 1980).

Lincoln et al. (1978) called Japanese organizations which have this mixed type management, "hybrid organizations." Hybrid organizations are defined as those organizations which "adopt in varying combinations the practices of the host society in which they 91

operate, while at the same time retaining some qualities distinctive to their country of origin" (1978 p.829). They argue that the characteristics of the host country and the ratio of the recruited nationals (i.e. Japanese Americans) in the company are more important factors than those of the country of origin for determining what kind of management and structural adaptation takes place. Organizations can exercise control over their structure and their managerial practices. 3y mixed management, the organization can minimize incompatible constraints existing between the managerial ideology and the participants' background.

It is generally said and believed among the Japanese managers that the difference in national characters and modal personalities often hinder the smooth operation of an organization. For example, they believe that the Western workers leave for home when it is time and take vacations at their own convenience. Even when a worker is not busy and others in the same section are busy, he/she never offers help since each job's content and responsibilities are clearly defined (Mito 1981, pp.170-171).

In Moto Honda Do Amazonia (one of the 41 Honda factories abroad in Brazil) the Brazilian managers, chiefs and foremen were observed by the Japanese staff to do a good job as far as job descriptions are concerned. However, they do not bother to go further to foster new systems such as the suggestion system, or they are not willing to work overtime. They simply stick to their job descriptions and enjoy their private life after work. The spirit of contract and Brazilian national character as represented in the Carnival of Rio De Janeiro can be dysfunctional for the development of the company as perceived by the Japanese.

On the other hand, in the same Honda factory in Belgium, the situation was a bit different. The Japanese management had ready-made concepts or prejudgement of European and American workers before they built a factory in Belgium. They thought, for example; (1) The company cannot expect their European and American workers to be workers, production technologists and controllers of production and technology all at the same time, (2) The company cannot expect loyalty or love for the company from these workers.

Surprisingly enough, the result was totally the opposite of what the Japanese managers had in mind. The training provided for the European workers turned out to be very effective. The workers formed committees on distribution, quality control, work environment, and human relationship. Many workers volunteered and have been producing many excellent ideas. Honda found that the problem was not the matter of labor quality but of management skills.

The Japanese organizations abroad are relatively new and there are not one strong group or powerful clique which would develop their own vested interests yet. Thus the organizational goal to survive is backed up by the participants whose horizontal solidarity and 92 commitment to the company are strong (Sagara 1980).

Sethi et al's The False Promise of the Japanese Miracle is sociologically interesting and revealing. It uses cultural frameworks for the analysis of the Japanese organization and its relationship to its environment. The book emphasizes social, historical, political, and cultural contexts which are the elements of a certain managerial system. They consider the system of Japanese management as unique and it is rooted in the history of Japanese industrialization, traditions, values, and social relationships. Since the system is isomorphic with the environment, transplant of the system to a new situation is not necessarily easy. For example, some Japanese companies' total implementation of the system in the United States did not turn out as efficient as in Japan, leading to their failures. Adaptation to the new environment is thus very important for organizational survival and success. Sethi et al. argue that different Japanese organizations have different adaptation patterns depending on the nature of the industry they are in, location of the company and how the U.S. operation started.

Tsurumi (1978) argues that the operation of Japanese subsidiary organizations in the United States falls into two categories: an outstanding success or an outstanding failure. The succe'ss does not come from economic factors only, but entails an efficient and successful cultural adaptation of managerial style. Without such an adaptation, conflict and problem are inevitable between American and Japanese managers, due to the difference in their styles. For example, American managers utilize written communication such as memoranda to an extended degree, while Japanese managers depend more on verbal communication. A mismatch of leadership style is also possible. The Japanese value consensus and bottom-up decision making which can be perceived by the Americans as indecisive, incompetent and rather naive. Tsurumi advises that it is very important for both American and Japanese managers to develop a mutual understanding of each other's managerial culture as well as developing a general culture among them, since in reality "the potential conflicts between Japanese and American staff are numerous" (1978, p.58).

Richard T. Johnson (1977) studied how Japanese subsidiaries adjust to the American local conditions. For example, the Japanese organizations cannot expect to find homogeneous work force, cooperative unions, or amicable relations with the U.S. government as in Japan. These environmental aspects are not transferable to their organizations abroad. Johnson argues that Americanization (adaptation to the American culture) of the organization is necessary in order for a Japanese organization to be successful. He found "that in half of the cases the Japanese firms were more productive and in half of the cases less productive than their American counterparts" (Ibid, p.32). On the other hand, workers in Japanese organizations showed higher degree of job satisfaction" (Ibid, p.33). Johnson advocates integration of American and Japanese staff in order to have smooth and efficient operation. 93

Takamiya (1981) studied two Japanese, one British and an American color TV companies in Britain and found differences among them in terms of labor, technologies, organizational and work practices, recruitment and so on. It is worth quoting his findings in full:

1. Labor productivity, quality records, employee satisfaction, labor turnover, absenteeism, industrial relations, and work morale are generally better in Japanese factories than in American or British.

2. This is so despite the fact that the incentives which ard traditionally used in Western countries (such as wages, sick pay, holidays, pensions, etc), are much poorer in Japanese factories.

3. The technologies used in Japanese factories are not more sophisticated than American or British, and cannot provide sufficient explanation for the Japanese "success."

4.The greatest difference seems to lie in organizational practices. First, in the area of production management, there «• seems feo be more meticulous attention to detail on the production line, which appears to account for the Japanese record of quality without using sophisticated machines.

5.Second, work practices in Japanese factories are much more flexible. The idea of no demarcation between sections, between crafts, and between hierarchical ranks is constantly stressed. It is common to see managers sitting on the line or sweeping the floor, supervisors doing maintenance work, or secretaries picking up trash in a factory garden.

6. Third, supervisors seem to exercise much greater work pressures and discipline on workers. Operators are told of their mistakes individually and are under much stricter rules of time keeping and work attitude.

7. Fourth, interdepartmental conflict, which plagues the British company, exists to a far smaller extent in Japanese companies. They achieve coordination mainly through training and rotation of employees. in contrast to the American company, which relies more on standardized procedures.

8.Fifth, a great deal of effort is nut into recruitment and training. Various ingenious procedures and practices are implanted. Severe discipline is also exercised against breaking company rules.

9. Sixth, a Japanese company allows only one union to organize its workforce. Conditions are laid out so that no other union can enter later and so that the recognized union observes the 94

flexible working practices.

10. As a whole, the advantage that the Japanese companies enjoy over the British seems to lie in the organizational area as opposed to the technological area. In contrast to American MNCs. which tend to operate organizations through highly developed standardized procedures. Japanese MNCs rely heavily on the individual's internalization of a special attitude. perspective, and work philosophy (1981, p.14). (underline mine)

It seems that what Ouchi and Johnson (1978) says about the Type Z organizations in the United States in terms of control mechanism also holds true with the Japanese multinational companies in Britain that Takamiya studied.

According to Takamiya, an advancing company needs to "undertake the complex task of blending their own practices with those of the host country (1981, p.l). Transferring production technologies and organizational practices are far from trivial due to a larger cultural and social contexts. Takamiya points out the Japanese managerial practices retained and used in Japanese organizations in Britain as follows, (1) Ringi-group decision-making system. (meticulous reporting system and morning meetings), (2) Flexibility of work practices, (3) Strict discipline (i.e. strict time keeping, prohibition of eating, drinking and smoking on the shop floor), (4) The domestic structure of union, (5) Training and rotation for interdepartmental coordination (Takamiya 1981, pp.7-11).

Kume (1979; 1987) claims that many Japanese companies which advanced to the United States still retain characteristics of the Japanese decision-making system. The management encourages workers to give their new ideas and has many meetings which are functionally the same as nemawashi in which the Japanese and American managers examine the situation and come to a decision. It is important to note, however, that the decision-making system is not necessarily and widely welcomed and accepted by the Americans due to the differences in their conception of self and time. The base of behavior in Japan differs from that of the United States in that the former takes into consideration how others think and feel while the latter is based on how one thinks and feels. Individualism in the States is the most important value which respects individual independence and freedom. It permeates one's occupational life. The Americans also perceive that they can distinguish time for work from time for something else. They have a contract with the company and receive pay for their time. The Japanese, on the other hand, do not mind overtime, doing things together with other workers. Though the Japanese and Americans in the same Japanese company share the same organizational goals, there exist confrontations and friction in the process of achieving them due to their cultural background (Kume 1987, ppl56-161).

In summary, Japanese organizations abroad still retain some of the Japanese managerial practices and show Japanese characteristics, S5 both structurally and interactionally. Organizational adaptation to the host society is necessary since external environment often determines the life chances of the organization. It seems that the nationality and cultural differences as well as the workers' mentality and upbringing do not matter as much if the management takes into consideration the typical sociocultural, organizational and behavioral patterns of the host society and mix them well with the Japanese managerial practices. As Ouchi observes:

"The typical Japanese firm in the United States employs an approach to management distinctively different from the typical. American firm. Rather than replicate the form developed in their native Japan, the firms modified their management to suit United States needs. Nonetheless, they retain a good deal of Japanese style and remain very different from most American firms." (1981 p.12)

These differences may no longer be constraints to an organization, once they are taken into consideration of the managerial practices and policies.

*****

In order to provide the contexts of the advent of Japanese business abroad in recent years, Japanese business history was briefly reviewed in the first section of this chapter. It was concerned with the construction of the ideal type of relatively large and stable Japanese business organizations in Japan. The social, histrocial, economic, political, and cultural aspects which are particular to Japan and which also pertain to its business organizations, managerial practices, and structures were also elaborated.

Chapter 5 presents and analyzes the organizational adaptation of Japanese business organizations in the American Midwest. By comparing the ideal type which we constructed in this chapter to the ideal type of Japanese business organizations in the United States, we can then understand what kind of adaptation has been taking place and why. The comparison enables us to understand the sociocultural aspects which influence formation of business organizations. Chapter 5: A Study of the Adaptation of the Japanese Business Organizations in the American Midwest

In this chapter, findings of the research are presented. The chapter consists of two parts: the first section summarizes the American and Japanese workers' answers to the interview question "What makes Company A different from other Japanese or American factories you worked at before?" which was asked in order to address the question of organizational internal adaptation. The second part analyzes the problem of internal adaptation on the organizational level. The results of the survey done in several Japanese manufacturing companies in the Midwest which was used to test generalizability is also presented throughout the chapter. The qualitative data were confirmed and supported by the quantitative data.

5.1 Structure & Managerial Practices

(1) General Structure of Organization All the Japanese manufacturing companies in this study expanded their business to the United States in the 1980s when the Japanese direct investment started to boost at an unprecedented rate. The companies are thus very young and many workers, both American and Japanese, feel that their company's organizational structure is beyond the incipient stage of development or "evolution," but is still in the process of forming.

The Japanese managers feel that the structure of their company in the United States takes after the Japanese managerial model. They also feel that there are many places where perfection is lacking. For example, they consider that the basic flow or the system of the productive activity and the system of organization have not yet been firmly established. This is due to the fact that many of them perceive their parent company in Japan as having developed an efficient and effective managerial system due to its relatively long history.

As with other Japanese companies in Japan, Company A has no formal company chart with minimal descriptions of job status and responsibilities. The Japanese men feel the structure of Company A, especially the system of chain of command and the information route, is not clear-cut and not complete in order to produce efficiently. The vertical, or the so-called superordinate-subordinate relation is not structurally perfect, either.

Not only the Japanese but also American workers agree that the company does not have an efficient basic flow of production or information. Company A started operation only several years ago and so

96 97

did other Japanese companies in the region. In the survey, 10.1% and 49.3% (total of 59.4%) strongly disagreed and disagreed to the statement "The chain of command and information routes of my company are clear-cut and efficient" while 34% agreed and 5.8% strongly agreed (total of 40.6%). The company structure is felt to be flexible, often leading to an ambiguous definition of the work situations. As one Japanese foreman said, "Everyone has to use his own judgment here. I wonder if this is part of the process of growing."

The Japanese staff at Company A feel that this "undevelopedness" of certain organizational structure merely represents a transition from a Japanese centered company to an American centered company. They said, along with other American foremen, that the company was a Japanese company when it started its operation and it has been becoming more of an American company with more and more Americans being promoted to supervisors as the company expanded. More American supervisors are coordinating in recent years. Many workers perceive that the company has a mixed managerial style now. As an American worker said,

"I honestly believe it's a mixture, because the Japanese have brought their production policies and their skill. And I think everyone, to be honest, admits the fact that they've got a good understanding of mass production and they're making a lot of money and they're doing something right."

In the survey, more than 90% of the American manufacturing workers perceive that the management style is a mixed type. To the statement "The management style of my company is different from American managerial system and combines Japanese and American managerial systems," 78.3% agreed and 13% strongly agreed (Total of 91.3%).

The Japanese managers come to the United States with their own notion of what the management of their American subsidiary company should be: a mixture of what is best about the Japanese and the American managerial styles. The Japanese men do not believe that complete implementation of the Japanese system is feasible or efficient for operation of the company in the United States. Rather, they consider that the mixing of organizational practices of Japan and the United States is the best way to coordinate. As one of them said, "We hope to combine good aspects of both Japanese and American management."

Because of the nature of the first capital investment in production, the Japanese take hegemony over how the company is run, especially at the beginning. The Japanese men consider it necessary to imbue new American workers with the former's production and managerial skills and values. The Japanese ways of managing people are introduced to the way American workers think by gradual "education" through meetings. 98

However, not all Japanese manufacturing companies want to identify themselves with the Japanese or even Japanese-American companies. Several managers of the Japanese companies which I asked for cooperation but which did not participate in my survey called me up or wrote letters stating the reason why they did not want to participate: they have been trying to implement their workers the notion that the company is not Japanese but an American company. They want to emphasize an American identity more than a Japanese one. As one of the letters reads:

"Dear Miss Ito,

We have been examining your survey questions and understand that all the questions are asked from a point of view that ours is a Japanese company.

We have been running this company as an American company and expecting our American workers to understand it as such. We would not like to participate in your survey because it emphasizes the dichotomy of a Japanese company versus an American company. We do not want to remind our American workers of this dichotomy.

We are very sorry but we cannot participate. Please understand." (translation mine)

As this letter exemplifies, some of the Japanese companies that I contacted strongly identify themselves as American companies. Though they declined to participate, they kindly told me that I could visit their factories and interview the managers.

The following sections examine the extent to which the Japanese companies' structures and managerial practices are kept intact and how some of them were successfully adapted to the new U.S. environment.

(2) Recruitment All the manufacturing companies in my study are located in such small rural towns where the high unemployment rate persisted for a couple of decades that they never had to advertise their job openings in the newspaper. Company A advertised in a large metropolitan newspaper only a few times when it was looking for special engineers. The applicants knew of the job offerings from words of mouth, television news coverage, and newspapers. There were some who brought resumes even when the factory was under construction!

The management of Company A, as well as other Japanese companies in my study, considers recruitment of the right kind of workers as one of the most vital factors for the successful operation of the factory in the United States. Recruitment is not limited to the new high school or college graduates as usually the case in Japan. The recruitment process is similar to the American practice in general but is more complicated and rather long. The prospective worker sends 99 his/her resume to the company and if the management thinks that the person has a qualification, then it will send an application form. Some workers believe that letters of recommendation from their previous work place helped them get the job. After the application form is received, the candidate is notified of interviews. All the American workers I interviewed had between two and four interviews, a rather time consuming process requiring between two weeks to three months.

A question was asked of workers of Company A about their experience with the multiple job interviews: "What do you think of the interviews?" All the American workers said that they were surprised at how careful the management chose their workers. The experience was unique in that they had never been interviewed so many times and in the particular manner before; they became very nervous and sweating. Interestingly enough, all of my interviewees said that they liked the interviews nevertheless. The interviews were somewhat demanding as they went through them one after another. As a line worker said, "It was a challenge to see if you could get hired after a while." Many workers agreed with an American foreman who said:

"I thought that they were good interviews. I thought the questions they asked and things they go through in the interviews are good to help sort out the people they think will do a good job for them."

The management asked the same kind of questions on attendance records from high schools and previous work places, cooperative ability, personality traits and so on. The questions were worded differently but the theme were basically the same at each interview. The workers appreciated that the management taking time to know them well enough even before the company hires them and making sure that they would have no problems with their job by actually taking the prospective workers to the factory tour showing all the work procedures and j obs. The management want the workers to completely make sure that the job is what they wanted.

The recruitment process is different from the general American practice in that the Japanese manufacturing companies take time to know the worker as an individual and examine very carefully his/her overall possibility of cooperation and contribution to production. Certain questions which are regarded by the Americans as private and not relevant to their job are frequently asked by the Japanese interviewers. For example, the company is curious about whether the worker comes from a stable family background or not, what his/her family of orientation does for living, the number of children he/she has, and hobbies and things he/she enjoys. In the survey, 50.7% agreed to the statement "This company's selection process of employees is different from most other American companies," and 27.5% strongly agreed; total of 78.2%. 100

(3) Training All American workers, both regulars and temporaries, go through a systematic on-the-job training (OJT) for a period of time until they master the skills needed for their job. The training is rather informal and short since most jobs do not require difficult and specific technical skills. The management considers that some previous experience in manufacturing or with farm machinery helps to a certain degree. As the president of Company A said, "Actually, anybody can do it." As for the white collar workers, they do not have formal training sessions at a training center as their counterparts in Japan do but they have an on-the-job training just as other American workers would at an American company.

A training trip to Japan is provided for prospective American managers. According to the workers, the trip practically guarantees one's promotion and raise. As an American foreman said, "From the way I understand the Japanese, the American workers don't get a promotion unless they go to Japan." The trip takes between two to six weeks depending on the technical skills to be mastered by the trainee and his/her rank. Generally, several workers are sent at the same time.

In Japan, the trainees stay at a hotel near Company A's parent company and spend eight hours a day at the factory, working with the Japanese engineers and learning new technologies to be introduced to the U.S. subsidiary. A translator is provided for better communication and understanding. The Japanese executives and workers usually take their American trainees out for lunch and dinner. On weekends the Americans enjoy sightseeing tours.

Though many American workers are aware that this training trip means promotion, some family oriented men have declined to go. As an American manager noted, "(The training) hurts a lot of people who hate to leave their families behind. They get homesick too easily and miss the chance for promotion. Some of them will make very good managers." However, in the survey, 43.5% of workers agreed and 37.7% strongly agreed (a total of 81.2%) to the statement, "I would be willing to go to Japan for a few week's training even if I have to leave my spouse and children." This means that majority of the American workers in Japanese companies are interested in the training trip, and their aspirations are high.

(4) The Pay System, Benefits, and Holism American and Japanese workers in my interviews said that they enjoy working for Company A for financial, psychological, and social reasons. As an American worker succinctly said, "The job is very nice. I can have my family, new friends, and really more money."

All American and Japanese interviewees agreed that the pay and benefits are fairly good in the region and they are satisfied with them. American workers said, "I think the pay and benefits are excellent here," "I like their fringe benefits such as attendance bonuses and a new counseling service." Due to the atrocious economic 101

conditions in the region which persisted before these Japanese companies arrived, many of the workers have experienced either being laid off, fired, or misplaced before they got their jobs with Company A. As one of the American supervisors said, "Company A as well as other new Japanese companies around here are feeding a whole lot of families, a whole lot of families! In this area, Company A is the place to work." In the survey, a total of 72.6% of workers answered that they are satisfied with their pay and 79.7% with their fringe benefits.

Many female workers found their pay and fringe benefits excellent and attractive. They also consider their job good or fair work for women. As one of them said, "I'm limited as to how much I can make a month, since I do not have any degrees. I knew factory workers make a lot of money. I more than doubled my income. It's amazing to me." Another woman applied for her job to upgrade her pay and get better benefits. She had been formerly laid off when she got her job with Company A. Some women recently got divorced and needed good money to support themselves while others are supporting their families due to their husbands' injuries or illness.

Everyone is paid equally for equal work regardless of his/her sex or age at Company A. This means that the company's pay system is the same as that of general American practice and different from the Japanese nenko or seniority pay system. The same is true with other Japanese companies in my survey. This seems to be partially due to the way the Americans consider how they should be paid: equal job equal pay. To the statement "In my company, workers should be paid according to their age and length of service," 30.4% strongly disagreed and 55.1% disagreed.

The Japanese workers noticed that the American workers make seniority a big issue in regards to giving priorities. For example, the American workers are assigned a shift when they get their job with the company and some want to change their shift at a later date. The Japanese supervisors were surprised to find that the American workers value seniority, in order to get a preferred shift. Even a day's seniority counts for them as the legitimate base for the claim that the worker has the right and "qualification" to get the vacant position. The Japanese supervisors who assumed that the Americans value talent and skills rather than one's length of service were surprised at this insistence on seniority. In Japan, it is generally the organization and not seniority which decides who will be promoted or transferred to a certain section or a shift.

The Americans' claim of seniority, according to the Japanese managers at Company A, does not make much sense since the American workers are not as homogeneous in their educational and occupational training and leadership abilities as the Japanese labor force in general. The Japanese managers found more diversity in the American workers' overall abilities, regardless of seniority and experiences. As one Japanese foreman observed: 102

"There are some Americans who have a holistic concern while others are rather shortsighted, looking at things only in fragments. .There are also some who obviously seem to dislike us. They are not provocative but uncooperative. They do not do as we tell them. There are not so many of them though. Thank God!" (translation mine)

Another Japanese supervisor said:

"There are Americans who have good senses (sensitivity) and there are others who are dull. There are those who are indifferent to what we are doing, too. We cannot really generalize what the Americans are like (since they are so different)." (translation mine)

Instead of seniority, in Company A, one's attendance record, one's willingness to work overtime, and supervisors' evaluations are generally used for promotion. Overtime and job performance, including concern for and precision of how one does the job, are also important factors. Each manager has the right to choose workers for promotion in his section. Seniority has become one of the most important factors for transfer and promotion, but not the sole criterion for them. If two candidates have exactly the same qualification, seniority is a major determining factor for choosing one.

At Company A, promotion is done in a particular manner. Those regular workers whose aspiration is high can take an initiative in getting a promotion by applying for a managerial position. Managers form a promotion committee when these positions are open. The committee evaluates the worker and consensus has to be arrived at in order to give him/her the position. Due to the market demands and expansion of the company in recent years, many Americans have been promoted.

The attendance bonus is an attraction to many American workers since they can make additional 50 dollars or so by coming to work on time for a four week's period. It is a lot of money in that they are paid for what they should do anyway. The purpose of the attendance bonus is to give incentives to the workers, to secure the company's daily and monthly production schedules and quotas that their customers demand. It is considered indispensable to achieve both short and long term objectives. In addition, there are long tqrm attendance bonuses that are awarded for those workers who came to work without any absence for a period of a year or a year and half.

There is another type of bonus which is budgeted at the beginning of the fiscal year for no rejections of the manufactured goods by the clients. Whenever there is a rejection some amount of money is subtracted from the allocated budget, and then the money remaining is divided equally by all the workers in the section at the end of the period. Fewer rejections mean a larger bonus for the workers and this 103

Increases workers' morale and decreases rates of rejection to a certain extent.

The fringe benefits include hospital, surgical, anesthesia, dental, and optical programs. American and Japanese workers agree that the company has one of che best insurance plans. Ninety percent of the medical premium cost is provided by the company and the workers pay 10% every month. This is compatible with general benefits of large organizations in Japan. The same is true with other Japanese companies in the region.

Company A added a counseling service last year as a fringe benefit. If the workers have problems with work, human relations, marriage, family, alcoholism, drug abuse and so on, they are not required to pay for the three initial visits to the counselors. All the problems are kept confidential. If additional counseling is needed, it will be covered by insurance. This, according to the workers, is "an investment" in the human capital and it shows the company's holistic concern for the individual worker as a person, not as a commodity which contributes to the production from 9 to 5. As an American foreman said:

"The Japanese staff are very concerned because they know they have an investment in each employee of training and job situations. So, they're very concerned with the individual and family, not just somebody to work on this job eight hours a day, then just go home. It's... they're very people oriented. ... I personally feel that they will do what they can to keep the people there. Because if they do not keep their pay okay, the same as other companies that are doing the same work, they will lose the good people who can help the company in more than one way. "

Both American male and female workers said that they are satisfied with the pay and benefits as well as their job security. As a principle, Company A, along with other Japanese companies, does not lay off or fire workers for any arbitrary reasons. Though this policy is not written in a formal manner as a rule or a regulation, it is tacitly understood among the workers as a "non-layoff policy." In coping with economic recessions, the management may reduce workers' pay, but layoff is considered as the very last measure.

When the management interviews the applicants, it is seeking those who can work for a long time. Most applicants are also interested in a long term employment partially due to the fact that the job opportunities are limited in the region. Working for Company A enabled some workers to obtain what they could not afford before. As an American foreman said, "The pay is fair wage. It's made possible for my wife and family to have things we've never had before." A female worker commented, "I noticed that factory working people — they like to have a very nice car, all the latest in television, 104

stereo equipment, VCRs, and whatever." She says that the workers are very materialistic in their orientation.

The American workers seem to like living and working in the rural area rather than finding jobs somewhere else. Thus, Company A, according to the workers, gave them a good opportunity to make money and stay at the present location. Company A and other Japanese companies in the area did not bring in new people; the labor force was already there when they advanced. As an American worker said, "They probably solved the problem of unemployment because it put the labor force to work. People feel lucky to have the Japanese companies here."

A question was asked of the American workers of Company A in my interviews: "Would you like to stay with Company A in the years to come?" All of them said that they enjoy their work and plan to stay there until their retirement. Many of them consider their job not as a transient job. As one of them said:

"This is the place to work around here and I'm looking for a bright future here. In my opinion this is the best job that I've ever had simply because I was given the responsibilities and given the opportunities to do things that I always wanted to do. I'll be working here in 10 years or 20 years from now."

More than two thirds of American workers (68.1%) in my survey answered positively to the statement "I would like to work for this company until my retirement."

A question was asked: "How do you go about your complaints or problems?" The workers said that they usually talk to their workmates first when they have a problem. If it is not a personal kind and it relates to their job, they bring it to their immediate supervisor. Susan, an American woman, was very disappointed with her American supervisor when she complained that the men and women were not getting along. She said, "My supervisor came to me and said, 'I don't have the authority to do anything. I don't know. You have to find out. You have to go to the office or get somebody else." She went to the office to talk directly to the executives, which is called an open door policy. The policy gives every worker an opportunity to walk into the office any time and talk to the executives. It is supposed to inform the management of what is happening in the plant and solve problems as soon as possible. Susan went there and talked to a personnel officer who she felt was looking down on her. She said: "The American woman, the personnel staff, gave me an impression that she was saying ’You're a factory worker. What are you doing here?' I got so nervous and stuttered ba ba ba..." Unfortunately no executives were available on that day and she felt that the open door policy is mostly symbolic and the executives simply do not have enough time to listen to the regular workers. 105

On the other hand, an experience with the open door policy of an American supervisor is a little different. When he was promoted, he had problems with his leadership style, which gave him a lot of stress. He went to the office to talk to the president and the vice president and they gave him advice, support, and encouragement to try a little bit harder.

The executives may be too busy sometimes, but younger Japanese managers are almost always available to consult with the workers. An assembly line worker said, "A and B (Japanese managers) are young enough to relate to us, and they really want to help us." Workers talk to them both on official and personal levels. In the survey, 58% agreed and 15.9% strongly agreed (total of 73.9%) to the statement "If I have a problem with my work, management will give me a fair hearing."

The American workers at Company A commented that the Japanese staff honestly care for the workers. They are hardworking, honest, sincere, people-oriented, and are more concerned with the worker as a whole person. According to the American workers interviewed, the Japanese managers' orientation definitely makes Company A different from other companies in the United States. As an American foreman said:

"The Japanese are really, really honestly interested in seeing the American people here prosper and there's a lot of people in the plant who don't believe that. They don't understand that. Well, they are here to make money, but I am so impressed with our Japanese staff because they honestly do care."

Several women workers also said, "I like working here. The Japanese treat us as human beings."

The Japanese, according to the American workers, are more disciplined in terms of quality and production, are ready to help them out, and are more egalitarian in their approach. They show far more patience and reluctance to take disciplinary actions against bad "apples". As an American foreman observed, "The Japanese men go the extra mile helping out a little bit more than they really need to." The Japanese are very careful in both organizational planning and prevention of problems. As another American supervisor said, "They work very hard on the problems before they even happen." The concept that the company is a "family" and every worker is a colleague is stressed in the managerial philosophy. This family concept and concern is similar to that of oyabun’s in a Japanese company in Japan.

It took Company A a long time to hire the first female worker and as many Japanese factories, it is "male-oriented" on the shop floor. Even though many women are working for Company A in recent years, they are still the minority. As mentioned before, women workers are satisfied with the company paying the same wages for the same work, 106

but some still feel that men in general are more capable of doing things better than women as far as physical strength such £j pulling and lifting is concerned. For example, some women suffered from their wrist problem before they got used to the job.

Interestingly, the Japanese men had more consideration for the women workers and gave them easier jobs since they consider women less tall and strong. This made the American male workers very upset since the women were paid the same for doing lighter jobs. As a woman worker said, "X told me that these American men think the factory is better if it doesn't have God damn women." Another woman said, "My (American) supervisor said I can't work on the front line because I couldn't do the job (because I'm a woman)." As time went on, the situation became better since more women have mastered technology and have got more experience in production. Intertraining and rotation of both men and women workers are much easier and there is less sex segregation now.

(5) Ringi Decision-Making System Ringi or collective decision making, as discussed in Chapter 3, is not practiced at Company A as widely as it is in a Japanese company in Japan, but both the Japanese and American supervisors admit that some elements of ringi and nemawashi are embedded in their decision­ making process at Company A, at least enough that the American workers think that the decision-making at Company A in general is more involving and democratic than in American factories. An American foreman said:

"They keep no secrets. I mean, there are of course salary secrets and the salary difference. But that's something every company has because of different responsibilities, policies, new products, etc. The management is very honest with everyone. Everyone is aware of it. Everyone is asked of their opinion on it. Now, of course, the decision has to be made by the managerial staff, but they do want to have input from the associates and that's, you know, a new beginning, a new experience. You have more of a voice in what can happen (in the factory)."

An official document called "an internal memo" is written in English and distributed to those who will attend the meeting, instead of relying solely on verbal communication on the topic. Internal memos give them time to ponder on the matters and decide on their stances before the meeting. The managers also discuss the agenda with each other prior to the meeting, leading to some kind of consensus building and negotiation before the actual decision is made. As a Japanese foreman said, this is a simplified version of the Japanese ringi system. The American and Japanese supervisors are more involved with one another, and the company, leading to higher morale. This ringi and nemawashi which come from the Japanese tradition is perceived by the American managers as new and democratic. Both the Japanese executives and American workers consider it vital that all workers recognize 107

their duty and responsibility not only as ’my' job but also as ’our' job.

Company A, as well as all other Japanese factories in my study, have meetings every day. The workers have a group meeting right before each shift in their work area for five or ten minutes. The leader of the group (foreman) checks on absences, sets up a rotation schedule for the day, and makes announcements. Every Monday morning, they have a shift-wide meeting in the cafeteria for all the workers for about 15 to 30 minutes, depending on the agenda. Important announcements such as change in personnel, production records, recognition of the workers (e.g., anniversaries for working in the company) are made. The workers can freely bring their problems to the attention of their team leaders at these meetings. In addition, the team leaders have a meeting among themselves every day. If there are any complaints or changes from the day before, they hear and discuss them since the meeting is to make sure that "everything is perfect."

Supervisors also have a special meeting in which they discuss current problems (both technical and interactional) and newly introduced technology at least once a week, usually on Thursdays. Meetings are very important part of Company A since they facilitate communication and smoothe operation. Majority of the workers at Company A and other Japanese manufacturing companies consider communication through meetings vital to organizational efficiency. In the survey, 49.3% agreed and 46.4% strongly agreed (a total of 95.7%) to the statement "It is important to have meetings in which everyone's opinion is viewed in order to increase job efficiency."

In addition to the meetings, upper class supervisors walk around the factory checking on the lines once in the morning and twice in the afternoon. Lower class supervisors stay with the workers in the factory supervising their work and helping them. A Japanese foreman said:

"I talk to all the workers and ask them how they're doing. Whenever Americans have complaints, they tell me straightforwardly and I take memos. I usually bring the problem to the next Monday meeting unless it is urgent and needs an immediate attention." (translation mine)

He said that he likes the American workers' frankness and openness as compared with the Japanese workers in Japan who tend to have the negative and pessimistic attitude that they should bear whatever they cannot help.

Company A has several activity committees as a company policy such as recreation, credit union, environment, safety problems, and ad hoc committees in which many workers volunteer their time after work. The members are voted every year for some committees while others are voluntary. The members set up a regularly scheduled time to meet after work. 108

An American worker observed, "By and large, people seem to attend committees well." The latest committee is a traffic committee. Some of the workers were aware of the problem of getting out of the factory at the shift change. They got together and formed a committee to study and solve the problem. They said that these committees increase the density of social interaction and involvement among the workers as well as fostering wa (harmony). Though the number of social activities and events held by the company is rather small when compared with those of a Japanese company of the same size in Japan, the American workers attend them with eagerness. Fart of their satisfaction seems to come from the concept that anyone interested can join. Majority of the workers are aware of the committees and their functions. In the survey, 59.4% agreed and 30.4% strongly agreed (a total of 89.8%) to the statement "This company has a system of committees in which those concerned can join."

Meetings and committees, as well as the ringi decision-making system, give both managers and regulars a sense of involvement and control over working conditions. This participative approach also seems to lead to higher morale and job satisfaction.

(6) Teamwork And Cc,operation As we saw in Chapter 4, traditionally, the Japanese company as well as the Japanese society as a whole emphasize collectivism.and harmony within a group. The Japanese men whom I interviewed perceive that when they first started working at Company A, the American workers generally were only concerned with their own work and lacked overall, long term perspectives, and a holistic concern for later consequences. To the Japanese men the Americans seem not to understand the notion of collective responsibility. This is due to the fact that Americans are generally perceived to be rather present oriented and sometimes even selfish and utilitarian, being concerned only with what they will gain. According to the Japanese managers, this results from their tradition of rationalism. On the contrary, the Japanese men believe that they are more concerned with the future consequences.

Teamwork is the concept that the management wants the American workers to understand and practice in their work. The company hires no extra workers, and thus, the company is efficient in terms of man­ power. As a Japanese manager admitted, "Generally speaking, the Japanese companies are very ’rational.' If a job needs 10 workers, a Japanese company would hire only 8 people to do it. This way the management saves money on wages. I sometimes think that the Japanese work too much." Due to the nature of the production process, the company views,cooperation as indispensable and "the bread of life" for efficient production. This company philosophy is emphasized most by the management. As one of the American foremen said:

"Here, we are more involved with each other of helping and people are willing to help out. Cooperation or teamwork is kinda like an unwritten law or a rule where 109

you just do help, you know. I myself try to set an example by helping everyone when I can. And try to convey it through that way, showing by example. I've seen in American factories where someone doesn't help someone when he has time, then when it's reversed the person doesn't help him. Then, he is not going to help him, either."

As compared with an American factory in which workers are apt to do only what is written in their job descriptions or their contracts, the workers at Company A are more involved with helping one another. As an American foreman said, "I agree with the Japanese managerial philosophy. If somebody is behind or having a trouble, we'll help them."

Though American workers may have individualistic perspectives on their work at the beginning of their careers, they gradually learn the Japanese way of cooperation and teamwork. Many Americans consider teamwork as a vital part of the company. In the survey, a total of 92.7% of them agreed to the statement, "Cooperation is an important part of work in this company," and 97.1% of them think it important that everyone help one another to accomplish company goals.

The concept of distinctive division of labor in an American factory cannot be observed in Japanese factories in my study. For example, at one of the factories that I visited, I observed several Japanese managers picking up litter and tidy boxes as they took a group of Japanese tourists on a factory tour. As an American foreman said, "Everyone is a janitor here. People at Company A takes care of the factory well. If you make a mess, you clean it up." If somebody makes a mess and you have time, you clean it up, too!

A cooperative person is a most desirable candidate for becoming a productive worker and one's cooperation is tested through multiple job interviews. In the survey, 71% of the American workers agreed to the statement "I think this company selects certain kinds of employees who will get along here," and 10.1% strongly agreed.

At one of the meetings, teamwork was discussed among the workers. The women workers had complained to their leaders that male workers did not cooperate with them while they helped them out on the line. Their supervisors had tried to correct this problem individually for three to four weeks in vain by the time the problem was actually brought up at the meeting. All the workers were given an opportunity to speak up and the meeting lasted about half an hour. The supervisors explained that the quality of production would be better and the job a lot easier if the workers help one another. The meeting pressured the workers to cooperate more now that the issue was discussed publicly. An American foreman said at the time of my interview, "It's about a week since that meeting and it's incredible now. The workers are both talking and they're helping each other out. When one gets behind, the other jumps in and helps." It seems that the philosophy of "I scratch 110

your back, you scratch mine," has taken roots at Company A.

(/) Egalitarianism Large Japanese business organizations are well-known for their unique company philosophies (Abegglen 1958; Cole 1971; Ouchi 1981; Rohlen 1979). The Japanese companies in the United States are no exceptions. The manufacturing companies that I studied have slogans which summarize their company philosophies and orientations.

The American workers perceive egalitarianism as distinguishing Company A from other American companies. Both Company A and all other companies studied in this research call all workers including executives and managers "associates." The company philosophy is that everyone is a colleague and everyone is equal. All the workers wear the identical uniforms with their nicknames sewn to them. Everyone shares the same office, bathrooms, cafeteria, and a parking lot which operates on the first come first serve basis. There is no designated parking area for executives.

In the office there are several rows of desks and chairs, which gives one an impression that the office is actually in Japan. Working in the same office facilitates communication and cuts down unnecessary written communication and misunderstanding since everyone is accessible right away. The executives do not have their own secretaries, either. A receptionist takes care of incoming calls and visitors in the front area of the office and clerks usually fulfill the functions of personal secretaries with the duties of filing, typing, and so on. The president said:

"Sometimes I myself answer the calls and make appointments if she's busy or when nobody is around. (laughter) We try to make this organization as simple as possible. I don't think that the organization and the management will get more complicated when the size of the company gets bigger. For example, if I have a secretary, the vice president will say he wants one. If he has a secretary, then the plant manager will say he wants one, too. This way the company will become more and more complicated." (translation mine)

The management considers that several top-down layers do not necessarily lead to efficient communication and operation of the factory. As an American foreman said, "The management and factory work together very well. Most companies run the management and the factory like two separate companies, the former being more of the brain part and the latter the muscles, but Company A has a very good coordination between the two."

The company philosophy that "Everyone is equal" is introduced to the workers on their first job interview and is emphasized throughout their multiple job interviews. This philosophy is practiced by the workers in their daily interaction with other executives and workers. I l l

Their uniforms also strengthens their belief in the philosophy. According to the workers whom I interviewed, the uniform gives them some sense of solidarity, belonging, equality, and oneness. They said, "It makes you feel like part of the company, makes you feel like everyone is one," "It's a lot neater looking at, for one thing," and "The uniform makes me feel ’We are all in this together and we're gonna get this done.'" In the survey, 66.7% of the American workers agreed and 18.8% strongly agreed (a total of 85.5%) to the statement "When I wear my uniform, I feel one with other workers." To the statement "This company, as a whole, operates as one team," 62.3% agreed and 10.1% strongly agreed.

5.2. Enhancing Social Solidarity in the United States

(1) Social Activities & Social Relations Japanese and American workers at Company A said that generally the social relationships among the workers are personal and friendly both on and off the job. A Japanese supervisor at Company A said that he was very surprised when his American colleagues brought a cake and had a small party for his birthday in the office. He said, "Birthday is emphasized here. They even put up a list of what day is whose birthday. In Japan, this kind of thing never happens. It was interesting to see how Americans get involved with such a private matter." (translation mine)

The recreational committee plans an annual Christmas party, summer picnic, and excursion, sports tournaments (e.g., bowling, baseball), rolling skate party, birthday celebration, and so on, most of which the workers and their family members can freely join. These activities are included in the annual schedule and sponsored by the company. The majority of workers look forward to attending them. In the survey, a total of 72.5% of the workers said that they enjoy these social activities. As a Japanese manager said, "I think about 70 to 80% of the workers join these activities. I think Americans like the idea of the company paying for their expenses." (translation mine) An American foreman said:

"It's nice seeing other people's husbands or wives whom you hear about during the day (at work). It's interesting to see, actually see the people, after you hoard about them. Because you feel you know them and it's just -- those are nice."

Company A has a softball team and a bowling club which many workers join. They practice a few days a week and have tournaments among themselves and with teams from other towns. The two adjoining cities near the company have different leagues and the members play once or twice a week. They have T-shirt uniforms for which the company helped pay the expense. In addition to these activities, some workers also play basketball and football. 112

The workers often get together and play golf, go fishing, swimming, driving, go to ball games, eat out, or drink at a local bar. A Japanese supervisor said:

"I go fishing every Saturday and Sunday with people from Company A. There's this American guy who has professional skills in fishing. He's just excellent. He happened to be a team leader. ... I have gone to bars a couple of times with many workers, too. However, I don't go drinking as often (as in Japan), because there are no attractive bars around here. There's nothing (in this rural area), you know!" (translation mine)

Though the workers do not go out as frequently as Japanese go for tsukiai the workers seem to get along with one another very well.

Some Japanese men make it a point to travel with Japanese clients or visitors from their parent company in Japan. A Japanese foreman said that he had visited half of the 50 states in three years. Another Japanese foreman even changed his hobbies so that he could mingle with American workers more when they have free time together. He said, "I didn't want to stick with the Japanese workers all the time. I also wanted to brush up my English since I'm in the United States." (translation mine)

The company seems generous on its expenditure on social activities such as the Christmas dinner and dance party to which the workers can bring their spouse or boy/girlfriend. These parties are. usually held at local hotels. As an American worker said, "I've never seen an American factory take their employees out to a dinner like that." His Japanese supervisor took him out along with two other Americans to a Japanese restaurant because they had made an extra effort to get the scrap rate down. The American was surprised but felt very good about his supervisor's generosity and concern for them. It seems that within the managerial class American and Japanese men get along fairly iirell and go out once in a while. Company A is perceived to be very generous in sponsoring these activities and the same holds true with other Japanese companies. Many workers (68.1%) agreed to the statement "I think my company is very generous in spending money on company activities." The following cases of three American and one Japanese workers present the kinds of everyday social activities that the workers engage in.

A young American supervisor said that some workers are close enough to talk about their family problems. Talking with his co­ workers helped him let his steam off his mind and concentrate on his work when he was going through a divorce. He said, "I know six or seven workers in my area who like to talk with one another about their problems." He values their support and sympathetic listening very much. 113

Debbie, an American worker, said that she set up a date between her Japanese supervisor and her sister for the company's Christmas dinner and dance party. She said:

"There aren’t any Japanese women in the factory at all. My sister was here for Christmas for a week. I asked my Japanese supervisor if he would mind meeting my sister. He didn't have a date -- someone to escort for the party. I asked him, ’Do you mind?' He said, ’Yes.' And it was great!" (Obviously, this Japanese man made a mistake in his English. In the Japanese language, you answer ’yes' for English ’no' in this sentence.)

Both Debbie, her boyfriend, sister, and supervisor had a lot of fun on the occasion. Debbie said that there were some incidents which puzzled her sister before and during the party. The Japanese foreman got into the car first without opening the door for Debbie's sister. At the party, the supervisor did not introduce her to the people who stopped and talked to him. Debbie said, "He never said, ’This is Cathy, Debbie's sister.' She just stood beside him. She just humnunmmmmmmm, you know. But she understood where he comes from, his culture and it wasn't so rude." According to Debbie, Cathy understood the role of one's socialization in a particular culture in one's behavior from her six month job experience in Hawaii where many Japanese tourists visit.

The workers help one another on and off the job as well. When Debbie moved into her new house, her co-worker and her husband helped her. She had also stopped by to say "Hi!" on the morning of my interview with Debbie. Debbie said, "Those workmates are like my family members." The workers help one another not out of obligation but because they enjoy doing so. Some women workers go swimming together on a regular basis.

Larry has been living in the city where Company A is located for 30 years and knows the city and people very well. On the morning of my interview he took a new Japanese co-worker to various real estate companies to look for an apartment for him and his wife who was to arrive in the States in a few weeks. He volunteered to help the Japanese man who did not have a car or know the city streets well. He said, "X offered him a ride and I enjoyed helping him. Must be part of my nature. If I help somebody I enjoy it." Larry enjoys working with his Japanese colleagues and inviting their families to his house when they first come from Japan. He believes that they are interested in America and would like to see the society and people. He observed that "The Japanese are kinda very polite until they get to know you. This is not a criticism. I'm just saying they're on guard, very careful, but I enjoy them!" Other than helping the Japanese men with their errands and inviting their families home, Larry often invites them to ballgames in a nearby metropolis and also to his sail boat. 114

Yamada, a Japanese foreman, has been working for Company A since it started its operation. My American interviewees said that he is the most popular Japanese manager among the American workers for his friendliness, sense of humor, intelligence, and his style of leadership. He said he is often invited to parties by Americans, especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas. When there are several people inviting him on the same day, he make:, it a rule to accept the first invitation. An American worker, who seemed to be very hard to get along with and who never tells jokes, unexpectedly invited him for his Christmas party. It was Yamada's very first Christmas party in the States. He was told by his host that he did not have to worry about bringing anything since he was a guest. He said:

"The party was very nice. The whole family knew me, I think he had already explained everything. The atmosphere was great. It was a family reunion. When they exchanged gifts with one another, there were some for me. I didn't expect it at all and I was very embarrassed since I went there empty-handed, (laughter)"

He happened to have his 35mm camera with him and took many pictures of them, framed one which has everybody in it and gave it as a gift to the American family later. They were very happy to get it. Yamada said:

"I felt ashamed of myself about not bringing anything. But it's a matter of customs and manners. I didn't expect to exchange gifts like that at the party and I didn't think I would get any gifts, either. The second time around, I did ask what I should bring so that I didn't have to be ashamed again. As they say in English, ’Practice makes perfect.'" (translation mine)

He said that he learned the American way of life rather quickly and often from his embarrassing mistakes.

Yamada said that Americans are very frank and he really likes their straightforwardness in communication. Because of his personality and position, Americans often talk to Yamada about their problems, not only those related to work such as vacation and days off but also interpersonal problems. The Americans know he is their boss but they talk to him more or less like their equal and they are very open. Yamada said, "Some even inform me who's dating who. (laughter) They often tease me about girlfriends." Yamada thinks that there are two ways to deal effectively with American subordinates: (1) to mix easily with them or (2) to draw a line between them and himself. His approach is the first one and the Americans seem to like him very much. For example, they often bring extra food for him to share at lunch in the cafeteria. Yamada said, "They sometimes bring me deer meat and say ’I went deer hunting. Try some deer meat.' Some have asked me to try their hamburgers. They often invite me for potluck, too." The atmosphere at lunch time seems relaxed and enjoyable even though they 115 have only half an hour for it.

On one of his business trips Yamada went to Japan for two weeks and married his Japanese sweetheart while he was there. He had a wedding ceremony and reception for his family, relatives, and friends. When he came back to the United States with his bride two weeks later, a big wedding celebration was waiting for them at the community center. The party was initia’ted and planned by his American subordinates and everyone came to celebrate the occasion. A Japanese wife of an executive said, "It seems that the American-Japanese social relationships are getting better each year." In the survey, 94.2% of the workers answered that they enjoy associating with their co­ workers .

(2) The Family Feeling And Job Satisfaction In addition to the materialistic satisfaction, both American and Japanese workers seem to enjoy wcrking with one another in Company A. The American workers said, "I like the people around me and my job is interesting and challenging sometimes," and "I enjoy the people and I enjoy talking with the Japanese."

All the workers mentioned that the Company is like a family, and their workmates family members. The survey data show that 71.0% of the workers consider that their company has a "family atmosphere" and 88.4% believe that absenteeism is low. If the workers consider their company as their "family," their work then becomes "a sort of" family chore. This seems to lead to a low turnover rate. One of the workers said that she feels bad when she cannot make it to the factory due to illness. She said, "And I think ’I've gotta go in. It's really gonna put it on somebody else.' You feel so guilty. I hate that feeling." The company hires only the right number of workers who make up a team. Though there are temporary workers who can fill in the position if the regular is sick for a long time, the worker who is absent will-put an additional burden on the other workers in the group.

Organizations do not work with rationality as the sole basis of their structure and managerial practices. Since human beings are the major components of any industrial organization, their feelings and emotions also need to be accommodated. Company A appears to have sufficiently taken these factors into consideration and successfully adjusted its organizational structure to the new American sociocultural environment.

5.3. Work Assesments of the American and the Japanese Workers: Similarities and Differences In this section, we shed some light on the behavioral differences between the American and the Japanese workers in regard to their work. It is generally said that the Americans and the Japanese have different perspectives in regard to their work (Mito 1981; Sato 1983); the former identify primarily with their job specialty such as engineer, accountant and supervisor whereas the latter identify 116

'primarily with their company. In the United States the organization runs on the basis of functions and the division of labor while in Japan one's commitment is to the company everyone is more of a generalist. To a certain degree, American society allows and even encourages changing jobs which leads to greater social and geographical mobility, whereas in Japan most people, as a rule, commit themselves to only one company during their lifetime (Abegglen 1958; Mito 1981; Ouchi 1981).

Generally, the American and Japanese workers have different perspectives and philosophies which primarily come from their internalization of particular cultural values, norms, and beliefs, and the psychological traits of the people. When the workers come to work for a company, they already have culture specific values and behavioral norms which they have acquired somewhere else and which may not be compatible with those of the society from which the organization originates. Thus, they bring elements of uncertainty to the internal environment (Gouldner 1957; 1959).

One of the main questions addressed at the beginning of this study was "How are sociocultural backgrounds and assumptions (i.e., norms, values, beliefs, ways of life, etc.) different from one culture to the other and how do they influence the U.S. and Japanese workers when they work together?" The following sections present the differences and similarities between the American and Japanese workers as seen from their own and the other group.

One of the first questions asked of my respondents was "What do you think are the differences between American and Japanese workers?" Surprisingly enough, both American and Japanese workers said that as human beings there is no difference. One of the Japanese managers said, "There may be some variation, but I think Americans and Japanese are basically the same, when it comes to our feelings of sadness, happiness, or motivation to do something." (translation mine)

The American respondents also said that working with the Japanese is just about the same as working with fellow Americans only. After a few years' experience, many of them now feel very comfortable and easy working together with their Japanese supervisors. As an American foreman said, "As for being able to work with, friendly, like to joke, there is no difference."

Most Japanese workers admit that the American labor force found in the particular region surrounding Company A has a very good work ethic and cultural background. As one Japanese manager who had worked in Japan for many years observed:

"Of course, there are different countries and different national modal personalities. Those workers around this area are extremely hard working and many are religious. They are also used to taking care of machines. In a sense, they have some better quality which Japanese 117

workers in Japan do not possess." (translation mine)

Many Japanese executives said that they are generally satisfied with the performance of the American workers, and some of them admit that there are many Americana who are as dedicated to work as the Japanese. Both sets of workers said that workers in Company A generally share many similarities, compatibilities, and understandings beyond different racial, social, and cultural differences.

It seems that”the nationality or race is not a significant factor when the Americans and Japanese workers work together, interact with one another, or have fun at parties and playing sports. As one of the American workers said, "The Japanese are very competitive and they're good athletes. It's fun to play sports with them."

However, the respondents reported some differences stemming from sociocultural backgrounds of the workers. What is taken for granted in one society may not be so in another since many patterns of norms, beliefs, and actions are all socially and culturally defined. Both sets of workers agreed that the Americans are more individualistic and utilitarian whereas the Japanese are group oriented and reserved in regards to change. Although they said these differences are relatively minor in the everyday operation of the company as a whole, the answers of the respondents were often emotion laden and non-sympathetic. For example, it took 5 months for the Japanese managers to change the size of one of their materials to the correct and designated size. The American workers understood that there is always six weeks' delay in shipment from Japan which the company has no control over, but they thought 5 months was a little bit too long to correct the problem. They felt irritated and frustrated, as they patiently waited for the change. One of the American workers said: "This is what I don't understand. In this day of modern technology, why would it take so long? Why couldn't they send facsimiles right away?"

The Japanese should have explained and informed the situation between the two companies, namely, Company A and the Japanese company in Japan from whom they bought their materials as well as a concept of the dollar-yen exchange rate with which most workers are not familiar. The American workers have observed that the Japanese are very careful, in implementing change and they often take too much time.

The Americans, however, get used to the Japanese way of doing things as they work together day in day out. One of the American foremen said, "I've learned to deal with the Japanese, know what to expect and how to satisfy those things." They feel more comfortable, and get along with one another very well both at work and leisure now that they learned the Japanese way of doing things. Also they got the feeling that the Japanese are easier to work with "because they will work with you. You don't work for them. The Japanese have more patience." In the following section we would focus on the maj or differences between the American and Japanese workers and their experiences in the factory. 118

(1) American Workers The managers whc went to Japan for job training feel that the Japanese workers in Japan are somewhat different from American workers in Company A. For example, they noticed that Americans talk much more to one another. An American foreman said that both American men and women unwind their mouths at work since they are away from their roles as parents at home. According to him, they talk about what they did the night before, and the football games or basketball games on TV. Women seem to like to gossip while men like to talk "damn things" to pass the day, get rid of boredom, and also have fun. An American woman worker observed, "Some of the women, you have to yell at a' couple of times, tell them 'Hey, that's yours!' They like to talk, and you've gotta bring them back to reality. ’Hey, you're at Company A. You're not on the street or a bar. You've got work to do! (laughter)"

To the American workers, the factory is not only a place to work and earn a living but also a place to interact and socialize with other workers more so than the Japanese workers in Japan, which fulfills financial as well as social and psychological needs of human beings. An American foreman said, "You have to not only work but kinda entertain yourself by talking." Rotation, according to him, also helps workers get rid of boredom because they can talk with different people every day and catch up with where they left the last time they worked together. Other than talk and gossip, some workers sing once in a while which makes everybody sing along. Some do funny things. A line worker said: "All of sudden you look up. Somebody's got something weird stuck on his head, and aha! Ha! You just laugh and it breaks your boredom."

Others pass out many dirty pictures and comic strips at work. A worker gave me a sheet of paper which was informally passed among the American workers on the assembly line. The paper contains many sentences with four letter words. It is rather humorous as if to get rid of "blue collar blues." An American foreman said, "Cussing the language (in American culture) is a lot worse than it used to be." The paper is shown below. 119

Dear Colleagues: Company A wishes to bring to your attention that some employees have been using abusive language in the ex­ change of normal verbal communication with relation to the performance of routine activities. This code is provided to permit individual freedom and originality of our fellow workers to alleviate frustration and provide a cleaner and effective means of communication without offending outside relationships and other people with sensitive ears that may be within hearing distance. To preclude mistaking the communication code with department numbers and telephone extensions, we have assigned 700-800-900 series for your convenience and clarity.

700 Series ASS 701 Stick it up your ass 702 Your ass sucks wind 703 Up your ass 704 Kiss my ass

800 Series F— 801 F--- off 802 F--- it 803 What the f-- 804 I don't give a f— 805 Get off my f ing back 806 The f— ing thing doesn't work 807 It's not my f— ing job

900 Series GENERAL 901 Smile if you want it 902 Let's ball at lunch 903 Lay down, I think I love you 904 I'm free this weekend 905 I'm free tonight 906 Meet you at the hotel

Thank you very much for your understanding and cooperation.

Talk, gossip, and this sheet are examples of play that the workers enjoy at work, being free from their role constraints as parents who have to keep a straight profile. The frequent use of bad words, four letter words, and slang among the American workers in their conversations is supported by the evidence that these words are 120 the very first of all words that the Japanese men learn when they start working with Americans at Company A! The reason is, as an American commented, "Because they hear them so often in the factory! (laughter)" A Japanese foreman of the same company said:

"The American workers never use slang when they talk to the president. They customary call him by his first name though. On the other hand, they always use slang with me. I'd say they never talk with me without using slang. They use the word which starts with an F many times. F! F! F! You know! (laughter)" (translation mine)

He thinks that the Americans' usage of slang as a sign that they consider him as their equal and feel very comfortable with him in their communication. The American workers appear very aggressive when they use particular slang words, but the Japanese managers understand that they are not as bad as they sound.

(2) The American Attitude Toward The Japanese How about the Americans' attitude toward the Japanese then? Overall, it seems fairly favorable, at least on the surface. An American foreman said, "I haven't met anyone who is antagonistic to the Japanese. There are certain stuff the Americans say when they are mad, like 'Oh, that Jap! Why do we have to do this?' But, you know, anybody would say that." He says that calling the Japanese supervisors names does not reflect their real attitude toward the Japanese. Another American foreman said:

"Well, there's a certain amount of resentment, I believe, in the fact that 100% of profit leaves the country and goes back to the foreign land, whether you're talking about Japan, China, or wherever. It doesn't matter. Any time it's not an American made or American profited situation, you're gonna get certain comments, certain amount of disgust about it. But I think also that it's again, a give and take situation. The opportunities that Company A is offering to the rural Americans are great. People living in the United States are interested in one thing. They want to make a living like everybody else. And if Company A profits a little bit, why not? Why not everybody make money?"

Part of resentment also comes from the misinformation which the workers obtained from the rumors around towm.

A Japanese manager observed: "The pay is very good here. I think Americans are smart. Instead of opposing to the Japanese and get fired, they would rather show understanding and make money." He added that there are many Americans who seem to have no prejudice at all in his factory (translation mine). 121

Company A indeed offers many job opportunities to the local people, many of who had been unemployed, or laid off before. As one of the American workers said, "Company A, along with other Japanese companies in here, does a lot for the city." Though the American workers had not had any previous experience with the Japanese, many of them have learned the Japanese ways of doing and thinking, which enable them to work easily and enjoy each other.

(3) Americans' Utilitarian Orientation Unlike the Japanese who commit themselves to one company, Americans can have choice in their occupation and other alternatives are always possible. Their current job may be considered only as a transitional phase to a better career, while the majority of Japanese tend to work for only one company in their lifetime. The Japanese toil for their company, strongly identify themselves with it, and become "company people" (Mito 1981; Nakane 1970). The former president of Company B who was transferred to Tokyo said of the Japanese, "I pity these ’poor' Japanese souls in Japan these days. They know nothing but work. I think Americans are leading a better, more humane, and fulfilling life than the Japanese." (translation mine)

The Americans in general seem to have more control over their life, not to mention their occupational choice and freedom. For example, the Japanese supervisors were surprised when some American workers declined to work overtime, left to do some chores at home when there was a demand for production. This was something that the management really wanted to avoid. The American workers had been asked of their opinions on overtime several times during their interviews. As one of the Japanese men observed, "I noticed that the factory workers want to get out as soon as possible and they rush to the time clock. They just cannot wait to get out." (translation mine) Another Japanese said that he had to understand the general American culture in which they value their private time and see the workers' reason for going home in that light. As American foremen said:

"I think the Japanese had to learn to deal with the American labor force. I guess you might say the Americans are the most spoiled labor force in the world and they demand high wages and benefits.... I honestly believe that the Japanese expect more dedication from the American workers. I guess maybe they would like to see the American people be more interested in their work as the Japanese."

"I think Americans come to work just to know they have to come to work. I don't think Japanese don't feel that way. Americans cannot wait to get out of work to go fishing, to go hunting, to do anything like that. They are just the opposite (from the Japanese)."

A few American workers observed that those workers who decline to work overtime all the time have their cwn business such as plumbing 122 and carpentry besides their work at Company A. They are not sure whether they can "make it" in their own enterprises and they work in the factoiy to have security.

Some workers complained that they often have too much overtime in too short a time and in a row. This is due to the production schedule of the companies that they supply their products with. One of the workers had his parents' anniversary party planned six months ahead but he had to cancel his attendance because of the unexpected overtime which came like "bang, bang, bang!" There are also a few discontented workers who always complain about over time. They are satisfied with "just getting by" The Americans are not lazy, but they value their own private time and time with their friends and families more than the Japanese. A Japanese foreman said:

"I don't think Americans are selfish, or ego-centered. I think they are rather utilitarian and they are very smart, too. The Japanese sacrifice their time and family for overtime and work for the company, but the Americans do not want to sacrifice themselves. If they work, they work — because they want to." (translation mine)

The Japanese and Americans differ in their perspectives of work and leisure. The American workers I interviewed had a mixed feeling about overtime. By and large, they are hard working people and do not mind working overtime. In the survey, 63.8% of workers agreed and 15.7 % strongly agreed (a total of 79.7%) to the statement, "I am willing to work overtime than go home if I am asked to by the company." Some workers actually welcome and like working overtime because they are paid time and a half, which is a lot of money. Some even said that it is a blessing, and they are willing to do it. Some supervisors think they were promoted because they did a lot of overtime. An American foreman said, "Overtime, to me, Is a blessing. I'm a young man and I'vegot a lot of time on my hands and I got a lot of goal set for my life. And things I want and the opportunity for little extra money, I would jump at it." Another American also said, "I think by and large most of the Americans do not mind working overtime. Because they want the money." When volunteers are needed, they don't have a trouble. Another American foreman said, "For some of the workers, it was quite a while before they came to work here. A lot other people suffered a great financial difficulty. They jump at the chance to have a little extra money for a change."

(4) The "Mission" of Japanese Business Many scholars agree that in Japan work often takes priority in people's lives over their families or leisure (Christopher 1983). A good example is tanshin funin in which the father, when he gets promoted and transferred, lives alone in a city where his company branch is located, and from where he cannot commute everyday. Three Japanese managers were living alone in the States at the time of my interviews. One of them had his second son right before his departure to the States and another's first child was due any time on the very 123

day when we had an interview. I asked them if their wives ever complained about the situation and they replied, "Well, it's my job.11 («* "In no way she can complain about it.") One of them found his job at Company A very interesting but he complained:

"A man feels like a prisoner when he goes abroad. He cannot make himself understood and his action is limited without a car. I couldn't go to see a movie or go drinking when I didn't have a car. No entertainment, no nothing. I really felt like a prisoner. All I did was going back and forth between Company A and my apartment. (translation mine)

Though he complained about his situation, feeling somewhat alienated, he said he still liked his job in the United States.

All Japanese and American workers admitted that the Japanese workers in their company are simply "workaholics" who interpret their jobs as some kind of "mission" or in Calvin's word "calling." The Japanese men put more time and energy into the work than the Americans, a dedication to work. As a Japanese manager said, "This is my own opinion, but work is already embedded in my private life. Just like my family belongs to the private category, so does my work. Even when I'm having fun with other workers, like fishing, camping, or playing golf, work is often the topic of conversation. The Japanese cannot really separate their work and private time." (translation mine)

The Americans were very surprised at the fact that the Japanese managers work in the company 12 to 15 hours a day, if it is necessary. As an American workers observed, "The Japanese do not do much for recreation, for leisure." The workers said that the Japanese work "whole a lot harder and try more." The Japanese men seem not to be bothered by longer working hours at all. One of them who had been recently transferred to the States said, "I leave home quarter to seven and get there around 7:00 or 7:05 A.M. I check facsimiles from Japan, distribute them and then go to the cafeteria to have some coffee. The office starts at 7:30 A.M. ... Lately I can come home after 7 P.M. I eat dinner, take a shower, and then go to sleep." He is not paid for his "voluntary" overtime since he is not paid by the hour. (The Japanese staff are paid by the parent company's pay system. They acquire their seniority in terms of their age and years of service in Japan even though they are temporarily in the United States.) He does not mind staying at the company till late at night. Another reason why he stays there is because of the communication with their parent company since there is time difference between Japan and the U.S.. He went on, "To tell you the truth, I go there early and stay late because I'm interested in my job. I think it's fun. Since this company is not as big as the parent company, I can easily see what people are doing and what my position and functions are." Another Japanese said, "We are in a production business. I value creating objects and I think I identify it with my life." They seem to have a 124 conviction that they, as harbingers, must work hard and accomplish their missions however difficult it may be.

5.4. Analysis: Organizational Acceptance: Japanese Business Organizations and the American Core Values The Japanese manufacturing companies in my study are relatively young and are still in the process of forming their organizational structures. Many American and Japanese workers noted that their companies have a mixed managerial system. The organizational structures follow the Japanese managerial system, but some elements of the American system have also been introduced. The organizational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1978), in which the form of organization is kept intact over the years, exists to the extent that the Japanese characteristics are retained in the new managerial system, and the degree of adaptation to the new environment seems to equal the amount of elements of the American managerial system, norms, values, and beliefs introduced.

The Japanese companies do not have detailed company charts or job descriptions. All the workers wear the identical uniforms and share the parking lot, bathrooms, and cafeteria; they enjoy "equality" among themselves. They also like to join social activities sponsored by the company. They are paid equally for equal jobs. Seniority is one of the most important factors for promotion and for obtaining a job in a preferred shift. The company has communication channels, such as the open door policy and daily meetings by which concerned workers can put in their ideas and opinions. The decision-making system is similar to the Japanese ringi system. In this sense we can call these Japanese companies "hybrid organizations" (Lincoln et. al. 1978) which "adopt in varying combinations the practices of the host society in which they operate, while at the same time retaining some qualities distinctive to their country of origin" (1978, p.829). Hybrid organizations incorporate in their structures both Japanese and American patterns of management.

The Japanese company is well explained by the open natural system model of complex organizations which views an organization as an open system which strives to secure its survival in its environment. As we saw in Chapter 2, according to the open system model, environments of organizations influence organizations in many ways. They are crucial as sources of information and as stocks of resources (Aldrich & Mindlin 1978). Organizations must cope with the problems of uncertainty and dependency on other organizations. As Hall notes, "no organization is an island unto itself" (1982, p.219). Since an organizational environment may determine life chances of the organization, the new environment that the Japanese organizations find in the United States could be quite hostile in terms of government regulations, quality of labor available, money markets, and so on. The Japanese companies in my study started operation only several years ago, and they still need to learn the ropes of business, must depend on the "strangers," and establish new ties with other organizations 125

for their survival (Stinchcombe 1965). The organizational adaptation of the Japanese companies in my study, however, have been quite successful.

The open natural system model views organizations as consisting of participants who may have contradictory interests and motives from those of the company. Organizations thus share characteristics with other social groups. The American workers and the Japanese managers and workers were observed to have brought their latent Identities, (Gouldner 1957; 1959) such as their perspectives of job, values, and attitude in work, especially at the beginning of their career. For example, the American workers made a big issue out of seniority: some of them declined to work overtime and were individualistic in their job orientation. The Japanese managers likewise were observed to be hard working, considerate, and sometimes too hesitant to make drastic changes. Adoption of the general American practices or the "Americanization of the organization," as well as the understanding of the American culture and personality, were necessary to mitigate the cultural differences between the Japanese-born managerial system and the American-born workers. Successful adaptation, both on the organizational and individual levels, results in less conflict between them.

Organizational adaptation of Japanese manufacturing companies in my study has been successful in terms of the American workers'job satisfaction and loyalty to the company. In the survey the following was obtained: 126

Statement: "I would recommend this company to a close friend for a j ob."

Strongly Disagree 1.4 % Disagree 7.2 % Total 8.6 %

Agree 47.8 % Strongly Agree 43.5 % Total 91.3 %

Statement: "The pay of this company is satisfactory."

Strongly Disagree 1.4 % Disagree 24.6 % Total 26.0 %

Agree 59.6 % Strongly Agree 13.0 % Total 72.6 %

Statement: "I am satisfied with the various benefits this company offers."

Strongly Disagree 0.0 % Disagree 17.4 % Total 17.4 %

Agree 59.4 % Strongly Agree 20.3 % Total 79.7 %

Statement: "I would like to work for this company until my retirement."

Strongly Disagree 10.1 % Disagree 20.3 % Total 30.3 %

Agree 50.7 % Strongly Agree 17.4 % Total 68.1 %

The survey results show that the majority of workers are satisfied with their job in regard to pay, benefits, and they have loyalty to the company.

The reasons for the success of organizational adaptation of Japanese companies in the United States are twofold. First, the company located itself in rural America and selected those employees who would fit in the company through multiple job interviews. Second, basic American core values are present in the Japanese managerial 127

practices which accounts for why the American workers can relate to them very well. (See Figure 1) The following section discusses these two points in detail.

The Japanese manufacturing companies in my study are all located in a rural area which has been plagued by a high unemployment rate until recently. One of the reasons for the selection of the factory sites was due to the generous offerings by the state government in terms of price of land, sewage, electricity, tax breaks, and highways. Another reason is the quality of the labor force. Many male workers are the sons of farmers, and a maj ority of them have been living in the region for a long time. They have appropriate experience in handling farm machinery and are familiar with mechanics which the Japanese management thought would facilitate their work on the assembly line.

The Japanese management considered the cooperation and devotion of the workers as vital to successful operation of the factory. The Japanese executives believed in the work ethic of these rural people who have experience in agricultural production, which often requires not only much patience and hard work but also meeting the schedule of planting and harvesting. Generally speaking, farmers rise early and work very hard. They are obliged to work from 5 AM to 9 PM during harvest, for example. If they do not finish harvesting on time, their agricultural products may be of no market value and consequently they lose money. We can draw a parallel to the Japanese factory in the United States. With competition so high, the workers need to work overtime everyday over a period of a few weeks when there is a production demand in the market. This demands quite a lot of effort and sacrifice of their leisure time at home. Therefore, the management considered it ideal to hire these workers who are willing to work overtime and work well under pressure.

These workers are also familiar with the concept of cooperation and teamwork. To a certain extent, they can relate their communal experience to their factory work. In a rural community, helping one another is very common. The rural society still has the characteristics of Tonnie's Gemeinschaft, characterized by frequent and intimate networks of friends and relatives, common values, beliefs, and norms. In addition to deligent farm workers, religious workers are also committed to good work.

The screening process is a time consuming process of getting to know the workers even before they are hired. The Japanese management considers it as a precondition for the company's successful adaptation to its new environment. Prospective workers fill out a detailed application form and go through multiple job interviews by the members of the recruitment committee. Some Americans felt that the interviews were a real challenge since they had never gone through that kind of recruitment process. As Stinchcombe (1965) noted, developing an organization is easier if the participants have equivalent talents and values that the organization requires. Differences in the training, 128 skills, knowledge, and socialization of the participants may cause difficulties in the interpretation of the problem at hand and in the possible outcome of organizational behavior (Pfeffer 1978). Organizational polisy and behavior may be shaped by the "social" characteristics of personnel (Gouldner 1959).

Many workers in my interviews concluded that the Japanese companies seek those who can cooperate very well and those who are dedicated to work. In the survey, 71% of the workers agreed and 10.1% strongly agreed to the statement, l'l think this company selects certain kinds of employees who will get along here." Cooperative people are considered most desirable by the management and commitment to work is also important. If they are asked by the company, 79.7% of the workers are willing to work overtime rather than go home. Because of the successful screening of the homogeneous labor force, socialization of the workers and indoctrination of the company philosophies were relatively easy and successful.

As Sethi et. al. note, effectiveness of management is often influenced by "the cultural, sociopolitical, and economic framework of the people who are doing the managing or being managed" (1984, p.l). The successful adaptation also results from a correspondence between the surface and deep structures of the managerial system. Both structures of Japanese companies in the United States share certain homologous elements with some of the American core values as shown below:

Surface Structure Deep Structure

Good pay Material comfort/success Various benefits Humanitarian mores Bonus and promotion Achievement and success Ringi decision-making Democracy Uniform, cafeteria, parking Equality Overtime and social relations Activity and work i Figure 1: Surface and Deep Structures of Organization

The formal structure of the Japanese organizations in the United States is represented in the surface structure and the deep structure summarizes the core values of the United States (Williams 1970).

Though general values may differ from time to time and from place to place even within a society, these are so-called the American core values which are shared by the majority of the members as general orientations or patterns of behavior, which are the standards of desirability. In this section we will primarily deal with the major value configuration within the dominant American culture which has been handed down from generation to generation. 129

The Japanese company could reduce the amount of possible conflict because of the bssic American core values which are parallel to the new Japanese managerial system in the United States. The American core values of achievement and success (bonus system), activity and work (overtime, recreation), humanitarian mores (holistic concern), progress (promotion), equality (uniform, cafeteria, parking) and democracy (ringi decision-making, meetings, open door policy, suggestion box) can be found in the Japanese managerial system in the United States. This obviously facilitates organizational adaptation since the American workers can understand and relate to the new managerial system.

From this we can conclude that Meyer & Rowan's theory of organizations as myth and ceremony (1978) holds true for the Japanese organizations in the U.S. environment since they proved to be normative and symbolic entities which incorporate, imitate, and adopt social norms, values, and ideologies of the larger population in the host society. The institutional rules affect the organizational structure and its actual implementation.

What then are the myths and ceremonies of the Japanese company in the United States? We posit that they are consistently related to the core values of the United States and explain how each managerial practice is compatible with them.

(1) Pay - Material Comfort/Success The majority of American workers in the Japanese companies in my study (72.6%) are satisfied with their pay. Part of their satisfaction comes from the satisfaction of American core values of material comfort and success (Dolbeare & Dolbeare 1978; Stace 1950; Williams 1970). Traditionally, Americans have accorded high esteem to material possessions, such as money, property, and heirship (Inlow 1972). Thus, Americans in general evaluate things in material and monetary terms. As Dolbeare & Dolbeare note, the American materialism is "the dominant (and sometimes the only) standard by which the achievements of individuals or of the economic system as a whole are to be measured" (1978, p.25). The American obsession with money comes not only from the goods it will buy but also its "symbolic evidence of success, and thereby, of personal worth" (Williams 1970, p.457). The "open" society which enables any hard working person to realize the American dream has attracted and been attracting many immigrants who seek a better life in the United States. The American dream has been a true motivator for many people to work hard.

Before they were hired by the Japanese factories many American workers in my study had experienced unemployment, lay offs, and bad luck in finding a suitable job at one time or the other. The pay, according to the Japanese managers, is fairly good in the region which had been plagued by the poorest economy in the state. Working in these Japanese companies enabled the majority of them to obtain what they could not afford before - - a new house, a new car, the latest audio and visual systems, and so on. Material wealth, or control over 130

things, provides people with satisfaction.

The newness of their factories adds to the material comfort as well. Since they were built only several years ago, the buildings, equipment, and machinery are all new as compared with other American factories. The workers enjoy their clean enviornment.

(2) Benefits - Humanitarian More American humanitarianism is another value which is also present in the managerial practices cf the Japanse companies. The Japanese company provides various fringe benefits which are comparable to or even better than those of other American factories in the region. For example, the counseling service to which the workers can bring not only job-related problems but also other personal or domestic problems (i.e., marital problems, stress, alcoholism, wife abuse, etc.) shows that the management is concerned for the worker as "a person," not merely as a worker who works on a contract basis. Many workers (79.7%) consider that the fringe benefits that the Japanese factories offer are very good. In the survey, 78.2 % of American workers agreed and strongly agreed to the statement "I feel the management is concerned not only with my work but also with my overall well-being as a person." The company is involved with the overall welfare of the workers and their families. Their personal attention is comparable to that of one's oyabun in a Japanese company in Japan. (See Chapter 4) According to Williams (1970), certain patterns of generosity have been in the United States since the colonial days.

(3) Bonus & Promotion - Achievement & Success Because of the nature of production, the Japanese manufacturing companies in my study needed to come up with a mechanism which would ensure workers' attendance. They have various bonuses, such as attendance bonuses, which are given on a monthly and a yearly bases. The American workers are satisfied with extra money given to them for doing what they have to do anyway.

The extra bonuses lead to material comfort as well as psychological satisfaction which comes from the feeling of achievement or accomplishment of a task. Traditionally, the American culture stresses personal achievement and success, especially in one's occupation (Williams 1970). The bonus which the workers receive when there have been no rejects symbolizes a job well done and appreciated by the management.

The American core values of achievement and success are also embedded in another managerial practice, promotion. The company provides workers a way to initiate their own promotion. For example, at Company A, any worker interested in getting a promotion can apply for the position. When there is a vacancy, the candidate is taken into consideration by the promotion committee. This procedure is attractive to the American workers with high aspirations since individual achievement and capacity to rise to any station in life have been emphasized as an American value (Turner 1972). Americans also believe 131

in progress, personal as well as technological.

(4) Uniforms, Cafeteria & Parking - Equality The Japanese society is one of the most racially and culturally homogeneous nations in which vertical social relationships influence social interaction (Benedict 1946/1974; Nakane 1970; Reishcauer 1981). The Japanese observe their "proper station" in their relations to their fellow men and to the State; they rely heavily on order and hierarchy (Benedict 1946/1974). The Japanese language itself cannot be spoken or written without regard to hierarchal differences between classes, sex, age, or positions. They cannot behave -- greet, sit down, discuss, etc without the awareness of order and hierarchy (Christpher 1983; Minami 1980; Nakane 1970).

As mentioned in Chapter 4, the Japanese companies in Japan have vertical order among the workers, such as the oyabun - kobun (boss - subordinates), or sempai - kohai (senior - junior). There are also status differences among them based on the year of entry into the company and the universities from which they graduated (Nakane 1970).

Even though Japan is called a vertical society, it is indeed more equal than any other industrialized nation in terms of distribution of income. In the early 1980s, the lowest fifth of Japanese families received 7.9% of all income after tax-income share while that of American families obtained only 4.5%. As for the lowest tenth, the gap is even more conspicuous. The Japanese families received 3.2% cf all income while their American counterparts received 1.5% (Light & Keller 1985, p.238). The American society is less equal than the Japanese in this sense, and inequality "have created considerable poverty in the midst of affluence " (Turner 1972, p. 62). However, equality has been the traditionally cherished American ideal.

When Japanese companies come over to the United States and open factories, the social relations between the Japanese and American executives and the American workers are expressed as equal. Many workers in my study believe in the company philosophy that "Everyone is an associate and everyone is equal.." Certain managerial practices reinforces their belief. For example, every worker from the president to the line worker wears the identical uniform. Their uniforms are only differentiated by a name tag. They are homogeneous in appearance, which influences interaction. Since the workers feel more equal to everyone, they are less intimidated and feel less awkward in talking to the executives and being spoken to by them. Every manager shares the office with other executives and clerks. Every worker uses the same cafeteria and bathrooms. There are no special parking lot for executives. Addressing is done on a first name basis. In the survey, 62.3% of American workers feel that they are equal to everybody in their company, and 85.5% consider that they work as members of a team. My interviewees said that they really like the idea of everyone's being equal. They feel they are treated as human beings. 132

According to some of the workers who have experience in American factories, the situation is quite different. The status hierarchy is more evident. The executives have their own offices and often secretaries in the next rooms as their "gate keepers." They usually wear suits and their parking spaces are reserved in the closest spot to the building. Their cafeteria and bathrooms are separate from those of regular workers. They often reward themselves with chunky bonuses while regular workers must be satisfied whatever amount they receive. There is good reason for the American workers to feel the equality in the Japanese factory in the United States.

The American workers believe in the company philosophy of equality. One could argue that this equality is merely symbolic because of differences in rank and pay. However, in their daily factory life, employees are treated equally. At least, they feel more equal due to particular managerial practices mentioned above. They like the idea very much since the American society traditionally views equality as an ideal and the American workers can relate to this managerial philosophy very well. As they work each day, wearing the same uniform, using the same cafeteria, bathrooms, and parking lots, they are reminded of equality.

(5) Ringi Decision-making System - Democracy The decision-making system found in these Japanese companies has elements of the Japanese ringi decision-making system (See Chapter 4) which gives the American workers a sense of participation in managerial affairs.

Historically, democracy has been an American political ideal (Inlow 1972; Stace 1950; Williams 1970). Democracy as defined in the famous speech by Abraham Lincoln refers to "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people." It differs from other forms of government in that the whole people of a country can participate in the national decision-making through the representatives whom they elect. The Mayflower Compact (1620), The Body of Liberties (1641), Declaration of Independence (1776), and the Constitution of the United States (1789) all present the American ideal of democracy at work. The founding fathers codified into the laws of the new nation their cultural heritage of self government. The very idea that people can govern their nation themselves was the most exciting one among the eighteenth century thoughts (Inlow 1972). Democracy has indeed been the American way of life, and as with other core values of the States, it converged with those of equality and freedom (Williams 1970) as well as rationality and individualism (Stace 1950). Democracy means the government by reason and not by force (Stace 1950).

However, democracy in the United States seems far from being ideal. For example, people with money and power rule over those who lack them. There are correlations between money and power, as well as between money and prestige, good health, and other valuable resources (Turner 1972), Even in the most democratic social organization, there 133 are always powerful officials who develop their own vested interests through the process termed "the iron law of oligarchy" (Michels 1966). The leaders, once elected, tend to become independent of the masse's control and they create their own "closed caste" among themselves. Thus, the opinions of the officials do not necessarily reflect those of the masses, since they have their own interest in keeping the status quo. The recent incident of the Iran-Contra covert operations is a case in point. One of the reasons which prohibits true democracy to exist seems to be the enourmous number of people which makes face- to-face relations impossible.

Though true democracy is hard to realize in practice, the • Japanese companies in my study have what the American workers call "the democratic approach." As one of the American foremen said, "Before now, I have never worked for a democratic management." The Japanese companies have meetings among the regulars every day. they have a decision-making system in which all managers can voice their opinions. In addition, there are an open door policy and suggestion boxes to which all workers can bring their complaints and suggestions. There are also committees, such as the recreational committee and the ad hoc committee which interested workers can join.

Though the extent of participation by the regular workers is still limited to their immediate job situations and interests, and all major decisions are made by the executives only, these managerial practices give the workers a sense of belonging, control, and involvement. Again we could argue that democracy is simply symbolic because of the authority and decision-making power the executives enjoy over the regulars. However, "democracy" is reinforced in ceremonies of daily meetings and weekly shift-wide meetings. The workers share their involvement, reinforce their commitment, and increase morale through these meetings.

(6) Social Relations 6c Overtime - Activity 6c Work Both American and Japanese workers enjoy various social activities planned by the recreational committee. Many of them make a point of participating in their annual summer picnics, excursions, Christmas dinner parties, and sports tournaments. In the survey, 72.4 % of the American workers agreed to the statement "I enjoy company activities such as bowing tournaments, the Christmas party, and picnics." Their companies are considered by 71% of the workers as very generous in spending money on company activities. In addition to these events, some workers participate in group sports such as a baseball, softball or basket ball, or bowling. The company pays for the teams' uniforms.

Apart from the company-related activities, the workers often get together at their homes, go shopping, drinking, or fishing, play golf, eat out, or help one another with household chores. Although their social activities and events for these Americans do not take place as often as those for Japanese workers in Japan, the social relationships among the workers are friendly and warm. Almost all the American workers (94.2%) enjoy associating (talking, doing things together, 134 etc,) with their co-workers during breaks and lunch time as well. Some activities elso serve the same functions as the Japanese tsukiai, as discussed in Chapter 3. In the survey, 71% of the American workers agreed to the statement "I feel that this company has a family atmosphere."

The majority of workers (79.7%) are willing to work overtime. The extra money they receive is attractive, but they also have a good work ethic. As mentioned in the previous section, the Japanese companies opened their factories in a rural area where they could recruit diligent workers who were committed to good work. According to the Japanese executives, the quality of the labor force is as good as that of Japan, some executives even went further to say that it might be better! They said that they are quite satisfied with the American's work.

Activitiy and work are American values which have been a way of life in the States (Williams 1970). Work was crucial for the survival of the group in the early colonial days. The Americans as well as other Westerners (or non-Westerners) have a marked drive to actively shape and dominate the world of nature. This drive antedates both the achievement and work values (Ibid). Work and activitiy are more than means by which Americans can realize success. The Americans exalt them as their value configurations (Vander Zanden 1979).

* * -v •* *

The organizational structure of the Japanese companies follow the Japanese style of management but some elements of American culture were also introduced into the system. Both the American and Japanese workers perceive the management as a "mixed type."

Organizational adaptation has been successful in terms of job satisfaction, cooperation, and loyalty to the company. The success comes partially from the very careful screening process. The Japanese companies in my study are located in a rural area and they succeeded in recruiting the homogeneous and right kind of workers who would fit in with the company philosophies. The majority of employees share the same attitudes, values, beliefs, and norms. The correspondence between the analogous elements shared by the Japanese managerial system and core American values is also the key to the success of organizational adaptation.

The research findings of adaptation of the Japanese companies on the organizational level were presented in the form of an ideal type, and they were analyzed in this chapter. As predicted in Chapters 1 and 2, organizational adaptation has been taking place in the Japanese business organizations in the American Midwest. This chapter revealed both similarities and differences between the workers and organizations which exist in Japan and those in the United States by means of comparing the ideal types. It concluded that organizational adaptation has been facilitated by certain analogous elements of both 135

American and Japanese cultures.

Chapter 6 deals with the problem of communication-interaction within the Japanese companies in the United States as another aspect of organizational adaptation. Organization is made up of people in interaction, and organizational efficiency is often the result of successful communication. Coming from different sociocultural backgrounds, the American and Japanese workers often find it very hard to communicate with each other. This problem of intercultural communication will be elaborated and discussed in the next chapter. Chapter 6: A Study of Communication-Interaction in Japanese Business Organizations in the American Midwest

6.1 Introduction Preceding chapters have presented and discussed the ideal type of Japanese organizations in Japan and abroad as well as new organizational structures and systems as the result of adaptation to environment. They focused on organizational adaptation of Japanese companies in the United States on the organizational or macro level. This chapter specifically presents and analyzes the problem of organizational communication as internal adaptation on the individual level. We will pay special attention to intercultural face-to-face interaction vrhich takes place within the organizational settings.

Communication is part of the new environment that a Japanese organization faces in the United States, both on the organizational and individual levels. It refers to a human interactional process which forms the basis of social relations and understanding. Through linguistic and non-linguistic media, aspects of knowledge, feelings, and intentions are transmitted. Communication is vital to society as a means of social adjustment, control, and persuasion (Okabe 1987, pp.23-26). Organizational communication is defined here as communication which takes place within a complex open system which is influenced by and influences its environment. It entails not only messages, their flow, purpose, and direction but also people, their attitudes, feelings, skills, and relationships (Goldhaber 1983, p.17).

As predicted in Chapters One and Two, intercultural communicatioh between American and Japanese workers in an organizational setting has been problematic since it entails different language use, values, customs and manners, and styles. In my interviews and survey, many Americans and Japanese workers have mutually experienced difficulties in understanding each other's sayings, doings, and customs and manners, especially early in their new careers. They are aware of the problems of oral communication which is the most obvious, elaborate, noticeable, and prevalent form of interaction in their organizations.

Both American and Japanese executives and managers of Japanese organizations have found that communication is often problematic in terms of organizational efficiency. As Chester Barnard's classic book The Function of The Executive (1938) specifies, the ability of the participants to communicate and cooperate in order to fulfill the organization's goals is crucial for the existence of organization. According to Barnard, communication is the basis of organization. Developing and maintaining a system of communication is not only important but indispensable for any organization in any society.

136 137

Goldhaber (1983) defines organization as an interdependent network that the members create through communication. Good communication is essential for working together in an organization as well as dealing with its external environment, especially environmental uncertainty. The study of organizational communication is therefore very important, "since communication is the most central of all human processes and plays the most important role in the total process of working with, managing, and developing the capacities of an organization" (Pace 1983, p.l). In this chapter we will focus on the small-scale structures of human interaction, examining how American and Japanese workers interact and why communication barriers take place. We will pay special attention to cultural differences and face- to-face interaction as well as the symbolic environment in which organizational activities are carried out.

The problem of how workers associate and cooperate with one another is a problem of internal adaptation of organization and should be studied in terms of microsociology and social psychology which deal with social phenomena on the individual or group level. In addition to traditional social psychology (i.e., behaviorism of Watson, Thorndike, and Skinner, Gestalt and field theories by Wertheimer and Lewin) and the symbolic interactionism of Mead, Cooley, Thomas, and Blumer, newer orientations in microsociology emerged in the 1960s: Douglas and Manning's existentialism, Schutz's phenomenology, Garfinkel and Goffman's ethnomethodology, and Berger and Luckman's social construction of reality. Here we will use symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, and social construction of reality as our primary framework for presenting and analyzing communication problems in Japanese organizations in the United States.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, human society is only possible through the medium of language which enables us to communicate not only with ourselves but with others. Gestures, words, and symbols form the very foundation of our social life and the shared understanding of the meanings is the basis for social action. Significant symbols and language as a communication device are indispensable in any social interaction, socialization, and society. Virtually nothing gets accomplished without communication (Mead 1934). The institution of work is no exception.

Symbolic interactionists perceive human beings as active actors who define and construct reality. A sender and a receiver of a message must become tuned together or have agreed upon meanings of the situational context in order to accomplish communication. Human beings fit or align their actions to those of others by "taking the role of others" (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969). Since encounters between individuals differ from one situation to another, they can be ambiguous and uncertain. We must evaluate the social setting and assign meaning to what is occurring in it. The situational context has consequences for behavior. This moment of deliberation, or acting of sizing up, is termed "definition of the situation" (Thomas 1937). 138

When encounters occur between individuals from different cultures, the chances for misinterpretation increases. This chapter will examine how people's understanding of the situation often differs from one culture to another and what kind of consequences it brings to effective communication in a Japanese company in the United States.

Ethnomethodology studies the methods people use to make sense out of their social world and their patterning or structuring of everyday life on a taken-for-granted level (Garfinkel 1967). Ethnomethodologists consider that construction of social reality is an on-going and dynamic process and study social interaction in situ, i.e., in a specific and concrete context. The reality created by .the members is "out there" to see and interpret as true or factual until a need for correction arises. This is termed facticity or the stock of knowledge that the members possess. Ethnomethodology aims at locating and describing how members of society make sense of social structure, which is called "accounting practices." In this chapter many accounts made by the workers are presented in order to give encompassing contexts. The problem of everyday communication between the American and Japanese workers are analysed based on these accounts.

6.2 Communication Problems In Japanese Organizations In The States This section presents ethnographic data on difficulties of communication which occasionally pose serious problems for both Americans and Japanese workers. These accounts were gathered by in- depth open ended interviews at Companies A and C and by participant observation at Company B.

(1) The Background It is generally said that the Japanese have greater difficulty in mastering a foreign language since their language structure as well as phonetic and semantic systems differ greatly from those which belong to the Indo-European or Slavic languages. For example, all Japanese words are made up of a combination of syllables with heavy emphasis on vowels whereas the Indo-European or Slavic languages are consonant laden. The English education in Japan places very strong emphasis on reading and writing with little or no time allocated for hearing and conversational skills in the classroom (Ishii 1987).

Generally speaking, the Japanese workers (e.g., engineers, managers, supervisors) are not always fluent in English upon their arrival in the United States since they have not been trained to be translators or fluent speakers of English in Japan. However, the graduates of Japanese universities and high schools have at least eight and six years of English, respectively, and they make conscious effort in their communication with the American workers in their new company.

Americans grow up in a culture in which foreign language education on the secondary school level is rather downplayed and where the need for mastering a foreign language is very small since English 139 is considered an international language worldwide. Foreign language education in the States also leans toward the Indo-European languages such as French, German, and Spanish. Though there are more universities offering courses in the Japanese language and culture in recent years, very few Americans are exposed to them during their primary and secondary education and have few or no contacts with the Japanese people.

A Japanese company in the States hires American workers for their specialization or occupational skills and rarely for their language competence (e.g., a translator or a language teacher). The Japanese language is hard enough but understanding the culture and the people is even more difficult, requiring considerable amount of time and effort.

(2) The Problems The American and Japanese workers of Companies A, B, and C said that they had to learn how to communicate with one another by trial and error to deal with both verbal and non-verbal communication problems. As one of the American foremen at Company A said:

"At first, I found their (Japanese) English very hard to understand. I had to learn everything by trial and error, including their gestures. Technical terms are another. Sometimes their knowledge is on a higher level and it is a problem. I had a hard time understanding the terms."

A Japanese foreman of the same company who has been in the United States for several years also observed:

"When I first came here, Mr. Hayashi was a manager. This Japanese man was an excellent engineer and had very good decision-making skills. But, he could not speak English very well, and could not communicate with the American workers. It produced extremely frustrating situations for Americans." (translation mine)

A Japanese worker who was assigned a job at Company A on a temporary basis had just arrived in the States at the time of my interview. He said:

"English was the most serious concern of mine before I came here. I feel that I came to the wrong place. When Americans speak too fast or when they use words I don't know, I can understand only half of what they say." (translation mine)

His English was not good enough for effective and smooth communication with the American workers, and he quickly started to feel alienated. For example, he wanted to mingle with the American workers, having lunch or spending coffee breaks together, but his language problems obliged him to stick with the Japanese men all the time. The picture 140

he imagined of his stay in the United States was very different from the reality, and it caused him much frustration.

The work place consists of two groups of different languages, beliefs, and values. Inability to communicate or understand each other often leads to irritation, frustration, awkwardness, misunderstanding and even anger on both sides. The situation is even worse when the participants do not know the reason why there is a problem. As one of the American workers said, "I've never noticed any inconvenience (in my work) but (I've been) irritated... Frustrated, sometimes, you know,’How else can I say?' ’What else?' ’How?'"

Most Japanese managers and workers are college graduates and after they were hired with the company in Japan they had taken lessons in English conversation from native speakers once or twice a week before their arrival in the United States. The parent company has a system of paying the instruction fees for their workers. Yet, it is often the case that the newcomers to the States find in the first couple of days of work, to their dismay and disappointment, that their language training was not adequate! Japanese managers and senior engineers at Company A and B said:

"Communication or language is the biggest problem for me. I had taken lessons in English twice a week in my company before I came here. My teacher was British. At first I couldn't understand him at all, but I later came to understand what he was saying and I thought that I would be all right in America. But, in reality, I don't understand their English at all. They speak like a machine gun. Ta ta ta ta ta ta tat! (laughter) When I have to say or do something (in my company), I really have to think hard. ’How should I ask?' ’How do I say it?' I don't know how to express myself (in English), you know, grammar, vocabulary...." (translation mine)

"I've been here for a year and a half, but my English still isn't good. See, I have a Japanese-English, an English-Japanese and an English-English dictionaries here. I cannot do without them." (translation mine)

"Japanese is the best language for the Japanese to communicate. I can write messages in Japanese in a minute or so while English will take me five to ten minutes, at least. And I cannot communicate half as well (in English)." (translation mine)

"Language barrier is my most serious problem here. I really can't understand Americans, Well, everyday greetings is one thing and getting work done in English is totally another. It is very difficult. I think I could get a lot more work done if I could communicate well in English. ... I think the American workers would like to 141

talk to me a lot when ws work together, but I'm afraid that they understand one tenth or in an extreme case, one fiftieth of what I'm trying to say. I'm sure they are having a hard time. too. There are some times when neither of us knows what to do since I cannot communicate what I want to. Misunderstanding takes place just about every day, and it leads to troubles." (translation mine)

A teenaged son of a Japanese manager observed his father:

"My father often seems very tired from his work. I think he still has problems with his English.even after staying here for five years, I think 100% communication in English is impossible for him. Like, the other day we went shopping together. He pronounced some words with a Japanese accent and the salesman did not understand him. I think pronunciation is harder for a middle-aged man than for a kid." (translation mine)

The American workers, especially those in the supervisory class who often need to interact with the Japanese staff, also noticed difficulty in their communication early in their careers. None of them had had any encounter or interaction with the Japanese before being hired. They said:

"I think the biggest problem is the language. Getting across a certain idea either way. We want this, but there's a little cultural difference. ... It may just take longer to convey a message to a Japanese worker and for him to relay a message back."

"A lot of American workers when they come anew, they don't understand the Japanese, because a lot of them do not have good English. I've gotten used to it and now I can understand a Japanese who doesn't have very good English. I can pretty well figure out what they're trying to say. And it's just cute to watch other Americans try to understand them."

"... He (a Japanese manager) didn't have real good English. He could understand it good, but he couldn't speak it very good. A lot of times I understood him, but I didn't know half the time whether he was mad at me or what he was trying to explain to me, and you have to have a lot of patience with them. And you've got to learn to listen to them real close. It reminds me of trying to listen to a little baby, you know, learning to talk, trying to learn another language because I know what I'd be like if I was trying to learn Japanese. It could be all over with, (laughter) I'll never... I don't think I'll ever learn." 142

"Well, I tell you. There's a difference in values. I'm sure from one custom to another.... There was some difficulty with me working with the Japanese when I first came here. And it's not so much the value differences that bothered me. It's just the fact that we couldn't communicate with each other. When I first came here, we were only several months into production and we were still very young. And the Japanese that happened to be working here at that time were very good but they still had a lot of problems following what was being said and understanding. And a lot. They had the same problems with us. The things they wanted us to do, they felt they had a lot of difficulty conveying messages to us."

"They have a lot of problems in the office. I don't know, I'm not really familiar with what their problems are, but it's hard to understand the Japanese. I remember this one girl was saying in there ’I am going to quit.' She said 'If this one Japanese had not gone back to Japan, I was ready to quit.' She said *1 could not understand him. He would get aggravated at m e / I said to her, ’Well, really, Linda, would you have done that!? What if it was an American guy? You wouldn't quit. You'd have just gone and gotten something straightened out.' She was really, ready to quit because of it. But then, he went back to Japan. ... He knew what he wanted but he could not communicate with her."

"It's both ways, too. Because there are a lot of Americans who are very very dry, and play practical jokes, for instance. The Japanese, some of them don't understand, you know. And not so much the Japanese taking offense, but maybe Americans taking offense because the Japanese didn't understand or thought he said something else. A lot of misunderstanding."

The use of slang as well as bad English spoken by some American workers often bring the Japanese men additional language problems since the latter have not been exposed to slang words, phrases, and expressions in their English lessons in Japan. It is generally said that the understanding of slang is often a barometer to measure one's language competence. One of the American workers said:

"I think a lot of problems are caused by Americans'. We use slang and may not be conveying the proper message. We get lazy and short cut, and use words that they (Japanese) are not familiar with. And I think, they get half the idea, but they don't understand the rest. ... For example, maybe an American is talking about a material thing and says ’All this is a piece of junk' or uses different terms like that and you know. A Japanese then says ’What does that word mean?' And he will find it 143

out later. Instead of getting the message right across then, it kinda delays what the problem is."

Idioms are another source of misunderstanding or communication barrier. An American office worker said:

"(The Japanese man) asked me, 'Is the price good?' I said, ’It's in the ball park.' He says, ’Ball park?' You know, it means ’it's close but not quite good enough.' That's American slang. Anyway, he couldn't understand what I said and I had to explain it to him. Now I try consciously not to use slang, 'cause sometimes it takes a* lot of time for the Japanese to understand."

A Japanese supervisor admitted:

"I don't have any inconvenience in my work now, but my knowledge of slang is minimum. I'm not good at it at all when I talk with Americans in general. It seems that pronunciation is different." (translation mine)

Other Americans who are not managers do not have as many opportunities to talk with the Japanese staff and they sometimes have difficulty when they must talk to the Japanese or understand the Japanese managerial style. The problems are mutual. An American foreman said:

"What I believe is the biggest problem here in this company is misunderstanding I feel the guy on the actual assembly line who doesn't deal with the Japanese all day long — it's very difficult for him. A person on the assembly line job does the same things every day and he has found it hard to understand the company. The Japanese are really, really, honestly interested in seeing the American people here prosper and there's a lot of people in the plant that don't believe that. They don't understand that."

These problems of verbal communication take place due to the workers' linguistic competence. Verbal communication is problematic but written messages also can cause troubles. A Japanese senior engineer working for Company B in the technology department often helps the sales department since his knowledge of computers is extensive. He complained about the American workers' handwriting and presented me some pieces of paper in his office:

"Americans can't write English. Even numbers, you know. Look at this. I have a hard time recognizing whether it's 9 or 4 or what! It takes extra time to make sure what the number is. I have to ask them. No wonder typewriters developed so well here. I wonder how they could carry on business before the typewriter was invented. Well, hopefully this computerized invoice system which I just 144

finished formatting will facilitate and speed up the process." (translation mine)

The same thing was also heard in Company A. A Japanese office worker said:

"Some Americans have terrible handwriting. For example, numbers. They can't write. I sometimes cannot tell 4 from 6. No wonder typewriters developed so well here." (trans­ lation mine)

One's handwriting is often influenced by one's language and culture.

Japanese organizations which establish branches in the United States face different kinds of communication problems from those which they encounter at home. These problems are often very basic such as a matter of linguistic competence. But other communication problems are far more complex. Of special importance is the shared perception of the reality which often influences decision-making power and process within the organization. Often the Japanese and Americans do not share the same perception of the reality. The vice president of Company B said:

"We need to translate some of our company documents (written in Japanese) for the Americans since they would not know what is going on within the company and often they have very limited perspectives. When they know more about what's going on, they are more involved with the company." (translation mine)

The new president of Company B urged the parent company to write all facsimiles in English even when the communication is between the Japanese workers, but this was not successful for a year: the Japanese men in the Tokyo office still kept sending some facsimiles to its U.S. branch in Japanese. As one of the Japanese engineers said:

"They (the parent company) send facsimiles in English if the contents are easy. Those technically complicated or urgent matters are usually taken care of by international calls. The more important the issue, the more phone calls between the parent company and this company. Thus, more Japanese language is used. I think this is not be good for Americans since they can't understand the language at all, and bad for the company because we would not have written documents to confirm later on." (translation mine)

Most facsimiles seat from Tokyo are written in English, but sometimes contain rather poor grammar or a couple of misspellings. Those which are sent urgently are written in Japanese except the first three lines which specify the date, sender, receiver and the topic. An American clerk who sorts and distributes facsimiles from Japan among 145

the workers said that she can usually understand the content and intention of the facsimiles very well. Even in the case of those written in Japanese, she said, "Well, I can guess easily." When the facsimiles are written in Japanese the American engineers do not have the same access to these documents as the Japanese do, since they cannot read the language at all. Some of them feel that they are left out of important matters when they find facsimiles concerning their area of specialization written in Japanese. These are often left in the file until the day the translator comes in. As a Japanese engineer said:

"Have you noticed that Andy (an American engineer) is really eager to know what's written in the Japanese facsimiles? He just feels insecure if there is something which he doesn't know is going on in the company." (translation mine)

Andy is in his 30's, hard working and a very good engineer. It is natural for him to feel insecure about not obtaining information, because information and especially sharing of information is crucial for understanding the situation and gaining decision-making power. Andy was sent to Japan to visit the main office for a week three years ago and for ten days last year. He spent most of his time attending meetings with the Japanese engineers. The same frustrating event took place there. He said:

"The meetings were done only in Japanese and I did not understand a word. Though a Japanese engineer occasionally translated what was going on in the meeting, it was very frustrating. When things get translated, they're already talking about something else! (laughter) I think next time I go, the company should hire a professional translator."

Andy really felt out of place in Tokyo due to his language problem.

The inability to obtain information leads not only to a low level of "communication satisfaction" ("the over-all degree of satisfaction an employee perceives in his total communication environment" (Redding 1972, p.429)) but also to irritation, alienation, and eventually a loss of a sense of belonging. As another American engineer said with a grin "You know, the Pacific is a big ocean," referring to the lag between the time when the information is written in Japanese and he gets it translated. Sharing information among the participants is very important since it leads to social construction of reality (Berger & Luckman 1967). Difference in perception, participants' background knowledge, style of communication as well as lack of information all influence organizational activities. Decision-making, for example, is affected by how participants perceive the organizational environment, the need for change and the rationale for making choices. It is a well-known fact in social psychology that frame of reference influence our behavior, including organizational activities, in many ways. 146

The American engineers at Company B often feel they are left out of the Important decision making process since they do know what has been and is being discussed unless the documents have been already translated. This causes them insecurity. A Japanese staff said:

"To tell you the truth, it is often the case that decisions of important matters have already been made by the Japanese engineers and executives of the parent company and here (U.S. subsidiary) by the time the translated materials get to the American engineers." (translation mine)

This means that the Japanese have the hegemony over the course the company is going to take and Americans can not exert influence on it at all. An American secretary observed:

"The American workers are frustrated over how the Japanese make decisions. They (Americans) want to do things on their own and quick, but they cannot since they don't have information."

As Goldhaber notes, "Information is vital to effective communication. Persons who control information control power (1983, p.5)."

Many Japanese men I interviewed and observed at Companies A and B acknowledged that communication among themselves is much easier in Japanese. English makes it harder and often more complicated. A Japanese manager in Company A said:

"Communication is hard enough in your own mother tongue. When we (Japanese) communicate in English with each other, we often end up saying, ’What in the world are you talking about!?' (laughter) and ’Why don't you use clearer English?' It is not efficient, you know." (translation mine)

Nonetheless, English is the official language of meetings at Company A, B and C even when there is only one American present and the rest are Japanese.

On several occasions I observed some American workers at Company B attempting to cut into conversations between two or more Japanese in the hall or in the office area. On one occasion, two Japanese men were talking about writing personal checks at a supermarket, which is rather trivial and has nothing to do with company matters. (In Japan, personal checks are not very common and cash is almost always used.) An American executive who happened to pass them by stayed in the area for a while: he struck up a conversation with another American who was working near them and then spent some time taking a look at charts and the bulletin board. He must have picked up a word or two English loan 147

words used in Japanese such as chekku (check) and banka (bank), he turned around and started talking to the Japanese men: "Oh, you guys are talking about banking!?" (He said this with a winning smile!) The Japanese the switched to English and explained what they had been talking about. Some Americans feel it inappropriate for the Japanese to speak in their mother tongue in the company all the time since it increases their anxiety level. The feeling of alienation and irritation resulting from an inability to obtain important information, not to mention to understand everyday conversation, could be quite frustrating to the Americans who are willing to mingle with the Japanese.

6.3 Attempts at Correction of the Communication Problems Generally speaking, the management of Japanese companies in the United States considers organizational communication as one of the most important aspects of the managerial strategy for smooth and successful operation in the United States. The company feels it is impossible to spend too much time on solving language barrier problems, and that language competence is a key to better communication and social interaction between the Americans and Japanese. This is a productive strategy because, as Pace notes,

"There is mounting evidence that a person's communication style is especially important in the way in which he or she manages interpersonal relationships as well as contributes to total organizational effectiveness." (1983, p.110)

Both American and Japanese workers are aware that there are communication problems and think that the difference in communication styles and problems stemming from cultural differences should be recognized. As the proverb goes, "Where there is a will, there is a way." Correct and efficient communication and better understanding between the Americans and the Japanese is possible.

The American and Japanese workers and managers have been working together for several hours a day over a period of time. As they interacted with one another on a daily basis, they learned to overcome some of the difficulties of communication which pertain to linguistic competence. Many American managers, for example, remarked that they can communicate with the Japanese far better nowadays. Although the communication problem entailed embarrassment, trial and error, frustration, and anger at the beginning of their careers, both the Americans and the Japanese have been successful in communication to a certain extent. The following are the coping strategies used by the Americans and Japanese to facilitate organizational communication. These are what ethnomethodologists call "repair work," and they have contributed to less occurrence of the communication problems.

(1) Raising the voice American workers noted that they often speak more loudly when they talk with the Japanese. 148

"When you're speaking to a Japanese and you know that his English is not very good, you have a tendency to speak too loud. You raise your voice."

(2) Speaking in a simple manner The workers found that simplicity is the best policy for effective intercultural communication, especially for the Japanese newcomers.

"Instead of saying ’I'm going to walk down to the A Building,' you would say ’I go A Building,' and you leave’ out as many words as possible. Make it simple as much as possible."

"Just try and talk very basic, you know, Get an idea across. If you've got a problem, you just get very basic."

(3) Avoiding possible misunderstanding American workers found that contraction is often a cause for misunderstanding, and they try to avoid using it.

"We use less contractions. For example, instead of saying ’can't' or ’isn't,' you say ’can not' and ’is not.' It's easier for them (Japanese) to understand that way."

(4) Slowing down & speaking distinctly To a Japanese who has just arrived in the United States, American English sounds very fast -- like a machine gun as one of the Japanese workers said. As compared with the British, Americans generally tend to slur their speech more. Tims, slowing down the speed of speech, pronouncing each word distinctively helps Japanese workers greatly to understand the messages. A Japanese worker said:

"... they (Americans) understand my situation (poor English) very well and speak very slowly to me with gestures. I found them extremely kind in that sense. I can understand them as long as they talk about something concerning my job." (translation mine)

(5) Listening carefully Listening is a vital part of communication, entailing more than just hearing sounds. One needs to pay attention to the meanings of what the other is saying, his/her body language and gestures, and his/her intentions. It is often necessary to read between lines in order to truly understand him/her. The workers said, "I'm able to listen better, I think, and to put in what they(the Japanese) are trying to say. I can kind of finish it (the sentence) myself and get their meanings," and "The Americans somehow understand me when I only juggle and mumble English words. They also talk to me slowly and with gestures." (translation mine) 149

(6) Visual communication (Writing, sketching & pointing) As is often said, "Seeing is believing." A picture is often worth 1,000 words. Visual perception is often more accurate and faster than oral explanations of the details. Recognition and understanding also come visually and more easily as the American workers said.

"To me personally, communication is no problem, getting points across. If they (Japanese) can't speak right, they can write, and well."

"...communication (with the Japanese) is a problem to a certain extent, but I think there are ways around it. If nothing else, with paper and pencil, they understand once it's written right."

"One of the things that I have developed that I never paid much attention to is sketching. If I see they (Japanese) don't understand, I draw a picture of part and they do the same thing."

"If I think I have an idea what the Japanese is trying to say or show me, I get the product out myself. And I have him point it out to me. In fact, most of the time the Japanese will come and do it first and that helps out a lot."

(7) Use of Japanese Words At Company A, some American workers are learning Japanese at company expense. The management was interested in how many Americans would be interested in learning the language and found that more American workers were willing to learn than they had expected. Company C also offers language lessons in Japanese for free. Some American workers use Japanese words that they learned in these lessons. An American manager said, "I try to combine a few Japanese words I learned to help emphasize, if I'm not getting across. If I want to emphasize 'a little,' I say 'sukoshi.'"

Yoshida(1986) noticed that the American workers at Honda of America used several Japanese words as they worked with the Japanese workers in a motorcycle factory in Ohio. For example, they call a strange noise which a motorcycle makes during it's quality test chiri chiri on. (On means sound in Japanese.) The Japanese engineers who are not experts in language had a hard time explaining what this subtle noise is called in English. They found it difficult to explain the noise technically since most of the American workers were farmers or clerks who worked for local shops before they got a job with Honda. Thus, the Japanese men decided to use the Japanese onomatopoeia (1986, p.66). Yoshida also notes that New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. or NUMMI, a company undertaken by GM and Toyota, places a Japanese lesson in the company magazine to let the American workers become more familiar with Japanese words. Words such as kanban (just-in-time 150 inventory), muri (impossible) and kaizen (improvement) have been widely accepted and used among the American workers at NUMMI (1986, p.68).

Some Americans in my study said that they picked several Japanese words as they heard the Japanese staff talk to one another in Japanese. They learned: wakarimasen (I don't understand.), mah mah (so-so), hai (yes), moshi moshi ("hello" on the phone), chotto (one moment, a little bit) and denwa desu (There is a telephone call for you.). These are-sometime used for humor. For example, American workers at Company B were observed to answer the intercom saying "moshi moshi."

(8) English Study Majority of the Japanese workers are still taking lessons in the United States. It is strongly recommended by their companies since the official language of the meeting is English even when there is only one American attending the meeting and the rest are all Japanese. The Americans admitted that the meetings are held more smoothly now. As one of them said:

"The communication is a lot easier now, partially due to the improvement in their (Japanese) English. They learned to speak better English. They're learning more words and expressions."

Though English is the language for meetings, the Japanese language is used in special meetings held only among the Japanese. Because communication is considered so important, the companies have a policy of compensating employees for 70% of the expenses used for English lessons. (The wives and children of the workers are also eligible for this benefit.) The company also sends their Japanese managers and technicians to enroll in intensive English courses at the major universities in the state. The length of training varies depending on individual's ability but it is usually between two weeks and several weeks. Interestingly enough, the company always asks for male teachers at the institute. One of the managers of the company who has gone through the training several times said:

"I was there for 12 consecutive days the last time. The company always asks the institute to give us all male teachers. I think Japanese men do not learn much from female teachers.... It's because the men do not respect them as much. We unfortunately got one middle aged female teacher last time. She was said to be a very competent teacher in English as a second language who had taught English to foreigners for many years in this state. But the problem is that the Japanese men do not learn as much from a female teacher as from a male one. They tend to look down on women, and I chink this is a cultural thing." 151

Several companies in my study also have Americans language teachers come and teach the Japanese men English regularly on the company premises as well. Some Japanese and Americans also work for them as translators. Thus, the companies have been coping with the problem of the Japanese workers' English competence in two ways: (1) outside language programs and (2) in-house language training.

(9) Socialization Many American workers noticed early in their career that they needed to have patience in communication with their Japanese co­ workers. They had never talked with a Japanese before they started working for their companies. However, as time passed, both the American and Japanese workers learned so much about one another that communication has become much easier. They have come to feel more comfortable working together as well. Some American workers said:

"(I feel) more comfortable working with the Japanese than I did when I first started, (laughter) I guess maybe because I can understand them better communicating with them.'.'

"...it has beccme almost easy for me now, simply because I learned to slow my speech down, to those that needed it. I have learned a lot of their gestures---- a lot of their small things."

"I have no doubt in my mind right now with all the Japanese stuff we have that I could in any situation realize what they wanted or what they needed."

"...they understand me now and I understand them. And we don't really necessarily have to say a lot... eye contact, gestures, ah... smile. They tell a lot. They really do."

"I enjoy working there. It's like going back to school, getting an education in a new career. By the way, this comparing the difference in their culture and our culture is what I like. That's part of the education I ’m getting that I didn't have before, because I had very little exposure to the Japanese and their culture."

"The company is trying to teach me the Japanese way ( to do a job). It's like a free education since I'm learning something."

Japanese supervisors also commented on the learning that Americans do in regard to communication:

"The Americans get better at grasping what is going on. The more Japanese coming to the company, the better the Americans' sensitivity. However bad your English may be, 152

they understand you. In an extreme case, they say ’I understand' and ’I see', even when we are speaking in Japanese. Of course, they don't understand the language, but somehow they can. tell from the context." (translation mine)

"The American workers in my company seem to understand my English very well. I became confident with my English, you know. But when I went to join a golf club, Americans there did not understand my English at all and I had hard time!" (translation mine)

The Japanese obviously must learn American ways of saying and doing in the States. Interestingly, the American workers have been socialized to a foreign culture in their own country as well!

Many Americans in supervisory positions have come to play the role of a 'go-between" or middle communicator between the management and the line workers. As one of them said: "I serve as an interpreter explaining things to the people on the line and the staff in many cases."

The goal of the management of Japanese companies in my study is to implement Japanese ways of doing things as well as mix them with those of the U.S. managerial system, which cannot easily be done without the American workers' understanding Japanese values. As one Japanese foreman said:

"It would be too difficult to implement Japanese ways of doing things, I mean, to impose them on the American workers from the beginning. The socialization process should be gradual. I think it important that we have many meetings and let the Americans know and understand what we want to say. It'd be better to have official meetings rather than small chats on the shopfloor." (translation mine)

The socialization facilitates communication — the more the subordinate workers understand their superordinates' orders, the better they can carry them out. Usually, the longer one's experience, the better ability one has to understand, since one learns both explicit and implicit ways of communication, as well as the background history 'and the context which are also important..

(10) The Suggestion Box A suggestion box into which workers can freely submit their suggestions, opinions, and new ideas into the everyday operation is one communication channel between the management and the workers. At Company A, it was started shortly after the opening of the factory and it informs the management of what is happening on the shopflocr and what problems should be solved right away. One American supervisor said: 153

"If a worker has a suggestion, he would put it into the box and the office looks at it. They feel if you get more than two or three, they look into it right away. If they feel the problem is urgent, they may bring it up with the plant on the Monday morning meeting."

When the workers had trouble with ventilation in one area of Company A, they suggested that the fans should be bought and installed. The management responded to it immediately.

Because it ensures anonymity, the suggestion box facilitates* the workers to point out the problems and correct them without anyone special being blamed. It is often the case that improvement in the working conditions comes from the suggestions of the shopfloor workers who know them very well. The suggestion box contributes to management- labor communication.

(11) The Open Door Policy The open door policy is rather a misnomer since there are no private offices for each manager in Japanese companies in the States or in Japan. Every manager shares a huge office area with other secretaries and clerks in the front of the factory. There are rows of desks and chairs which give one an impression that the office is actually in Japan! This physical setting facilitates communication and cuts down on unnecessary written memos and also misunderstanding since basically everyone is easily accessible.

The open door policy is one of the particular communication channels through in which workers can feel free to bring complaints, problems, and suggestions to the top level management. This policy thus does not entail a chain of command at all. This system of reporting directly to the high ranking managers were hard to understand for the American middle managers at first who thought that they were basically "ignored" in the process. Generally speaking, the American organizations, when compared with their counterparts in Japan, have a more specific division of labor and authority, and the chain of command is the organization. Manufacturing organizations have a further division between the staff (office) and workers (factory).

However, the open door policy .or "no door policy" as they call it at Company A nowadays is an effective means of communication where the management and their workers have a direct communication without "noise" -- obstacles such as omission, distortion or misunderstanding of their messages.

The above are examples of linguistic "repair works" attempted by both the American and Japanese workers. They pertain basically to the problem of learning the language and ways of doing things. Both the American and Japanese workers have been successfully coping with those apparent problems. The next section deals with communication problems which are hidden and thus harder to correct. 154

6.4 Analysis of Communication Problems Social interaction, which forms the basis of all social relations, is dependent on communication between interactants. Not only verbal statements but also the glances, gestures, and positionings are fed into the situational context in our face-to-face interaction (Goffman 1967). Intercultural interaction taking place in Japanese organizations in the United States between American and Japanese workers and vice versa, has been problematic. Japanese workers have a different style of verbal and nonverbal communication from American workers. The latter have been socialized to bring "Western rationality" and individualism into an organization whereas the Japanese company eschews individuality and stresses harmony, consensus, and collectivism. Linguistic problems of lack of fluency or difficulty of understanding can be improved by learning, correcting, and attempting "repair work" by both sets of workers in order to operate efficiently. However, social interaction entails more than the verbal exchange of ideas or information. Certain cultural and taken- for-granted assumptions, gestures, values, modes of thinking, types of social relations, and self conceptions are also involved in achieving mutual understanding.

In this section, we are concerned with the art of speaking and hearing required in intercultural and face-to-face social interaction. We consider that the way of one's seeing the world is deeply rooted in cultural assumptions and it influences social interaction.

The anthropologist Edward Hall has suggested that there are two different types of cultures, low and high context cultures which are characterized by types of social involvement and relationship as well as different levels and modes of communication. How we speak and listen is not merely a linguistic problem but entails sociocultural and historical considerations. A low context (LC) culture entails an individually oriented society in which people tend to have relatively little network involvement with others as compared with a high context (HC) culture. A LC culture can be found in a cosmopolitan city of an industrialized society, or what the sociologist Ferdinand Toennies called Gesellschaft (society). Members are characterized by diverse values, norms, and ancestry. LC communication is found in this type of loosely knit society based on contracts between individuals or between organization(s) and individual(s). Only partial involvement of the parties is required for successful communication. This kind of community consists of more fragmented, calculative, and impersonal "touch and go" social relations. Information must be spelled out in a more specific and linear manner. The context of the information could be alluded to, to a certain degree, but it must be conveyed to the listener in a straightforward manner so that mutual understanding is possible. In a low context culture, communication is thus characterized by point-blank and elaborated messages: everything is spelled out in detail. LC transactions require that the transmitted message carry all the information. The speaker assumes that the 155 listener has little familiarity with context and explicitly offers him/her all information needed.

A HC context culture, on the other hand, is characteristic of Toennies' Gemeinschaft (community-)— where"^people share common ancestry, values, norms, and close-knit networks of friends and relatives. The cohesive force of the community resides in enduring, intimate, face- to-face relations, and shared meaning systems. People in HG cultures tend to make a major distinction between insiders and outsiders whose boundaries may be drawn geographically, socially, and/or culturally. The insiders share knowledge and information which are rooted in their common heritage and frequent face-to-face interaction. Given the same history, experience, and culture, tacit understanding is easily established. There is a free flowing, deep meaning to even the simplest message exchanged between members. Thus, in a HG culture, most cues of communication are found "either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message" (Hall 1977, p.91). Words and sentences may be collapsed and shortened: restricted codes prevail. High context communication is "economical, fast, efficient, and satisfying" (Ibid, p.101), though considerable amount of coding or systematizing of the meaning system is required before it takes place.

In a HC culture people expect others to listen carefully and to understand tacit messages, i.e., they expect understanding with a minimal amount of explicit instructions. It may be considered rude for a listener to ask for exact information, since the cues for understanding are already embedded in the context (Taylor 1983, p.131). The listener or receiver of the message must know the preprogrammed information in the context carrying "varying proportions of the meaning" (Hall 1977, p.86), and providing a highly selective device of hearing and looking at things. Ir\ a HC culture the situational context and the cue for understanding the message co­ exist. The programming of speaker and listener, involving the setting, relationship between them, their status, gestures, tone of voice, use of space, and silence must be taken into consideration in order to interact properly. Hall maintains that the Japanese communication style is a high context one and Birnbaum describes it vividly by emphasizing contextual cues found in the interaction between Japanese:

"Since Japanese do not like to come right out and say what is on their minds, their language contains many superbly vague phrases that take on markedly different meanings depending on tone or facial expression during delivery. Between fellow Japanese, there is much tacit information conveyed through hint, nuance and astute gauging of atmosphere" (1980, p.50).

Nonverbal, socially recognized cues are as important as verbal messages in a HC communication. 156

Hall considers that high and low context cultures are on a continuum, e.g., Chinese and Japanese are on one end (HC) while the German-Swiss, Germans and Americans are on the other (LC). Contextual understanding plays a crucial role for HC, and linear reasoning for LC communications. However, it is possible for both HC and LC communication to co-exist in the same society in different situations. HC communication is common among the members of a primary group, such as a family and best friends, who mutually share enduring, face-to- face interaction, strong group identification, and affectionate ties. One's self is fused in a common whole, whose natural expression is a "we" group. LC communication, on the other hand, is more prevalent among secondary groups, such as among the members of a parent teacher association (P.T.A.) and a political organization. They require segmental involvement of members, and are characterized by temporary, rather impersonal, relationships and infrequent face-to-face interaction. Members do not identify strongly with the group or have ties of affection for one another. The nature of social relationships between individuals and the group determines what kind of communication takes place. More integration of the members leads to HC communication while disconnected relations are lean toward LC communication.

Particular social relationships that the Japanese develop between an individual and his/her group account for the reason their culture is based on HC communication. According to the Japanese sociologist Hamaguchi, the Japanese social relationships can be explained by the notion of aidagara or contextualism. Hamaguchi (1985; 1985; 1986) states that contextualism assumes that a symbiotic relation exists between an individual and his/her group or society. Realization of organizational goals by each member's effort and by overall harmony of the group leads to gratifying his/her needs through the success or well-being of the group. Though groupism, which is manifested in one's "loyal absorption into one's organization" (Hamaguchi 1983, p.8), is often used to describe the Japanese national character, contextualism differs from groupism in that it explores the relationship between an individual and the group (or organization) and does not make an exclusive distinction between them. This is due to the fact that the Japanese society has not yet produced a notion of an individual strong enough to be on the equal level as the group.

Western society makes a clear distinction between the individual and the group. This dichotomy is possible since individualism is deeply rooted in its tradition where the individual is the basic unit of the society. The notions of the individual v.s. those of the group are mutually exclusive of each other. On the other hand, Japan did not see an emergence of a civil society based on individual rights and contractual profit-loss relationships among independent individuals before her modernization, which is often associated with western rationalism, took place.

Analytically, with respect to our study of Japanese-American relations in a Japanese organization, we shall discuss HC and LC 157

communication in terms of four realms of social interaction: (1) nonverbal communication, (2) talk, (3) ritual, (4) values and social relations.

(1) Nonverbal Communication Communication used in social interaction can be categorized into two types: verbal and nonverbal. The former may be oral or written while the latter usually accompanies spoken communication as significant cues for interaction. According to Hall, nonverbal communication or "the language of behavior" (Hall 1959, p.xv) includes gestures, eye contact, and spacing which must be appropriately heard or read. Use of facial expressions (e.g., a wink, a raised eyebrow), tone of voice, posture, and silence as well as how we do space and time are important factors of "the language" as part of communicative interaction.

A behavior accepted as appropriate in one culture may not be taken as such by people of another culture. The same applies to significant gestures which are expressive and indicative motions of the body parts, transmitting the message of one's emotions, attitudes, and intentions to others. A significant gesture evokes the same meaning or reaction to both the actor and the other(s) in interaction, influencing their subsequent thinking, acting, and feeling. Significant gestures are often problematic in cross-cultural interaction since they may be crucial in one culture, but irrelevant in another. Members from another culture may not understand the culturally standardized meanings contained in the gesture. For example, when an American foreman first started working at Company A, he did not understand the Japanese gesture of "come here," with a palm down and moving all the fingers together toward oneself, repeated a few times. He said:

"I, for a long time, I did not know what it (the gesture) meant. At several times in the plant, one of the Japanese would do that to me and I didn't know whether he was waving at me."

The above exemplifies a case in which a culture-specific significant gesture from Japan fails to evoke the same meaning to the American interactant who was socialized in another culture. A socially recognized signal is apparent for one, but is "hidden" for another. A combination of gestures often takes place as well. The Japanese posture of closing one's eyes, crossing one's arms, and tucking one's chin, which older Japanese men do when listening to others carefully, meditating, gives foreigners an impression that their listener is taking a nap! When the Japanese pause like this in a serious meeting, Americans may think that the former are not interested and serious (Wagatsuna 1985, p.7).

Japanese men employ culture-specific gestures naturally in their interaction with the American workers without recognizing that some gestures are puzzling or do not mean anything to the Americans. Since 158

"the language of behavior" becomes second nature to us during our socialization, it takes place at the out-of-awareness level. As an American foreman observed:

"It seems that when the Japanese come to the plant and to talk to even Americans, I noticed that they bow to them. They still do whatever they do .in Japan ."

Cultures have their own distinct means of nonverbal communication, to which specific meanings must be assigned in order to interpret them.

Similarly, the Japanese utilize eye glances arid eyebrows i n ‘a different manner from Americans. For example, many Japanese etiquette books say that it is proper to look not at the speakers in the eyes but to look them in their face and neck as a whole. It is not appropriate to look in the eyes as they do in the United States. Some Japanese men at Company A, especially those who are shy, have trouble making direct eye contact. They are not used to the way Americans look in the eyes directly when they talk, especially when the matter is serious. A young attractive female worker had a meeting with a young Japanese foreman to consult about her job. Although he was a very nice and sincere person, she wondered whether he really meant what he said to her since he never looked her in the eyes but was looking around as he spoke. She said, ridiculing him, "You know, this little boy is shy. (laughter) He's cute. Cute." Without proper eye contact, this woman did not know how to understand his message. As Goldhaber notes, "Perhaps the one area of the face which provides the most information is the eyes" (1983, p. 183). In the United States the lack of eye contact can mean anything from disavowing maintenance of all social contact to hiding inner feelings (Ibid). In a Japanese context, a direct eye contact has different meanings.

Sometimes the Japanese may seem unfriendly, serious and even mysterious to Americans who perceive them as having no facial expressions. Though the Japanese usually can tell the speaker's emotions and feelings by the subtlety of his/her facial expressions, the Japanese are often said to have less expressive faces as compared with the Westerners (Yanagida 1976). For example, the Japanese "smile" has earned notorious reputation as a non-understandable facial expression worldwide. Likewise, other Japanese facial expressions are often hard to understand for some Americans. As a woman in my study observed:

"He (a Japanese foreman) is very work-oriented, but you can catch him wanting to... I don't know. I sense that he wants to find out (whether there is something wrong with our job or the line) but he's afraid to say anything. He wants to ask but he can't bring it up."

When there are no cues available for certain facial expressions or behavior, guessing or a "mind game" is the best the interactants can do. However, guessing easily does not mean guessing accurately. As 159

Hall(1977) notes, the more the cultural difference, the less chances of being correct in interpretation.

Bodily touching or tactile contact between persons is a form of gesture which is comfortable for Americans and strange for the Japanese. The Japanese workers at Company A noticed that the American workers are more open and indeed frank about showing their feelings, approval, contempt, and friendship between the sexes, whereas the Japanese show their emotions, especially those pertaining to male- female friendship and affection in a more subtle manner. A Japanese couple, whether a husband and a wife or a boyfriend and a girlfriend, keep more physical distance between them and do not kiss or hug at all in the presence of others. However, holding hands, or walking arm in arm even between the same sex, is permissible in Japan. To the Japanese, American's kissing and hugging in public are peculiarly American gestures showing one's affection, concern, and kindness. Although Japanese refrain from intimate physical contact in the public, they recognize that these American gestures symbolize one's feelings, attitudes, or intentions toward others. To the Japanese men at Company A, friendship between the sexes seems very open. One American woman said:

"You get so much tension in there (on the line), you need a hug once in a while. Like, when you're hurt or something, you need someone to put an arm around you and pat on your back."

In addition to hugs, some women workers may sit on men's laps during the break or kiss each other on the cheeks or lips. As compared with companies in Japan, quite a lot of touching of the body goes on in Company A. Although acceptable among some American workers, to the Japanese men, these scenes were embarrassing and even shocking. As a few Japanese men said with astonishment, "You know, it's incredible!!" Since the Japanese keep more distance between the sexes in public and consider this type of affectionate touching rather repulsive, the Japanese men had to get used to the scenes. They got the impression that American men and women workers were friendly and had good relationships with one another.

However, according to several American women workers, this is not always true. Women.feel very uncomfortable when the men observe and stare at them as they work together. A woman worker experienced an unpleasant touching by some male workers at work. She said:

"One of my best friends at work touched my bust in a joking manner one day. There are others who think they can mess around and do it in an obscene way. You have to know the men -- Damn hog farmers!"

Physical contact which is not pleasant to the women is no longer a gesture of friendly touching, but a form of sexual harassment, which also includes verbal harassment in regard to their gender. This woman 160 observed an American foreman getting rude with her female co-worker who complained about her job. She said:

"(This guy) treated her like a dog. He was in her face. I told him, I had to step in, you know. I said, ’You shouldn't get mad at her because...' He said to my co­ worker, ’Just because I am your supervisor doesn't mean you have to come to me with all your problems.' This man has a personality conflict or something. These American guys at the factory can take you for anything from a co- worker to a flirt to a whore."

Another woman said that she was harassed several times by the American men when she first started working. She said:

"All these (American) men were behind me (on the assembly line) and some said, ’Hey, Baby. Look at your butt. I like your butt. I'm in love. I wanna get married to you!' You know, that kinda stuff. Because I had to bend over a lot. And I have a big chest, too. They would tell me, * Put your boobs over there.' Very insulting. I realized that it is their world. All you can do is to go back (to the restroom) and cry."

She felt humiliation and alienation from her American co-workers who were mostly men. She said, "It takes more than just a pay check to work here sometimes."

Occasional hugs and friendly touching as gestures give the Japanese men the false impression that the American men and women are getting along very well. This partially stems from the fact that appropriate physical distance kept between the sexes in public places is different in the two cultures. Closer interactional proximity as well as frequent bodily contact appear very warm, affectionate, and friendly to the Japanese men. This is the stock of knowledge that they bring with them and apply even when they are in the United States. However, it makes Japanese men blind to the problem of sexual harassments, which takes place in the factory once in a while. The American women workers said that they would be happier if the Japanese men would pay more attention to the problem of harassments which often causes them tension and stress. Because Japanese management is unfamiliar with certain aspects of American culture, misunderstanding or taking them lightly, the Japanese men sometimes cannot distinguish friendly touching and talking from sexual harassments. Our interaction is influenced by our cultural assumptions. As Knapp says:

"..., the role of one's culture will surely contribute heavily to differences in nonverbal behavior because the circumstances which elicit the behavior will vary and the cultural norms and rules which govern the management of behavior will differ." (1978, p.59) 161

Correct cuing of the situation is very difficult when one has to operate in a different kind of culture, since one's perception is also culturally conditioned.

Nonverbal communication plays as vital a role as verbal messages in social interaction. Culturally conditioned facial expressions, gestures, spacing, habits, logic, values, and communication make room for misperception and misunderstanding. The problem of miscommunication between the American and Japanese workers is partially due to the culture-specific nonverbal cues which are not understood by the other group. Certain nonverbal cues are hidden and they do not evoke the same idea, response, or meaning to the actor and as they do so the person to whom the message is addressed. Though the language of behavior takes many forms and differs in each culture, there are certain recurring ones. These people learn from each other as they socialize together in the company setting. The workers should, be as open as possible so that they can discuss ambiguity of messages or misunderstandings when they take place. Nonverbal cues are far from trivial in interaction, being significant symbols which influence the process and outcome of the interaction.

(2) Communication Via Talk The problem of talk between the American and Japanese workers can be best approached by the framework of ethnomethodology. Talk occupies most of our daily communicative activities as a device for social construction of reality. It involves spoken words In order to convey or exchange ideas and information, entailing social coordination, interaction, and exchange. How talk gets done is a problem of social accomplishment, entailing more than a mere sentence production and reception. Talk requires not only one's ability to use a language but also one's interactional competence (Speier 1973). The structure of interaction via talk differs from a Stimulus-Response model of linear, communication in that the former takes into consideration messages and contextual cues as well as appropriateness and normativeness of interaction.

Cultural anthropologists studying and living in a society different from their own are aware that linguistic competence alone is not sufficient for successful interaction with natives. Interactional skills specific to the culture or the grammar of interaction must be acquired in the course of everyday life in order to fully participate as a member of society. Sociologists resemble cultural anthropologists in that they study subcultures in which members use their own jargons, idioms, norms, values, and manner of interaction. However, many sociologists assume that they already possess linguistic competence and interactional skills needed to study their subjects, rarely questioning their abilities. They have placed study of talk into a residual category, showing a sluggish interest in it (Speier 1973). However, talk as an interactional device plays a very important role for social construction of reality and coordination of social activities. It is far from trivial. 162

If we posit that talk is socially accomplished and it is a product of culture-specific patterns of interaction, how can we explain talk between the American and Japanese workers? We shall pay special attention to the cultural assumptions, appropriateness, and normativeness held in talk by the American and Japanese.

Interaction via talk involves how we speak and hear. Most utterances can be interpreted more than one way, but we usually know what they mean by linguistic and nonlinguistic cues found in the context. A message delivery may also help determine whether one is merely making a comment, stating a fact, or accusing another. However, crosscultural interaction brings additional uncertainty and ambiguity to how speech is heard. One Japanese office worker at Company A was quite surprised to find that the same message could be understood differently by the Americans. He did not quite understand how an American worker reacted to his comment in a particular manner:

"One day I asked an American office worker, ’Can I see the account book?' just because I was curious about how the Americans write account books. He passed it to me and as I was taking a look, I found a big increase in one of the items. I said, without much deliberation, ’Oh, this number has increased a lot this month.' Then, he started giving me explanations. ’Well, this figure is... that one is...' and so on. He spoke so fast that I couldn't understand half cf it. I did not ask for his explanation. I just said what I thought and he could have just answered ’Yes, that's so. The number is bigger.' He, on the contrary, explained these things as if I had pointed out his mistakes. I did not intend to find mistakes or anything, I was just interested in the book. . . . Now I understand that it was natural for him to have behaved the way he did. He has pride in his work and it is natural for an American to defend himself even in regard to the matters for which he is not responsible for. I said, ’Okay. Okay. I did not mean to evaluate you or anything. I just mentioned the figure. That's all.'" (translation mine)

He expected the American worker to agree with him, and did not mean to criticize the latter at all. The American, on the other hand, thought that the Japanese man had pointed out his mistake and had to explain the situation so that he would not be blamed. Ht did not quite understand that it was an innocent comment and took his words as an accusation. (The Japanese staff are aware that some American workers are afraid that the former are in a position to fire the latter at any time, and for any reason. This is not always true!) Responsibility is one of the areas which concerns the American workers most. Since they prefer the clear-cut, more individualistic definition of responsibility to the vague, more collective notion of Japanese responsibility, this American worker thought it appropriate to defend himself by all means, while the Japanese man did not care for the 163 reasons but sought agreement.

Americans, coming from a low context culture, prefer explicit, self-assertive, and unambiguous messages to implicit, imprecise, and roundabout expressions of HC communication. They are more straightforward in their communication, characterized by the phrase "call a spade a spade." American workers who cannot fully understand or note the Japanese contextual cues may find it difficult to listen properly to what the Japanese say. As an American foreman at Company A said:

"You know, we still have this problem. The Japanese say something to do and we do as they said. Then, they get upset and tell us 'That's not what we meant.' It's frustrating."

A female worker who works on the assembly line also pointed out:

"I think most of time, they (the Japanese men) are not really thinking but that's just the impression you get because they don't really communicate with you. They just look. You're supposed to know what they're thinking by the way they look and we are not mind readers! (laughter)."

The American workers think that the Japanese staff should explain their instructions in detail so that they can do exactly what is told. A Japanese foreman, on the other hand, spoke of the same situation as follows:

"We assume that if you've been working for the same company, doing the same thing every day, there are certain things you know inside out. We sometimes do not tell American workers what we want to say. We presume that they already know what is left out. But they don't. They do what they are told, but don't go further than that. I guess it's my fault, but I recognized that I sometimes have to tell everything explicitly and clearly to some workers. Some of the supervisors learned our way fairly well, but we still have to elaborate sometimes." (translation mine)

This foreman assumed that he did not have to elaborate his speech because the American workers shared the same background knowledge as h e , having been working together for several years. Omitting whatever seemed apparent in the situation was appropriate for him, since spelling out everything is the same as "talking down." This is a case of what the Japanese call "iwanakutemo wakaru" (literally meaning, "without-saying-understanding"), referring to the situation in which a speaker assumes that the listener already understands the message without being told of its meanings. An English expression parallel to "iwanakutemo wakaru" is "You know what I mean." Since the common 164

contextual cues, cultural background and previous experiences are shared among the small circle of workers, this Japanese foreman judged that information need not be spelled out in detail.

The difference in style of communication, is very frustrating and irritating to the Americans who are not used to the Japanese manner of talk which requires quite a lot of contextual understanding and an art of hearing rather than speaking. As a Japanese foreman said:

"Americans are often frustrated because of the language barrier. For example, if they ask me a question which I cannot answer right away, *1 don't know' is a perfectly legitimate answer in Japan, because I don't know. But the Americans want to know ’the' answer to the problem right then and there." (translation mine)

Some American workers suspected that the Japanese know the answer but they do not want to tell the former right away. The Japanese, on the other hand, are also frustrated since they expect Americans to understand the situation without explaining it in detail. As ethnomethodologists point out, violations of routine expectations provoke emotional responses such as anger, frustration, and humiliation in interactants (Garfinkel 1967; Goffman 1967). The Japanese expect the listener to understand the meanings of the tacit messages, while the Americans expect the speaker to speak in a clear, explicit, and logical message.

In a high context culture, in which the whole situation or context of the conversation, including facial expression, length of silence, eye glances, is taken into consideration, often without much effort or awareness, the spoken utterance is only a part of the message! The Japanese are supposed to know what the other is trying to convey, whether it is one's emotion or intentions not only by the verbal messages but also by non-verbal cues found in the situation. As Pascale & Athos note:

"Japanese culture explicitly encourages, throughout an individual's lifetime development, the ability to understand without words — not merely the situation, but the intention of others" (1981, p.153).

The situational context is full of meanings for the Japanese interactants.

The Japanese have a specialized vocabulary for HC communication. "Ichio Kiite Juo Shiru" (Hear one and know ten), for example, means that a smart person would hear part of the message and understand everything else conveyed in it. This tacit understanding in communication is called haragei or "visceral communication." The word is composed of two Chinese characters: hara (belly, abdomen, stomach) and get (art, talent). The Japanese language has many idioms which contain the word hara which express anger, timidity, frustration, 165

Impudence, laughter, cooperation, honesty, and decision. Hara can also mean womb, mind, and clan. It seems both emotions and thinking are put into the same category of hara in the Japanese culture rather than to the heart and brain.

Haragei originally comes from the theatrical vocabulary and it refers to an actor's or actress' ability to represent the feelings and emotions of the person played by him/her without using language or action. It refers to "nonverbal means of exploring the other's feelings" (Fields 1983, p.126). Haragei is the art of how to say what you mean and how to hear what they say without explicit or elaborate messages. The high context culture which respects and gives priority to how others think and feel enables haragei to take place. The Japanese communication depends not only on verbal messages but also on the ability of the listener (Ueda 1982).

Dr. Takeo Doi, a well-known Japanese phychiatrist who wrote Anatomy of Dependence. (1977) gives us a good example of a Japanese speaker expecting a listener to hear more than what is uttered and what is hidden in the message. In his book, he writes of his first experience with culture shock when he was studying in the United States as a student.

"In 1950, I went to America on a GARIOA scholarship to study psychiatry. It was still not long after the end of the war, yet I was dazzled by the material affluence of America and impressed by the cheerful, uninhibited behavior of its people. Nevertheless, from time to time I began to feel an awkwardness arising from the difference between my ways of thinking and feeling and those of my hosts. For example, not long after my arrival in America I visited the house of someone to whom I had been introduced by a Japanese acquaintance, and was talking to him when he asked me, ‘Are you hungry? We have some ice cream if you'd like it.' As I remember, I was rather hungry, but finding myself asked point-blank if I was hungry by someone whom I was visiting for the first time, I could not bring myself to admit it, and ended by denying the suggestion. I probably cherished a mild hope that he would press me again; but my host, disappointingly, said, 'I see* with no further ado, leaving me regretting that I had not replied more honestly. And I found myself thinking that a Japanese would almost never ask a stranger unceremoniously if he was hungry, but would produce something to give him without asking." (1977, p. 11)

Frankly, Doi would have loved to have had some ice cream, but he said "No" to his host's suggestion, hoping that he would press him again, just like a Japanese would do in the same situation in Japan. It is customary for a guest to say "No" when asked the first time. 166

(This is called enryo or reservation/modesty.) This "No" is usually used as an idiom and does not necessarily mean "No." In this situation it should be taken as "yes." So, a Japanese host would press the guest again, saying.something like "Why don't we have a little bit?" to which the former says, "Yes" in a comfortable manner. In Doi's case, his American host took his saying "no" literally and, to Doi's disappointment, he was not asked again. Though most Japanese and American hosts would offer again to make sure that their guests do not want any, the Japanese hosts tend to push more often than their American counterparts.

Generally speaking, it is harder for people from a LC culture to understand what gets said by the Japanese whose communication mode is a HC culture. As Sato (1S83) maintains:

"In Japan, when you're told by someone, ’Please drop by,' it means ’Please do not bother because I'm busy,' eight or nine times out of ten. However, there are certain cases in which they might mean ’You may come if it is not too often' or ’Let us make an appointment by the phone since I'd like to take time and see you.' It is very difficult to ’translate' the message" (Ibid, p.71). (translation mine)

The art of hearing requires taking all situational factors in the setting into consideration: the occasion, the speaker's personality, status, one's relationship to him/her, manner of delivery, and so on. Though a subtle difference could be detected, it is very hard for foreigners to interpret what is actually meant by the Japanese. The context plays a very important role in understanding HC communication since "the level of context determines everything about the nature of the communication and is the foundation on which all subsequent behavior rests (including symbolic behavior)" (Hall 1977, p.92).

HC communication utilizes extensively what ethnomethodologists call "indexical expression," or messages which say "You know what I mean," leaving out obvious messages already contained in the situation. As Leiter (1980) notes, "The indexical property of talk is the fact that people routinely do not state the intended meaning of the expressions they use" (p.107). The meaning is understood from the context in which the words are uttered, supplying a specific referral. In a high context culture,

"...many messages are not only minimal but actually obscure as well, so that the success of communication depends as much on the sensitivity of its recipient as on the quality of the message sent." (Smith 1983, p.57)

As the French have the expression "boire des parole" (literally meaning drink words), listening attentively to the messages enables one to understand more than the spoken words. Japanese HC communication places more emphasis on how a listener hears the subtle message while disregarding a speaker's point-blank messages as rude 167 and inconsiderate. Thus, Americans often appear to them too straightforward and even pushy.

Misidentification of cues for talk is very common in our daily conversation. An American secretary had been working for the president of Company B for a week before she experienced her first embarrassing event. She sits at a desk in front of the president's office where everyone passes on the way to his office. She said:

"I didn't know anything about the Japanese language or culture then. I still don't know much. One day (the president) had several Japanese men in his office. They were coming in and out and were saying ’Hai! Hai!' And I said ’Hi!' to them. I thought that they were saying "Hi!" to me. They weren't! I felt kinda sheepish and went to the back room and typed something."

Hai (pronounced like English "hi") means "yes" in Japanese. This secretary, without knowing the Japanese language, took it that the Japanese men were saying "Hi!" to her. This is a case in which hai was mistaken as "Hi," which is a nice story to laugh at, but there are cases where mistaking hai as equivalent of English yes influence the consequence of interaction.

Hai is one of the most often used words when a Japanese is listening in his/her conversation with another Japanese. A Japanese would say hai to mean "yes" and also to show he/she is listening and paying attention to what the speaker is saying. It does not necessarily mean that the listener is agreeing with the speaker. The Japanese have the tendency to allow others to finish before they respond. A.s a courtesy, they seldom interrupt the speaker or argue in the middle of the speech. They may keep saying "yes, yes" as they listen, without meaning "yes" or "I'm agreeing with you" (Wagatsuma 1985, p.10). (Interestingly, the Japanese language and the Korean language belong to the same language family, but Koreans distinguish two kinds of "yes." One (Ye) is used somewhat like "Yes, certainly," while the other (Ne) shows the listener's agreement with what the speaker said. In Japanese hai is used for both cases. No distinction is made and this gives Americans the impression that the Japanese are "yes" men [and women].) It may be confusing to Americans when the Japanese use yes in the same manner as the Japanese hai. The former may assume that the latter agreed with them, while the latter are merely saying "Ah huh, I'm listening." The Americans are surprised when, after a long silence, the Japanese start to say, "Well, frankly, I do not quite agree with what you said." The Japanese may also say "We will take your deal into consideration." The American listener may take the response as something positive but for the Japanese this phrase is their ways of saying, "Don't call us. We'll call you."

In most languages, there is a one-to-one correspondence of words with another language, but we must be aware that how the words are actually used and interpreted in social interaction may differ from 168 what they mean. The Japanese hai means yes in English but its usage is quite misleading and different from that of the English yes. The same applies to the way "no" is used. How we talk and interpret words requires learning on the part of the interactants and it often entails frustrating experiences and unexpected results. For example, an American executive of one of the largest organizations in the Midwest said,

"There was a time when we wanted to get rid of a wall in our office. We asked our Japanese president if we could remove.it. He said yes and the construction workers had started tearing it down when he came over and got very upset. He said, ’Why are you doing this!? I didn't say OK.' We didn't know what to do. We started tearing it down because he had said yes."

Many American workers are frustrated when the Japanese staff use excuses such as "Ah, so. I didn't understand it that way," and "You didn't tell me that." Difficulties can arise for many reasons. Lack of knowledge such as the American distribution or legal system is one kind of problem. Another kind of problem results from different ways of explaining or excusing mistakes. Some American managers perceive the Japanese as indecisive. As one of the foremen at Company C said:

"The way the Japanese staff say ’no' is very tricky. They don't say ’no,' but always say ’maybe’ instead. It sounds indecisive, you know. We don't know what they mean. It can offend you. It's very very offensive. ... Anyway, wa learned how to deal with it. We keep asking specific questions such as ’Maybe you want me to do this?'’Maybe you don* t want me ...' You have to be cautious of their ’maybe's."

This kind of misunderstanding resulted in a serious problem of mistrust between the Japanese and the American staff. According to Kume, the Japanese practice of not saying no is deeply rooted in the traditional way of thinking peculiar to Japan - - a concern not to hurt others whenever avoidable. However, this can easily lead to misunderstanding (1987, p.155).

Since many Japanese staff have some linguistic problems in communication with Americans when they first come to the United States, American workers, especially supervisors who must deal with this problem every day, learn to listen to the Japanese properly and to make sure that they understand everything. They have found that misunderstanding messages and concepts is not only dysfunctional but detrimental to human relations within the organization.

Historically speaking, Japan was never invaded by a foreign pcwer and the Japanese share the same ancestry, language, norms, values, and beliefs. The most obvious characteristic of the society is its homogeneity. The labor intensive agrarian society required quite a lot 169

of cooperation and coordination among them in order to survive. Because of the frequency of face-to-face interaction and close proximity and high density of living quarters, the Japanese culture is characterized by HC communication.

The Uniced States, on the other hand, is characterized by people of diverse national origins and cultures. They do not share tbeir sociocultural background to the extent the Japanese do, and when members of one culture talk with those from another, they must be straightforward, precise, and explicit. Thus, LC communication prevails in the United States. Americans think highly of the art of speaking and the ability is required and advantageous in many social situations. Many high school and college students study speech as part of their school curriculum in the.States. According to Okabe, the study of communication, especially rhetoric, is an underdeveloped area in the Japanese academia. It has been an important part of education in the West over 2,500 years, and is still very popular (1987, p. 16).

Okabe attributes this difference to the nature of the two societies. The U.S. is based on the concept that each individual's thinking, emotions, and desires are different. Thus, persuasion becomes an important part of rhetoric. On the other hand, the Japanese culture is a homogeneous one in which all think and feel alike. The Western rhetoric is logical and argumentative while Japanese rhetoric is adaptive and intuitive to others' feelings and emotions. In Japan, it functions to establish and maintain harmony instead of that of persuading others.

Coming from two different types of cultures, the Japanese and American workers sometimes have trouble in talking with each other. The setting provides them a mutual orientation for talk in terms of spatial, temporal, and situational cues, but one group's taken-for- granted assumption could be an impeding -factor for successful interaction. When the Japanese do not spell out all information, but expect the Americans to fill in whatever is left out, the latter have trouble communicating with the former. When Americans must talk with the Japanese in regard to paid vacation or complaints about their work, the Japanese feel that they are too point blank and pushy, demanding their rights and downplaying their duties. This is due to their use of clear, precise, and elaborated messages. The Japanese high context culture places more emphasis on a listener's ability to hear tacit messages which are preferred to explicit and elaborated messages. As speakers the Japanese consider point-blank messages as too straightforward and rude to the listener. Generally speaking, the Japanese do not require arguments which appear completely consistent in logic. They feel more comfortable when there is a consensus among the participants. Those who talk too logically are looked down as rikutsuppoi or argumentative. Often they are called quibblers. Tacit speech is as functional and appropriate in Japan as eloquent and logical speech in the West. 170

There are certain culture-specific assumptions in regard to how messages are said and heard, which are not known to the other group. It is thus important that both the Japanese and Americans have opportunities to discuss the problems, however subtle they are, in order to maintain organizational efficiency and good human relationships based on mutual trust. a (3) Rituals as Communication Rituals consist of precisely defined procedures and words which are repeated in a devoted and orderly manner by a group or an individual. They may pertain to personal, religious or other ceremonies taking place at accepted times and places. Conventional acts and words with symbolic significance are the core ingredients of a ritual which includes beliefs, sacred objects, and magical power. Rituals are handed down from one generation to another as part of cultural tradition which specifies how and by whom they should be performed.

Rituals have several major functions in society. The produce social solidarity as expressions of a communal life, which are widely practiced by the members of society, and considered as the norm of symbolic dramatization of social reality (Durkheim 1915). Religious rituals provide participants with a systematic world view, codes of behavior, and beliefs. They are performed in a social setting such as a mass which is considered sacred. They strengthen the ties among the participants by bringing them together in close proximity, as they sing in unison to express praise or share moments. Their identity and commitment to the community are intensified during rituals. A feeling of awe and respect evolves in a religious ritual. Rituals may be related to the celebration of rites of passage such as birth, puberty and marriage, which mark a person's transition from one status to another and inaugurate his/her new rights and obligations. They give the individual communal emotional support. Rituals make sacred the important commitments of society to such things as a national religion or nationalism (i.e., allegiance to the flag and the country), or certain work ethics which lead to economic production and commercialism (Weber 1905/1930). Sometimes rituals are performed by individuals alone such as a prayer, to fulfill psychological needs.

There are also rituals which are common in everyday secular life. They are akin to frequently repeated habits. Some individuals believe that their personal rituals have certain powers, such as bringing them good fortune or good health.

Generally speaking, a ritual differs from ceremony in that the latter is always performed in a group setting and in the social interaction of the group. Ritual and ceremony differ from each other in the degree of complexity of actions and elaboration of beha\Tior. Ceremonies usually include several formal rituals in sequence.

Rituals which take place between individuals are often a vital part of face-to-face interaction. According to Goffman (1967), a 171

ritual taking place during co-presence of interactants has a communicative and expressive character and is often culture specific, causing difficulties in intergroup interaction. As Goffman says, "... the gestures of deference expected by members of one society have sometimes been incompatible with the standards of demeanor maintained by members of another" (1967, p.82). Though subtle differences may exist, societies everywhere employ rituals to mobilize their members' self-regulation in social encounters (Ibid, p.44).

Japanese companies bring certain company rituals to the United States, some of which are not widely recognized by the American workers. They often lead to misunderstanding, miscommunication, doubt, uncertainty and insult. Certain culture specific rituals influence how social interaction gets accomplished, since they are part of the communication context. In this section we will pay special attention to how rituals are used among the Japanese and American workers as a device of communication in their social interaction.

Giftgiving is one of the most apparent rituals performed in Japanese companies operating in the United States, both cn individual and organizational levels. The Japanese have a custom of giving gifts on many occasions. In Japan, formal gifts are given or exchanged at one's rites of passage such as cerebrating the birth of a child, adults' day (cerebration of one's becoming twenty years old with full legal responsibilities: a national holiday), and marriage, as well as birthdays, congratulating graduation, getting a job, promotion, opening of a new shop or business, and traveling. Giftgiving called ochugen (a summer gift) and oseibo (an at-the-end-of-the-year gift) are the most commercialized of all, and billions of Japanese yen are spent on them twice a year. These exchanges coincide with the time when semi-annual bonuses ate given by the company. There are other gifts given on informal occasions. It is customary for a Japanese to bring a small gift such as a box of cakes or Japanese sweets when he/she visits somebody. A Japanese never travels without buying souvenirs for those who had given a money gift before departure: giving souvenirs often becomes more of a moral obligation than a show of appreciation. According to Ishii (1987), this exchange of giving gifts is an expressive behavior (communication) of the Japanese conception of on (a debt of gratitude) and giri (obligation) (1987, p.97).

The American workers in my study noticed that the Japanese are very giving people and show their appreciation for friendship and work well done by giving gifts as tokens or rewards. On the individual level, some American workers, especially those in the supervisory class, received Japanese gifts when they invited their Japanese co­ workers and families to their houses. One of the Americans said:

"The first time I asked the Japanese to come to my house, they came and brought us so many presents. I was embarrassed. I wasn't used to that. In America, you don't do that." 172

This American did not expect his co-workers to bring gifts at all, while it is a custom to the Japanese. Bringing gifts adds an aura or atmosphere of the Japanese culture even when the Japanese in the United States. Another American showed me gifts he received from the Japanese staff on several occasions when I visited him at home for the interview. He showed me two Japanese T-shirts, a set of silverware(!), a Japanese calendar, a teddy bear that one of his Japanese co-workers' mother made, Japanese coins, and so on. He said, "Oh, the Japanese are very giving people," to which his wife added, "We did not know what to do with these gifts at first. They keep giving us these things!" For the Japanese, giftgiving is an everyday custom and it initiates friendship outside the work setting as well as shows appreciation for the invitation. Traditionally, the Japanese men often go out for tsukiai but rarely do they invite one another to one's home for entertainment in Japan. As we saw in Chapter3, tsukiai almost always takes place outside the home and wihtout the presence of wives and children. Thus, when the Japanese workers are invited to their American co-workers' houses they feel previleged and obligated to bring some kind of gifts, usually souvenirs made in Japan.

The Japanese are good at showing appreciation not by words but ritually by giving material goods. As Sato notes:

"The Japanese has a custom of exchanging goods as greetings in order to show their appreciation, while the Westerners would only shake hands to do the same" (Sato 1983, p.81). (Translation mine)

The Japanese do not display emotions as much as the Westerners do, but use goods to express them. The gifts are also used as symbols of "greetings." Sato warns that this custom cannot be applied crossculturally and the Japanese must be careful in doing so to the Westerners who may suspect the motivation or may not understand it at all. They may even feel insulted. (Ibid) Rules of conduct which entail obligations and expectations particular to a culture must be learned (Hall 1959; Goffman 1967). What Hall observed about the American abroad is also true with the Japanese and Americans working in Japanese companies in the United States:

"They are usually blind to the fact that what passes as ordinary, acceptable American behavior is often interpreted in such a way by foreigners that it distorts our true sentiments or our intensions" (1959, p.xvi.i).

It is important for both the Americans and the Japanese to realize that some rituals are so common in our daily life that we take them for granted. However, they may contain "the ’out-of-awareness' aspects of communication" (Ibid, p.29), which do not make sense to the people from another culture. 173

Japanese companies, especially manufacturing organizations, hire Americans who are responsible and reliable. Attendance is very important in meeting the production demands imposed by their clients. Selection of personnel who can blend in with others and who are diligent workers is considered as a crucial mechanism for successful operation, and reinforcement by giving the workers rewards is another. At one of the manufacturing comapnies in my study, an executive told me that 95% of their workers have never workerd in a factory before, and the management takes time to educate the importance of secured attendance.

When the American workers start working at Japanese companies, they are surprised at the generosity of the management, since they are accustomed to the management and labor which are rather on antagonistic terms. Most American workers do not mind receiving material gifts for accomplishment at all; in one factory in my study, for example, they received boxes of candy, mixed nuts, birthday cakes, catered lunch, and so on, along with other monetary rewards specified in their handbook, such as attendance and zero deficit bonuses. They and their families attended a Christmas dinner party, a hog roast picnic, and a zoo excursion sponsored by the company. Some of them find it hard to understand the management's generosity and have mixed feelings; they feel happy and guilty at the same time, not knowing how to deal with these gifts. As time goes on, they get used to and come to expect it. For the Japanese who have the custom of gift giving and company policies with holistic concern for the workers, these practices are everyday aspects of their organizational life. The Japanese company in general already has the system of giftgiving as part of the budget (i.e., managerial system), while many American companies do not have such as a system. Thus, some Americans feel that the Japanese comapny is more concerned with the workers, shows more appreciation, and treats workers as human beings, not as cogs of a machine. Though it is not recognized by many, giftgiving is not only a reinforcement to assure production schedule but also a communication through which the management shows its appreciation of the workers' devotion and work well done.

There are rituals which are verbally expressed as well. How one addresses another person is a ritual found in the Japanese organizations both in Japan and in the United States. An executive of Company C said:

"We call both American and Japanese workers by the first name plus san. Calling one another by the first name seems to promote better feelings and mutual trust and understanding. However, I myself feel very bad and rude about calling Americans by their first names only, though I know it is customary here. So, in my company, Dave, for example, becomes Dave-san. Everyone seems to like it." (translation mine) 174

The Japanese word san is a suffix equivalent of Mr., Mrs., and Miss in English. The Japanese know that it is a custom to call colleagues by first names in U.S. companies, but they often feel awkward calling people by their first names only, which sounds very bossy in a Japanese context. Some of the American workers call their Japanese co-workers by their nicknames plus san as well. By doing so, they are not distancing themselves from them nor being too formal, but are showing friendship, respect and courtesy. They seem to enjoy using the word. It makes them feel as if they were starring in the TV special Shogun which was aired a few years ago. San is often used playfully when Americans address one another. This form of addressing is one of the aspects of the Japanese aura observed in these companies in the United States. At Company A, everyone from president to line workers is addressed by their nicknames. Interestingly, in Company B, which moved to the United States more than a decade ago, both the Japanese president and vice president are called by their American nicknames and vice versa.

The Japanese high context culture includes quite a lot of ritualistic expressions, or ceremonial idioms. Social practices of dichotomy such as honne (true feelings, emotions, intentions) and tatemae (front) prevail in their social interaction. Honne and tatemae are on the opposite sides of the same coin and the gap between them is the difference between what the speaker actually thinks and what he/she actually says. The Japanese also differentiate omote (front) from ura (back), keishiki (form) from naiyo (contents) (Doi 1977; Sato 1983; Furuta 1987). Though a subtle difference between these dichotomies cculd be detected by the way things get said, it is usually very difficult for the non-Japanese to know what exactly the Japanese speaker intends to communicate.

Even though they may not be aware of it, Americans also have a similar dichotomy of these distinctions or ritualistic expressions. For example, one is often caught in a dilemma of telling the truth or a white lie. What should one say when asked by a friend who has been trying desperately to lose weight, "Have I lost some weight?" If the friend did lose some weight we can say "Yes, you are thinner." (truth) Even if he/she is still on the heavy side, "Yes, you lost some weight" is often said as a courtesy not to hurt his/her feelings. This is tatemae. In this case, honne is to say "No, you did not lose weight." Certain white lies are needed as a lubricant which smoothes human relationships whether in Japan or the United States. The English language also have expressions, such as "off the record," "entre nous," or "between you and me" (Wagatsuma 1985). However, as Sato says the distance between honne and tatemae in American culture is much narrower than that of the Japanese culture (Sato 1983, p.70).

Ritualistic expressions or ceremonial idioms, especially those which are embedded in customs and manners, are very common in Japanese everyday life. For example, the Japanese tend to be humble to their guests when they give them something. They would serve their best tea in the house saying "Sochade gozaimasuga...," literally meaning "This 175

is such bad quality tea, but please accept it (I hope you like it!)." It is customary to be humble in offering it. The'Americans, on the other hand, are more specific and straightforward as Doi (1977) notes that American hosts and hostesses proudly serve what they make, and tell their guests about their effort, special ingredients, and so on. This is contrary to the Japanese context. When the Japanese use their ritualistic expressions and ceremonial talk to the Americans, often without thinking much of it, there is a miscommunication. The Americans cannot understand what is intended by the Japanese, while the latter get frustrated at the former's not understanding the cues of ritual. How we say things and how we hear them are learned through one's socialization during which appropriateness and correct interpretation must be acquired.

The following talk, which occured in Japan between a municipal kindergarten superintendent and a kindergarten teacher exemplifies how the Japanese use expressions in their everyday ritual. Particular pairs of sentences are employed by the interactants with the cues never missed or misunderstood. A translation or interpretation of some of the phatic words of the ritual are given at the end.

A a subordinate B ■= a superordinate Place - B's residence

A: (opening the entrance door) "Good Afternoon." B; "Good Afternoon! Oh, my! It's so good to see you!" (In many cases, the Japanese do not make appointments for visiting people. They just go and pay a visit. This is partially due to the shame or eflibar*Sssment one feels when the appointment is turned down by the other.) A: "It's getting cold these days, isn't it? How are you? I saw your newspaper article the other day." B: "Oh, thank you. I'm very thankful for those who help me. It is they who make my job easier." A: "Yes, but you're always doing your best to help us. I really appreciate that. Well, (taking out a box wrapped in a department store paper and furoshiki (a Japanese scarf for wrapping and carrying gifts and things)) this is something trivial. (1) You may not like it (2). but please accept." B : "Oh. no no. You don't have to do that. Please don't. (3) You know, it's my job." A: "It's just my little thanks. I really appreciate your help." B: "No. no.»(4) A: "Please." B: "Oh, well. You really don't have to do this. Thank you very much." A: "I'd better go now, since my husband is waiting in the car." B: "Thank you very much for the gift. Thank you. Please go home safely." 176

Translation: (1) A has spent a lot of money on the gift. What she means is "This gift is not trivial. Here, you see the wrapping paper with the name of this prestigeous department store." (The Japanese usually do not wrap gifts themselves. Most gifts are wrapped at the store whose wrapping paper with their name on carries status.) (2) "I'm sure you will like it." (3) "It is a good thing you brought this here. You have commonsense. It is not the material that is important but your will to show that you care. Of course, it is my job but I always go an extra mile, don't I? I appreciate your concern." (4) B knows that she would accept it. However, it is customary to refuse it when asked the first time. A knows this and presses it again.

The face-to-face interaction taking place here is a ritual of gift giving involving deference and awe with several phatic words used as idioms. Not only the content of the gift but also how it is presented is a very important ritual for the Japanese. As Fields maintains:

"The importance of form, as represented in packaging, and the importance of how you give the message, as represented in the execution of a T.V. commercial cannot be overemphasized" (1983, p.190).

The Japanese high context culture requires one to use certain forms of ritualistic or ceremonial idioms in a ritual of giftgiving which have to be heard properly. The Japanese company's giftgiving in the U.S. setting is not quite this ritualistic; it is done in a more casual manner and the message is straightforward. If a member of the management were to say something like, "This is such a trivial gift, but please accept," although the presentation would be in keeping with the Japanese custom of showing modesty, the Americans would wonder why management offered such an undesirable thing and they may even be insulted. Thus, "Thank you for your hard work" is the message given in these occasions.

Rules of conduct always entail obligations and expectations. We are morally constrained to act in a certain manner by them (Goffman 1967). However, one's expectations and assumptions are often irrelevant in dealing with people from another culture. When the Japanese use this type of expressions in their interaction, they are just following their cultural norms and rules of interaction internalized during their socialization, although it may be puzzling to the Americans. —

Another Japanese ritual which is symbolic and shows deference is exchanging calling cards with clients. As one of the Japanese 177

executives mentioned:

"The Japanese consider that one's ’person' is in one's calling card. In Japan, when we give it to someone, we do so by holding it with both hands extending them toward him/her, who in turn accepts it with both hands and a bow. The Japanese thus show deference to one another. I think Americans think that cards are cards and that's it. They don't pay much attention to handling it." (translation mine)

Handing a card is a behavior which is second nature to the workers: they do so without much consciousness. For Americans, the card contains a source of information while to the Japanese exchanging calling cards on a business occasion is a ritual--a symbolic act showing deference and acceptance of one another, which is a formal initiation of a business relationship. One's calling card is a symbol representing one's persona, which is sacred and must be treated with deference. The card should be perceived not as a piece of paper but as a "person" with a title, honor, and dignity. Since the Japanese cannot behave appropriately without knowing the other's age, status and occupation (Benedict 1946/1975; Christpher 1983; Nakane 1970; Smith 1985; Yanagida 1975) due to the specific language structure, this ritual provides with the cues for the proper usage of language and for demeanor. Language use itself is a ritual in Japan.

Uniforms worn both by the American and Japanese executives and workers in the Japanese manufacturing companies in the United States are another form of ritualistic communication. The uniforms contribute to worker solidarity and psychological satisfaction. As it is a distinctive clothing worn by members of a group or an organization, it Is a costume specified by the group or the organizational rule and intended to identify members from other groups or organizations. Certain uniforms pertain to professions and occupations such as religious order, sports teams, and the military service, while others are related to rituals; e.g., weddings and graduation ceremonies.

All the Japanese manufacturing companies that I studied provide each worker with five uniforms, free of charge. If the worker wants more than five, he or she can ask for two additional uniforms at the nominal cost of fifty-three cents a week for laundry for each uniform. The companies have a contract with laundry companies which come in, collect all the soiled uniforms for laundering and hang clean ones in the lockers.

The policy of using uniform seems popular with both American and Japanese workers. The American workers said that they like not having to pay for their laundering uniforms. Since the workers wear their uniforms for eight hours a day, they do not have to worry about the wear and tear of their own clothes, thus truly saving them a lot of money. Two American workers said: 178

"I like the idea (of wearing uniforms), because it saves my clothes from the grease and wear and tear. Plus it saves from bringing home dirty laundry.”

"I feel I am spoiled."

The Majority of the American workers in my survey (94.2 %) considers that the uniform is functional to work in and saves them money on their clothes. The Company Handbook of Company A states:

"The uniform is functional in its design and is comfortable to work as well as preventing careless scratches or damage to products from belt buckles, buttons and zippers. It also contributes to keeping the factory a clean and attractive place to work. It projects a favorable image of cleanliness and makes a good impression to the outside visitors who tour the factory."

A uniform is not only working clothes but also a symbolic representation of the company to the outsiders.

All the workers, from the president to the line workers, must wear the same uniforms on the job. Nobody wears old T shirts with holes, rugged blue jeans, or three piece suits. As far as appearance is concerned, the workers are homogeneous and equal. The uniform gives them some sense of solidarity, belonging, equality and oneness. In the survey, 85.5% of the American workers agreed to the statement "When I wear my uniform, I feel one with other workers." They said:

"I think everybody likes the idea of everybody looking the same in the factory."

"It makes you feel like part of the. company, makes you feel like everyone is one."

"As they (Japanese) expect, if everybody looks the same, they expect you all to work as a team. You know, they definitely got a team concept."

Though the Americans felt a little funny about wearing the same uniform as everybody else at first, the uniform has become part of their work. As one of the foremen said:

"I feel funny when I have to go back to the factory to get something after work not wearing my uniform."

As for the Japanese men, the uniform had already been a taken-for- granted aspect of their occupational life in Japan.

The workers said that the uniform also makes interaction in the company different from one which does not have uniforms. Many workers feel that they are equal to others and that there is less intimidation 179 and threat in talking to or being talked to by executives who virtually look the same as they do. The status or rank distance between the management and labor is attenuated and they feel more equal to one another, at least in appearance. The American workers commented:

"I think the uniform makes you feel better. You are in the same uniform that the president is in. He is not dressed up in a nice fancy three piece suit or you know, you can tell that he's not looking down on you. Wearing the same uniform makes you feel you are equal with everyone."

"We don’t hesitate to speak to him (the president). We look up (from the line) and say ’Hi!' and wave to him when he is around. If we have something funny, we stop him and tell him."

Such conformity of appearance makes the workers feel more comfortable interacting with those of higher rank. They have respect for them but are not intimidated by them. As Goldhaber nctes, as with other factors, "clothing also provides cues that influence interaction" (1983, p.204).

However, like a prison uniform, a uniform takes away one's individuality except that they have nickname tags sewn to them. Women workers who want to be a little more individualistic can match the color of their blouse and their socks. A woman said:

"Part of the collar comes out just a little bit and they (women) match their socks. Some of them want to do that. . They are still a little bit showy."

Each uniform is personalized with a name tag which makes the worker somebody with a name and responsibilities. According to the workers, the name tag encouraged more personal interactions, often eliminating the need for formal introductions and helping workers to remember all the names. An American foreman said:

"It's kinda good... When the new person starts, you don't have to say just ’Hey, you over there.' You can say their name and they feel they're relating to you more because ’Oh, he's using my name,' and a new employee can say to me ’Hey, Ralph,' you know. I don't have to rely on my memory. You can just look on the shirt and it helps you to be more personal."

Theoretically, everyone knows everyone by name, if not by personality. The workers said that they naturally become more helpful, friendly, and sympathetic to one another because they are interacting on a personal basis. In short then, the uniform is not only a clothing functional for work but also a symbol which represents the company as 180

a whole, unites the workers, and provides them consciousness of a "we" group. It reinforces the belief system that everyone is equal and strengthens their identification. As we saw in Chapter 5, this notion of "everyone is equal" fits very well the American core value of egalitarianism and leads to psychological satisfaction, however latent it may be.

Communication in the Japanese organizations is thus frequently ritualized both on the individual and organizational levels. Rituals are symbolic expressions of their organizational life, providing the workers with a systematic view of reality, identity, and support. Giftgiving is used as communication to show that the management appreciates workers' devotion and to reinforce their future cooperation. The use of the suffix san adds a touch of respect and courtesy to social interaction. For the Japanese, exchanging calling cards is a sacred ritual to initiate business in which the card functions not merely as a piece of paper but as a representation of a holder's persona. Uniforms make every worker feel more equal to one another, they influence social interaction among the workers, and they make the atmosphere more friendly and less intimidating. The uniformity of appearance also fits the American value of egalitarianism, which leads to more satisfaction by American workers. Since rituals vary by cultures, certain expressions and interpretations must be learned in order to interact appropriately. Miscommunication in Japanese companies in the United States takes place partially because of the misunderstanding of certain culturally specific ritualistic communication. When one's taken-for-granted assumptions and expectations are violated, it often leads to emotional reaction.

(4) Recruitment And Its High Context Job Interviews We have discussed how a high and a low context culture affect our social interaction so far. In this section, a particular style of job interviewing employed in the Japanese companies is examined as a manifestation of an organizational system in which a high context communication is utilized for selecting personnel.

The recruitment of local employees is considered by many Japanese executives as one of the most important factors for running a Japanese organization successfully in the United States. Unlike working for an American company, Americans who work for a Japanese company are exposed to some uncertain elements of the managerial system and are obliged to learn some of the Japanese ways of doing things. According to the Japanese workers in my study, it takes from a couple of years to several years to infuse the Japanese managerial philosophy in the American workers, since their cultural values, beliefs and behavior patterns are not necessarily compatible with those which the Japanese company expects them to develop.

The Japanese companies in my study emphasize the internalization of the company philosophy or special attitudes or perspectives so that they can make workers work efficiently without being encumbered by the 181

structure and regulations of the organization (Takamiya 1979, p.168). The Japanese management prefer generalists, and it is not a surprise to see a secretary picking up litter, or a clerk weeding in the company premises in Japan. Virtually everyone does so if there is such need. (At Company D, a Japanese manufacturing company located in the Midwest, Japanese executives were observed picking up litters and tidying boxes on the floor as they took a group of Japanese tourists around the factory.)

Though it is not written officially, the Japanese company in the United States hires workers intending not to fire or lay them off. This is called the non lay-off policy. The Japanese executives expect long term commitment from the Americans and thus pay special attention to the recruitment of the workers. The recruitment process is rather long and according to the American workers, who went through the interviews, it is definitely different from ones they have experienced with American companies.

The American workers, when seeking employment with a Japanese company, send in a letter of application and a vita. The Japanese executives found that the vitas Americans send in are rather exaggerated and often cannot be taken literally. They noticed that Americans have a very different approach in getting a job: they virtually must "sell" themselves as if they were valuable and special merchandise! The Daily Yomiuri reports that the intuition acquired by the Japanese personnel in Japan does not work efficiently when hiring local people abroad (2/4/1986).

An application form is sent to the candidate after his/her vita is received by the management. The application form is lengthy and asks for many details. A female worker at Comapny A said:

"I never filled out an application that lengthy. ... you know, it was ah, quite an elaborate thing. I had several other jobs. I've never ever prepared so much for an application."

After the screening of the application form, there are three to four interviews and a physical examination. Each interview lasts between 45 minutes and an hour. The recruitment by multiple interviews is a long and elaborate procedure. The American workers said:

"They know you pretty well by the time they hire you."

"After a while (after a couple of interviews), it was a challenge to see if you could get hired, (laughter) It's a challenge to see if you are good enough to be a worker, to make the grades."

The interviews are very important since the company is concerned with the whole person who must be able to fit the Japanese organization's managerial philosophy. Since the Japanese company has a long 182 perspective and considers one's career as a growth process, selecting the right kind of people is crucial for the survival of the organization. Thus, management is pretty particular about who they hire. Another American worker of Company A said:

"(The interview) was a unique experience. ... I think they are looking for people who are young, and maybe not with the best experience of all, because they want to treat... They want to teach them their way."

Each interview is usually done by a combination of president, vice president, or plant manager and other personnel officers. They ask the applicant several questions about his/her family, hobbies and perspectives on life, but they basically are interested in one's attendance record from one's previous job, one's attitude toward work, one's career interests, and other job-related information.

Going through multiple interviews is very stressful and is an unusual experience for an American seeking a job. As one worker at Company A said:

"(Their interview) makes you nervous. You know, you get through this first interview and you think, when you finish, that you really don't know how you did. I hope I did all right but I'm not sure. The second interview is basically the same questions but they are worded a little bit different. Maybe a couple of other different people are sitting on it. Just makes you as nervous the second time around, you know."

The interview questions help the management to sort out the people who will be a company asset and do a good job. The management takes time and effort to know the workers pretty well before hiring them, avoiding those who would become "bad apples" later in their career. A Japanese executive of Company C said:

"It's very difficult to interview Americans. They are very smart and we had a tough time getting an answer to questions such as ‘What are your weak points?' They always say, ’I have none at all.' When we ask, ’What are your good points?' they come up with hundreds of answers!" (translation mine)

According to the Japanese executives in my‘ study, the American applicants answer the interview questions in a more straightforward and calculating manner to their advantage, while the management is more interested in their personality, job aptitude, aspirations, work ethics, and cooperative abilities as a whole person. Through multiple interviews, they try to obtain a contextual understanding of a whole person and his/her total involvement with the company situation. In this sense, the job interviews have one characteristic of a high context communication. Questions which seem totally irrelevant to the 183 job situation are asked. As one of the foremen said:

"Well, I've never been interviewed like that before. And going through something like this where they asked a lot of questions about myself, my attitudes toward life, my hobbies... they were interested in what my family did, you know. I've never been asked those kind of questions before."

Other questions include situational ones such as "If you were in this position, what would you do?" "If such and such thing occurs, what do you think we should do?" The applicant must put his/her feet in the shoes of the other and give his/her opinions. The management takes everything said by the applicant into consideration and then discusses among its memebrs whether he/she would make a suitable worker.

The management is interested in hiring the "whole" person who works very hard and can cooperate with others in order to increase production efficiency, not a person whose involvement with the company is from 9 to 5. Since working in the same place increases the rate of face-to-face interaction, influencing the worker's morale and perspective of work, the management focuses on recruiting a particular kind of worker w h ‘o shares the same work ethic. The company becomes a sort of Gemeinschaft "village" to these participants. The interviewing process entails knowing the worker as a whole even before the company hires him/her. In this sense, the decision making process of gate keeping is not linear but "high context."

(5) Values, Self, And Communication In this section, we will pay special attention to how values and self conception affect the way the American and Japanese workers interact with one another in a work setting.

Values are said to influence communication the most among the cultural factors which are not vervalized (Okabe 1987). Generally speaking, sociologists view values as generalized, abstract, cultural, and essential principles of a group or society which are used as the standards to judge rules, goals, and acts. They are also broader guidelines for social behavior and interaction. Members share values in regards to what is good or bad, right or wrong, important or trivial, useful or useless, desirable or undesirable, all of which shape their way of life. These standards are expressed in a more specific and concrete manner in che form of norms. Members internalize values during their socialization process, developing a strong, emotional, and positive commitment to them. Because of this attachment, values are often considered as absolute and eternal, transcending particular situations or interactions. They integrate goals of individuals with those of the collective (Ruesch & Bateson 1951; Inlow 1972; Vander Zanden 1979; Williams 1970). As many anthropologists and sociologists maintain, cultural values are deeply rooted in tradition and are internalized by the members of society 184 through their socialization process. They become second nature to them and usually exist on the level of unawareness.

Americans and the Japanese are recognized as separated by quite different values, norms, and beliefs because of their historical and social backgrounds (Benedict 1946/1974; Cleaver 1976; Doi 1977, 1981; Hsu 1972; Mito 1981). Historically, North Americans have faith in the value of work and activity, achievement and success, human!tarianism, practicality, progress, freedom; individuality, democracy, nationalism, and patriotism (Williams 1970). The traditional American values also include rationality, pragmatism, materialism, and independence (Inlow 1972). The very idea of individual success as in the phrase "from rags to riches" expresses Americans' commitment to an independent spirit, hard work, competition, and insistence on being successful. The abundance of various Horatio Alger stories, cowboy romances, best selling autobiographies, biographies of the U.S. presidents, TV programs, such as "The Jeffersons," and many musicals all show an epitome of American culture and values they cherish — romanticism of individualism, hard work, and success. America is indeed a nation based on the "ideology of individualism" which Joe Feagin summarizes as follows:

(1) Each individual should work hard and strive to succeed in competition with others. (2) Those who work hard should be rewarded with success. (3) Because of widespread and equal opportunity, those who work hard will in fact be rewarded with success (1975 Pp. 90-91).

From birth an American is considered an individual entity with his/her identity, separate from other individuals (Wagatsuma 1985). Independence is a positive aspect of personality traits. On the other hand, the traditional Japanese society based on Confucian ideals valued deference and submissive attitudes to authority, group conformity, and -internal harmony. These values come from the history of the Teimo (emperor) system and the labor intensive agrarian society where individuals' cooperation was vital for the survival and existence of the community (Benedict 1946/1974; Reischauer 1981; Yanagida 1976). These values have led to one of the most prominent national characteristics -- the Japanese sense of the group. A Japanese finds his/her identity in his/her central group whether a work group, family, or a certain political party. This identification and commitment to the group leads to group consciousness and a sense of collective responsibility (Hamaguchi 1983; Taylor 1983). As Yoshino also says, "To the Japanese, a task is performed by a group, not by individuals, and responsibilities are consequently shared by the entire group" (1968, p. 202). Unlike Americans, the Japanese cannot perceive themselves apart from their particular groups whether it is a family, peers, or a company.

In Japanese organizations loyalty, duty, and cooperation to and in the group often mean sacrifice of one’s private time and pleasure. 185

However, it is not a serious problem once one identifies with the group, and one's goals become the same as one's company's. One's loyalty to the group even becomes "emotional commitment" (Yoshino 1968, p.241) and is looked upon with greater favor. All the Japanese male workers and supervisors whom I interviewed took it for granted that they work overtime. They had a "mission" to work hard and bring the company success and prosperity. They worked between 12 and 15 hours a day and went to work even on weekends if there was such a need. The Japanese men stayed at the factory until 9 or 10 PM to make sure that no defective products were sent to their clients operating both the first and the second shifts. Some American managers, on the other hand, went home right after the overtime was over. The Japanese managers understood that it was a natural thing for Americans to do since they consider their work as a contract rather than a commitment. A manager at Company C said:

"The Americans are concerned only with their assignments. When they're done, they're done. We, the Japanese workers, are concerned not only with the process of production but also the consequences of it. That's why we stay until late at night in case our clients call us about problems." (translation mine).

The Japanese work hard because of their identification with and their commitment to the group, leading to collective responsibility, tremendous productive cooperation, and achievement of company goals. The fact that the Japanese men do not mind overtime at all is by itself a communication. The American workers perceive that the Japanese live to work, which leads to the notorious image of "economic animals" (Kume 1987, p.156).

The Japanese workers in my study found that Americans are more individualistic in their perspectives of work, and especially in the realm of responsibility. A manager at Company C said:

"In our company, we have a department of Administration which includes production, sales and accounting. The executives do not have their own secretaries but all the secretaries stay in one big office with them. These American women didn't understand our conecpt at all at first. They were at dismay saying ’Who's my boss?' ’Who should I report to?' This is because they are used to the American clear-cut chain of command. This overlap of responsibilities is not very efficient, strictly speaking. It is not an invation of others' responsibilities, but it is teamwork. It makes integration of the organization possible, thus making it operate more effectively. The concept of ’our' job seems to yield more power." (translation mine)

Generally speaking, the Americans want to keep their responsibilities clear-cut (Mito 1981; Ouchi 1982; Kume 1987). The latter want to make 186

a sharp distinction between "my" job and "their" or "your" job. In this section we will take up a problem of admitting one's mistake in Japanese companies in the United States. Many Japanese managers noticed that the American workers do not easily admit having made a mistake. This, according to them, is one of the major differences found between them and their American counterparts. A Japanese foreman at Company A said:

"When there is a failure, a Japanese would say ’I'm sorry' even when it is nob his,/her complete fault. You know, Americans never say so. They would say, ’That person is responsible. He caused this and that...' instead of ’I'm sorry, it's my fault.' They (Americans) blame other people, machines, or whatever they can find faults with. I think this is a good example of American individualism. However, there are some Americans who say ’I'm sorry' and apologize! I'm usually extremely surprised to hear this kind of comment and I say, ’No, it's not your fault at all.' I'm so impressed by the person, you know." (translation mine)

The Japanese president and the vice president of Company E also said:

"Americans never admit that the mistake was their fault. They never say ’I'm sorry' unless they definitely know they are responsible. To say so is to admit that they themselves have made a mistake. Japanese people are not like that." (translation mine)

"You know, blaming each other is not productive. It does not help the situation improve. In our home company in Japan, it is usually the case that your collegues would say ’Well, next time we'll be all right,' or ’It's no use crying over the spilt milk. Let's try our best again.' See, no one gets blamed. This way the company can be more constructive about new proposals rather than accusing each other over the past mistakes." (translation mine)

In the United States, saying one is sorry is considered by many people as the same as admitting one’s fault and claiming responsibility. Other Japanese engineers at the same company also said that when they first came to the States, the scene in which American workers accuse each other as responsible for a mistake looks funny and absurd as well as unusual and hostile. To them Americans’ accusing each other is not only a waste of time but also dysfunctional in terms of organizational efficiency. The American workers seem to have a totally individualistic approach to solving the problem of conflict among themselves and to put blame on others even when they know well that they are responsible. They need to defend themselves and their jobs by all means. For Americans one's hard work is rewarded with individual success (Feagin 1975), and the line between one person's 187 responsibility and another's is very clear.

It took the Japanese men some time to come to grips with the fact that collective responsibility is hard for the American workers to understand. American managers may seek advice from others in their department when making their decisions, but asking for too much advice, suggestions, and guidance is often a sign of an incompetent leader. Thus, the American approach to decision-making is individualistic. American managers prove their abilities and accomplishment while the Japanese decision-making is group oriented (Kume 1987, p.160). American workers know what their tasks are and to tfhat extent their responsibilities extend.

The Americans generally employ analytic, categorical, linear, and binary thinking. While Americans tend to see things in terms of black and white the Japanese can easily accept gray (Wagatsuma 1985); their thinking tends to be more contextual and general (Okabe 1987). As a Japanese foreman said:

"They (Americans) see things in black or white and lack flexibility sometimes. For example, if one product has a deficiency such as a little scar, whether the whole product should be abandoned or whether some parts be replaced or not depends on the situation. Sometimes it is all right and sometimes we have to replace it. It's all situational. The Americans do not think like this. Part of the reason is that they emphasize more on individual responsibility and stick to it very much. They cannot be flexible in an ambiguous situation. They are very afraid that they will be individually accused if there is a problem which pertain to their line later on. They always want to make sure of their duties and responsibilities. They want to draw a line between ’my' responsibility and ’your' responsibility." (translation mine)

The American workers need to make their realms of responsibilities clear-cut.

To these Japanese managers, Americans often appear more concerned with their own life, giving it priority to their work. They communicate their demands more explicitly and straightforwardly as one of the Japanese managers observed:

"When there is a need for overtime, the Japanese tend to sacrifice their free time or their family to a certain extent, but it seems that Americans don't do that kind of thing. If they have something to do at home, they often decline to work overtime. A worker would say straight ’I have something to do at home,' ’I.have to prepare firewood,' ’I have to mow the lawn,' or ’My wife ...' And sometimes his wife is already here at the company waiting for him in her car! (laughter) I think this is a 188

tendency among the Americans in general." (translation mine)

Because of the way how the American workers communicate, the Japanese often feel rather indignant with some of them. The former know what they want from the company and demand it, but seem to downplay their duties as workers. American workers defend themselves to a considerable extent in the case of a failure, often accusing everything else. As Wagatsuma notes, the United States is a country where "The wheel that squeeks gets oiled" holds true (1985, p.177).

The American and Japanese workers behave quite differently when there is a mistake in their jobs. Why then does this problem of individual responsibility take place among American workers and not among the Japanese? It seems that the answer lies in the differences between the Japanese and American organizational decision-making systems, structures, values, and self concept.

The Japanese managerial structure and practice foster the notion of collective responsibility (Abegglen 1958; Ouchi 1981). Let us assume a hypothetical situation in a Japanese company to illustrate where various kinds of responsibilities exist within the organization. The following chart, though somewhat simplified, shows hierarchy of authority and chain of command in a typical Japanese organization in J apan.

Level 1 President (shacho)

Level 2 Vice Presidents (fukushacho)

Level 3 Department Managers (bucho)

Level 4 Assistant Department Managers (fukubucho)

Level 5 Section Heads (kacho)

Level 6 Assistant Section Heads (fukukacho)

Level 7 Supervisors (kakaricho)

Level 8 Regular Workers (shain)

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Authority & Chain of Command In a Typical Japanese Organization in Japan

Different kinds of decisions are made on different levels of the organization. Those serious decisions which involve life or death situation of the company are made solely by the top management (Levels 1 and 2, and occasionally 3.). 189

Decisions of minor importance, suggestions for improvement, and reports, of various kinds are made and written among the workers of lower and middle levels. New plans or proposals are suggested in the form of the ringi decision making system--a collective and participative decision making process under the centralized authority in which plans and proposals are initiated by the lower to middle level workers and passed onto the top, collecting seals of approval. Under this system everyone's consensus is thoroughly sought and ideas and objections are adjusted and negotiated in the process called nemawashi in which the responsibility lies not with a particualr individual but with the group. The more people involved in the process, the more diffused the responsibility (Kume 1987). When the project succeeds, everyone is rewarded for his/her effort as a member while no one gets blamed in case of failure.

When a worker (Level 8) writes a report or fascimile to another branch or company, he/she must submit it to his/her immediate supervisor (Level 7) and have it checked by him/her. If the report does not have any mistakes or errors (e.g., figures, numbers, spellings, etc), a round stamp with a name of the supervisor in it will be placed on the upper right hand corner, in one of the boxes assigned for him/her. (This stamp is functionally the same as one's signature signed on the official documents in the West.) The paper, then is given to the next level supervisor (Level 6) for further check. It depends on the nature and seriousness of the report how many levels it passes.

Any mistakes or errors are checked before the report is released to other sources and the actual action is taken. However, if a mistake is found later on, for example, after the experiments whose contents were described and explained in the report fail, the regular worker is blamed along with his/her supervisors who checked the report. The stamp that they put in the corner of the paper signifies that the supervisor approved the content of the report and thoroughly checked the feasibility of the suggestion or the experiment.

Middle managers cannot afford letting their subordinates make too many mistakes since their promotion depends on their bosses' evaluation. Often they need to reprimand their subordinates very harshly. The latter feels badly if he/she has to be reprimanded because of the nature of Japanese communication which values tacit understanding and avoids point blank comments. As a Japanese worker in his early 30's who has been working for a large manufacturing organization in Japan in the last several years said:

"Even when there is a mistake which is not completely of my own making, I would say 'I'm sorry' to my supervisor, since it is customary to do so. When the problem is minor, he would say 'Well, it's all right. Let's do our best next time.' But when the problem is big, he will also be responsible for your mistake. Now, he has to 190

defend himself. He has a wife and kids to feed at home. He has his own vested interests, you know. So, he would keep asking why it (the mistake/error) happened, how it took place, why I failed, etc etc! I, on the other hand, feel like saying, 'It's not my fault!' Of course, I cannot say so. I'm not in the position to say so. Yet, there is no alternative but say, ’Yes, I am responsible' just to get out of the situation quickly. Middle managers in general are very concerned with any kind of mistakes. On the other hand, those people in the top are more generous and can take it easy. They would say 'Whatever happened happened. Let's come up with good counter­ measures.' They have broader perspectives, you know. But these middle managers.... I had enough.... However, there are many subgroups within a group and groups within a section. There are many layers of workers who argue with one another for preventing problems and solving them. I think this can be an important source of improvement for a Japanese company." (translation mine)

The Japanese worker has to be responsible as a member of the group. Any errors and mistakes an individual makes are his/her responsbility as well as his/her supervisor's and his/her group. This network of responsbility or collective responsbility functions as social control. Everyone looks after what everyone else is doing and the system of collective responsibility is effective for preventing any error or mistake, however small they may be. The worker, including supervisors, is first of all a member of the group rather than a single individual responsible for the whole project. The particular structure of decision-making influences how one admit and communicates one's mistakes.

A culture influences formation of the self concept, and the concept of space, which in turn influences interaction (Harris & Moran 1979). The Japanese differ from other people in terms of the concept of self (Hamaguchi 1982; 1983; Kume 1987), so do how interaction occurs. The Western self is "an individual subject" which is continuous and the same under any circumstance. Westerners objectify themselves as an individual, the sole entity or a monad and find the subjective self apart from others. On the other hand, East Asians, including the Japanese, possess "a referential subject" which is "floating" (Hamaguchi 1982, p.212). The self is found in the objectified relationship or association one has with others and the group to which they belong. That is, the self is found in the human nexus. For example, the way one refers to oneself is different. While the English "I" is the same across the situations, the Japanese "I" differs from situation to situation, e.g., watashi, watakushi, boku, washi, shosei, atashi, etc. (Suzuki 1977; Ito 1982; Yanagida 1976). As Hamaguchi notes, a Japanese has "an awareness of self only in the context of relations with others and views the relations as a part of his own existence" (1983, p.8). The "referential self" seems natural to a society where vertical relationship or vertical status difference 191

Influences human behavior. (Benedict 1946/1974, Nakane 1970) The Japanese anthropologist Nakane calls the Japanese society "a vertical society” in which people cannot sit, speak, or behave without knowing others' status; one needs to use different language and manners of behavior for different occasions depending on the age, sex, status, and the other factors in the relationship between the speaker and the listener (Benedict 1946; Nakane 1970; Reischauer 1981).

The Japanese organization as well as the society is characterized by "contextualism" (Hamaguchi 1982; 1983) which is linked to the Japanese value system and the following features:

(1) mutual dependence, the idea that since man does not live his life alone, spontaneous cordial mutual assistance is inevitable and natural: (2) mutual reliance, the stable trust in other's consideration for one's own intention that is necessary to maintain reliably the relation of mutual dependence; (3) regard for interpersonal relations not as means but as ends in themselves, the indefinite continuation of which is expected unconditionally (Hamaguchi, 1983, p.9).

While the Americans exist as independent and separate monads, the Japanese self is is always embedded in the human relationship which is interdependent. Interaction tends to be other oriented and therefore harmony and consensus are valued while argumentation is considered non-desirable. Thus, the Japanese having their central focal point in the human nexus would not blame others in case of a failure in an organization.

Though the Japanese self is oriented toward others, especially those in one's group and familiars, it does not necessarily mean that they lack autonomy as individuals. There exists a symbiotic relationship between an individual and the group, but he/she does not abandon their self-interest entirely (Hamaguchi 1983, p.8).

Ruth Benedict (1946/1974) postulated that the notions of guilt and shame represent the Western and the Japanese cultures. In her book, The Chrysanthemum And The Sword, she claimed that the Japanese belong to a culture which relies heavily on shame while the United States relies on guilt. The standard of Japanese behavior is always that of society: the Japanese are always concerned with how they appear to others. Shame is "a reaction to other.people's criticism" (1974, p.223) and thus it comes from the social context. The Japanese tend to identify themselves with others and are thus they are other- oriented in their behavior (Ueda 1982). On the other hand, Westerners' standard of behavior rests in an absolute God. Each exists and is judged individually before God, and guilt comes from within The standards that Westerners use are thus absolute. Regardless of one's age, sex, status, etc., they are applied to everyone. The Japanese, on the other hand, are more situational and flexible. Their standards are always relative to a particualr situation (Okabe 1987), and are 192

dependent on the evaluation done by others (Ueda 1982). Thus, saying one is sorry even when one is not responsible for the cause does not entail any emotional cost to the Japanese. It is more important to admit the mistake and restore harmony and solidarity than to argue and split. Consensus is valued more than the pure logic (Itasaka 1978). In the United States, admitting one's mistake is a serious personal matter and should not be taken lightly while in Japan, saying that one is sorry is customary and often phatic: one is merely showing one's sincerity in admitting that there was a mistake and that the situation could be improved by everyone's cooperation.

The American workers in an American company are single players with their responsibilities differentiated clearly from others. They are individualistic in their job orientation and defend their territories of responsibility by all means. The Japanese, on the other hand, have a decision-making system entailing a negotiation process called nemawashi which involves many people and collective responsbilities. The American self is considered separate, independent, and standing on its own, while the Japanese self is a "referential self" which changes from situation to situation. The Americans have more absolute standards of judgement which applies universally to everyone whereas the Japanese are more flexible. The latter value harmony and consensus over disagreement or argument. For the former, self-rightousness is more important. All these influence how one admits one's mistake in a Japanese company in the United States. Cultural values and the concept of self have an impact on interacultural communication between the American and Japanese workers.

(6) Summary In this chapter we focused on problems of intercultural communication stemming from cultural differences. Even among the people of the same society and culture, communication is often problematic. Both American and Japanese workers in my study pointed out that communication in their companies is the most conspicuous problem of all in their organitional life. Organizational communication is important because perception, interpretation, and evaluation of the environment by the participants are often crucial for the outcomes of organmizational behavior (Pfeffer 1978). Various backgrounds in experience, training, values, and beliefs lead to varying deficinitions of the situations and eventually to organizational tension. Conflict often arises as a result of the lack of a common viewpoint and shared understanding, which are necessary for communication. This in turn influences cooperation.

The appropriateness and mode of communication between the two cultures are different. We have discussed problems with non-verbal communication, ritualistic expressions, and values which affect interaction between the Americans and the Japanese. These, in addition to the problem of language competence, make both American and Japanese workers feel irritated, frustrated, and sometimes alienated in their organizational experience, especially at the beginning of their 193 careeers. Cultural differences makes communication even more complicated. Not only the messages but also the particular logic of the culture must be taken into account.

American and Japanese workers can communicate in spite of these differences by learning each other's way of communication. They attempt "repair work" to supplement their communication gap by listening carefully, speaking loudly and slowly, sketching and so on.

Interactional patterns are like a set of cards and games. We use the same cards (language as medium) but we play the game (social interaction) with different rules. The communication problems were analyzed in terms of Hall (1977)'s notion of high and low context cultures, differences in values, socio-historical background, and characteristics of communication. It was noted that intercultural communication between the Japanese and American workers entailed more than mere exchange of words. It included taken-for-granted assumptions, cultural norms, values, and nonverbal communication, all of which become second nature and take place unconsciously. Organisational practices such as ringi and nemawashi decision-making systems also influence how one interacts.

Communication has been problematic, but it seems that both the American and Japanese workers have been coping very well with the problem. As the survey shows, they find intercultural communication much easier these days. Although there are cultural differences in communication styles, effective and efficient communication is possible between the American and Japanese workers.

*****

Organizations are not made up of managerial structures and practices only. Participants form a very important part of any organization. This chapter focused on the problem of communication - interaction within Japanese companies in the American Midwest as a problem of organizational adaptation on the individual level. As expected in Chapters 1 and 2, both American and Japanese workers have experiences a communication breakdown of some kind or another. The communication problems were addressed and analyzed using the cultural framework developed by Edward Hall, a well known anthropologist.

The following chapter presents a summary of the research findings, the contribution of the research to the field of complex organization, and the implications for future research. Chapter 7: Conclusion

The present research dealt with the problem of organizational adaptation of the Japanese companies in the United States. It addressed and analyzed the problem both on organizational and individual levels using the sociocultural framework. This final chapter presents a summary of the research findings, analysis, and implications for future research.

In Chapter 1, the problem of organizational adaptation of Japanese business organizations was addressed. Japanese direct investment abroad has been increasing in the last couple of decades, and many branch offices and factories of Japanese origin were established in the United State3 , especially in the 1980s. This new economic phenomenon of the emergence of Japanese business is considered a "crisis" by many Americans who in 1945 could not imagine that Japan, defeated and totally devastated in World War II, would expand its business with its fruits of high technology as well as managerial skills to the United States. For them, the advancement of the Japanese industry is comparable to another "Pearl Harbor." The Japanese automobile industry, for example, caused the U.S. auto manufacturers to suffer severely. In Detroit, many unemployed autoworkers vandalized Toyotas and Nissans in protest. The success of Japanese enterprises has quite an impact on the economy and politics of American society.

The concept of organizations as open systems which exist in their socio, economic, historical, political, and technological environment (Scotc 1981) was elaborated by differentiating external and internal environments.

From the sociological perspective, the topic of organizational adaptation of Japanese business organizations is not only interesting but significant to study. First, the advent of the Japanese organizations to the United States is a phenomenon still emerging. Secondly, the expanding organizations must face an external environment, a broader surrounding environment which includes the governments, economy, industrial structure, labor force, markets, and so on. This environment is very different from that in Japan. Third, the adaptation entails mitigating cultural differences.of the two societies including values, beliefs, norms, and modal personalities. Successful adaptation to the new environment leads to worker satisfaction while failure to adapt results in misunderstanding and frustration.

194 195

Chapter 2 explored theoretical perspectives on complex organizations. Since the problem of organizational adaptation covers a wide variety of elements of organization, this chapter presented various theoretical perspectives available in social sciences ranging from business administration to anthropology.

The importance of the relationship between organizations and society and the consequences of organizational adaptation were addressed at the beginning of the chapter. No organization exists in a vacuum. Organizational environment has both positive and negative impacts on organizations, and it obliges them to adapt or to become isomorphic (Hawleyl950) with the environment in order to be successful in a new enviornment. Especially new organizations and organizational forms tend to fail more often than old and established organizations due to liability of newness (Stinchcombe 1965). The new organization must develop relations with other organizations, learn the ropes of business, and so on. In short, organizational adaptation is the key to success.

As Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) claimed, no organization is sufficient by itself. Each owes its existence to its environment since legitimacy is a conferred status. Gaining legitimacy in a turbulent environment which is unpredictable, uncertain, and unstable is a key to organizational survival and possible prosperity. When Japanese business organizations expand to the United States, they must comply with U.S. laws and regulations as well as general social norms in order to secure their resources and- acceptance of their outputs. This is an adaptation to an external environment. These expanding organizations also need to adapt their internal elements of managerial philosophies and practices to the needs of participants who bring into the organization their latent identities (Gouldner 1957). In order t

The notion Of culture as environment was then discussed using sociocultural frameworks. The two major theoretical perspectives of convergence and divergence theories were elaborated. While convergence theories emphasize similarities among organizations across various cultures and explain them in terms of civilization, divergence theories focus on the uniqueness of each culture's organizations. We adopted the latter view as our framework for hypothesis construction.

The last section of the chapter developed a hypothesis of this dissertation. If organizations have organizational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1977), they do not change their structure quickly or easily. 196

Since organizations exist in an environment, they need to become isomorphic with it. When organizations move into a new environment, what kind of adaptation is necessary in order to survive and possibly thrive? The question for Japanese business organizations in the United States is: what aspects of the Japanese organization in Japan should be retained and what the new elements should be introduced to the organizational structure and managerial practices as a consequence of adaptation to the new U.S. environment? The open natural system model which views organizations as collectives with different motives, interests, and goals was introduced.

Various organizational methodologies were presented and elaborated in Chapter 3. The first section provided an overview of organizational methodology. The methodology shifted from qualitative to quantitative methodology over the last few decades as the unit of analysis shifted from individuals and groups to a large number of organizations. Accordingly, the nature of research has changed from ideographic and descriptive case studies to quantitative and nomothetic cross-sectional analysis.

Since the field of complex organizations tends to be influenced by other disciplines such as business administration, economics, and psychology, the relation between sociology and its subfield of complex organizations is rather tenuous as compared with other fields within sociology. However, many sociological methodologies, ranging from intensive interviewing and participant observation to survey methods, are also common in organizational research. In my research, methodologies such as Max Weber's ideal type, intensive interviewing, situational talk, participant observation, and survey were used. By employing the methodology of triangulation which combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies, I could reinforce each methodology's strength and complement weaknesses. The procedures and problems of each methodology were presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The human aspects of sociological research were emphasized.

Preliminary to a presentation of a summary of research findings, Chapter 4 provided the contexts to understand the current phenomenon of the advent of Japanese business organizations in the United States. The first section of the chapter presented a brief economic and industrial history of Japan which explained the factors contributing to its recent success worldwide.

The second section constructed the ideal type of relatively large and stable Japanese business organizations in Japan. This ideal type was necessary in order to compare them with Japanese organizations in the United States. The comparison of the two ideal types enabled us to understand what kind of adaptation has taken place. The ideal type of Japanese business organizations in Japan extracted the main shared and distinctive characteristics, including unique managerial practices such as the lifetime commitment, recruitment, the nenko seniority payment, and the ringi decision-making system as well as features of 197 social relations within the organization such as informal organization, tsukiai (afterwork fraternalization), and oyabun-kobun (Godfather - Godson). These structural and social characteristics of Japanese business organizations are deeply rooted in Japanese history, culture, and general social structure. Thus, they are unique to these organizations.

The last section of the chapter presented three case studies of Japanese business organizations in the United States, namely Kikkoman, C . Itoh & Sumitomo, and Matsushita Quasar. These case studies, along with other research done on the Japanese companies in the States, provided us with some idea of what kind of adaptation must take place in order to be successful. The differences between the Japanese and Americans, whether it is in managerial system or job orientation, must be mitigated. This process of mitigation was organizational adaptation which is the topic of this dissertation.

The ideal type of Japanese business organizations in the United States, constructed in Chapter 5, was based on my fieldwork data. It was presented in parallel to the ideal type of Japanese companies so that the comparison was easily accomplished. Such managerial practices as recruitment, training, the pay and decision-making systems, and the characteristics of social relations were presented. The purpose of this chapter was to present the ideal type and analyze the kind of organizational adaptation that took place and the factors which induced the changes.

As previewed in Chapter 2, this chapter revealed that the participants of organizations bring their latent identities such as their own age, sex, beliefs, attitudes, and social norms. Consequently, the structure of the company has been modified over several years to a mixed type which has characteristics of both the Japanese and American managerial practices. In this sense, the Japanese companies in the United States can be called "hybrid organizations" (Lincoln et al: 1978). Hybrid organizations can maximize their chances of survival and success by incorporating the socio, political, economic, and cultural elements of both societies.

The surface structure of the organizational structure (i.e., recruitment, decision-making system, pay system, uniform, etc.) corresponds to the deep structure (i.e., work and activities, democracy, equality, etc.) which represents American sociocultural norms, values, ideologies, and beliefs. These basic American core values are similar to some of the Japanese values present in the Japanese managerial system in the United States. Because of this correspondence, American workers could easily relate to the managerial practices and philosophies, and thus, the process of adaptation was facilitated. Accordingly, adaptation of the Japanese companies to their new U.S. environment has been successful as shown by job satisfaction, cooperativeness, loyalty of the workers, and so on. The chapter also revealed that the Japanese organizations in my study are 198 trying hard to increase worker solidarity by providing opportunities to join various committees and to participate in annual recreational events, such as a Christmas party and a summer picnic.

The Japanese companies also employ organizational myths and ceremonies (Meyer & Rowan 1978) which refers to the rationalized formal structures emerging from the adaptation to the larger institutional demands. The myths such as "Everybody is equal" and "The management is democratic" are believed by the workers even though they are aware that there are status and salary differences. These are attenuated by such ceremonial clothes (uniforms) and acts (meetings). However symbolic they could be, they, nevertheless, contribute to the worker satisfaction.

Chapter 6 dealt specifically with the problem of communication as an element of environment. Communication is the most conspicuous problem cf organizational internal adaptation on the individual level. Intercultural communication between the American and Japanese workers has been problematic since it entails more than linguistic competence. Both American and Japanese workers attempt to deal with the linguistic problem by raising the voice, speaking slowly, listening carefully, visual communication, and so on. The Japanese organizations also have the managerial practices of the open door policy and the suggestion boxes in order to cope with the problems via better communication. Additionally, day to day mutual experience with each other's culture aids adaptation on the individual level.

The analysis of communication problems utilized the sociocultural framework and explained communication problems using the notions of high and low context cultures (Hall 1977) which entailed non-verbal communication, values, and self-concept. The intercultural communication between American and Japanese workers involves more than exchanging messages. It entails all of the cultural elements which they internalized in the socialization process: taken-for-granted assumptions, ritualistic expressions, and value orientations.

This aspect of organizational communication has been considered rather trivial in the literature of complex organizations. The concept of culture has attracted less attention as comapred with other aspects of culture such as technology and size (Scott 1981). This dissertation contributed to the field of complex organizations since it focused on the adaptation of Japanese business organizations co the new U.S. environment using the sociocultural framework. Organizational adaptation was considered not only as an economic phenomenon but also a cultural phenomenon.

The socioeconomic phenomenon of Japanese companies in the United States is a recent phenomenon and is still in the process of emerging. The notion of the process of "emergence" is firmly rooted in the tradition of American sociology (Hinkle 1980), and it is an aspect of social change. Since all the companies which I studied are relatively 199 young (they are less than ten years old), the long term consequences of organizational adaptation are yet to be seen. The companies and the workers may still be in the "honeymoon stage" (Lysgaard 1955) of cultural adaptation in which everything appears fresh and nice. The situation may turn into the second stage in which many difficulties and problems arise and lead to the feeling of incompetency and frustration. Indeed, a Sanyo plant in Forest City, Arkansas which opened 10 years ago now faces the problem of resistance to willingness to come to an understanding between the Japanese managers and the U.S. workers. Part of the reason for the conflict may come from the cultural gap (Businessweek, 7/14/1986, pp.51-52).

Only a long term research study of organizational history can answer the question of the future consequences of adaptation. Recently, increasing number of Americans have been promoted to the supervisory positions and the Japanese companies may some day be managed only by the Americans. This may influence the outcome of adaptation in the future. The international economic scene has been changing faster in recent years and this environmental change obliges organizations to adapt. Already in Japan, there have been changes in the systems of lifetime commitment and nenko (seniority) payment in the 1980s (Hamaguchi 1987).

Though this study is in a case study form and the analysis may not necessarily be applicable to organizations in other categories, it has offered an opportunity to understand adaptation of multinational organizations. Specific attention was paid to the human aspects of the organization to which organizational structure and everyday interaction need to be accomodated. Both in its descriptive and explanatory aspects, this research has contributed modestly to the current knowledge of Japanese companies in the United States. Given antagonistic feelings prevailing between the American and Japanese governmental officials and people in regards to trade imbalance and deficit, any contribution to understanding has significance. Bibliography

Abegglen, James C. 1959. The Japanese Factory: Aspects Of Its Social Organization. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

Ajiferuke, Musbau & J. Boddewyn. 1970. "’Culture' And Other Explanatory Variables In Comparative Management Studies." Academy of Management Journal. June: 153-163.

Aldrich, Howard E. & Sergio Mindlin. 1978. "Uncertainty & Dependence: Two Perspectives on Environment," in Organization and Environment. Lucien Karpit, ed. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.

Altheide, David L. 1976. Creating Reality: How TV News Distorts Events. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Ando, Yoshio. 1980. Kindai Nihon Keizaishi: Shihon-shugino Keisei to Hatten.(Modern Japanese Economic History: Formation And Development.) Tokyo: Obunsha.

Argyris, C. & D.A. Schon. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Azumi, Koya. 1972. "Environmental needs, resources, and agents." Organizational Systems: A Text Reader In Sociology Of Organizations. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath & Company.

Azumi, Koya & Frank Hull. 1981. "Comparative organizations." International Journal Of Comparative Sociology. Vol.XXII 3-A.

Bae, Kyu Han & William Form. 1986. "Payment Strategy In South Korea's Advanced Economic Sector." American Sociological Review. Vol. 51. pp.120-131.

Barnard, Chester I. 1938. The Function Of The Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bartholomew, James R. 1976. "Why was there no scientific revolution in Tokugawa Japan." Japanese Studies In The History Of Science. No.15.

Bayley, David H. 1966. "The effects of corruption in a developing nation." Western Political Quarterly. Vol.19.

Bean, Ron. 1985. Comparative Industrial Relations: An Introduction to Crossnational Perspective. London: Croom Helm.

200 201

Beck, Clark L. & Ardath W. Burks (eds.) 1983. Aspects of Meiji Modernization. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture In Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bellah, Robert N. 1957. Tokugawa Religion: The Values Of Pre- Industrial Japan. New York: The Free Press.

______. 1963. "Reflections on the Protestant Ethic Analogy in Asia." The Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 19. No.l.

Benedict, Ruth. 1974(1946). The Crysanthemum And The Sward: Patterns Of Japanese Culture. New York: New American Library.

Berger, Peter L. & Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction Of Reality: A Treatise In The Sociology Of Knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company.

Berger, Peter L. & Hansfried Kellner. 1981. Sociology Reinterpreted: An Essay On Method And Vocation. Garden City: Anchor Books.

Birnbaum, Phyllis. 1980. "It's All Done With The Eyebrows: Japanese Soap-opera Performers Are Masters of The Unspoken." TV Guide. November 15th.

Blalock, H.M. and A.B. Blalock (eds.). 1968. Methodology In Social Research. New York: McGrow Hill.

Blau, Peter M. 1955. The Dynamics Of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blau, Peter M. & W. Richard Scott. 1962. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective And Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bowles, Samuel & Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling And Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Bradburn, Norman M. 1963. "Interpersonal Relations Within Formal Organizations in Turkey." The Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 19. N o . 1.

Brown, William. 1968. "Japanese Management: The Cultural Background." Monumenta Nipponica: Studies In Japanese Culture. 21:47-60.

Bruyn, Sever3m T. 1966. The Human Perspective In Sociology: The Methodology Of Participant Observation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 202

Bruyn, Severyn T. 1976. "The Methodology Of Participant Observation." Educational Patterns And Cultural Configurations: The Anthropology Of Education, by Joan. I. Roberts & Sherrie K. Akinsanya. New York: David McKay Company.

Burns, Tom. 1967. "The Comparative Study of Organizations." Method Of Organizational Research, by Victor H. Vroom. (ed.) Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cicourel, Aaron V. 1964. Method And Measurement In Sociology. New York: Free Press.

Clark, Rodney. 1979. The Japanese Company. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Christopher, Robert C. 1983. The Japanese Mind. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Cleaver, Charles G. 1976. Japanese And Americans: Cultural Parallels and Paradoxes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cole, Robert. 1971. Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Tradition. Berkeley: University of California.

Collins, Randall & Michael Makowsky. 1984. The Discovery of Society. 3rd ed. New York: Random House.

Cooley, Charles H. 1929. Social Organization. New York: Scribner's. (Originally published in 1909.)

Coser, Lewis A. 1977. Masters Of Sociological Thought: Ideas In Historical And Social Context. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Crozier, Michel. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cuff, E. C. 6c G.C.F. Payne.(ed.) 1984. Perspectives In Sociology. 2nd ed. London: George Allen 6c Unwin.

Curry, Timothy J. and Alfred C. Clarke. 1978. Introducing Visual Sociology. Dubuqul: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Daito, Eisuke. 1979. "Management and Labor: The Evolution of Employer-Employee Relations in the Course of Industrial Development." in Labor And Management, ed. Nakagawa. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Pp. 1-25.

Dance, Frank E. X. 6c Carl E. Larson. 1976. The Functions of Human Communication: A Theoretical Approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 203

Daniels, Arlene

Davidow, Joel. 1980. "Multinationals, Host Governments and Regulation of Restrictive Business Practices." Columbis Journal of World Business. Summer: 14-19.

Day, Charles R. Jr. 1985. "Looking For Trouble; At Kawasaki's motorcycle plant in Nebraska, the assimilation of Japanese style thinking has produced philosophy for success." in Industry Week. Penton/IPC. August, 1985.

Dempster, Prue. 1967. Japan Advances: A Geographical Study, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Deutsch, Mitchell F. 1983. Doing Business With The Japanese. New York: A Mentor Book. New American Library.

Dexter, Lewis A. 1970. Elite And Specialized Interviewing. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Dobbert, Marion L. 1982. Ethnographic Research: Theory And Application For Modem Schools And Soceity. New York: Praeger.

Doi, Takeo. 1981.(1971) Amaeno Kozo (Structure Of Amae.) Tokyo: Kobundo.

______. 1977. The Anatomy Of Dependence. Translated by John Bester. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Dolbeare, Kenneth M. & Patricia Dolbeare. 1978. American Ideologies: The Competing Political Beliefs of the 1970's. 3rd ed. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

Dore, Ronald. 1973. British Factory Japanese Factory: The Origins Of National Diversity In Industrial Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

______. 1982. "Introduction." to Japan In The Passing Lane, by Satoshi Kamata. New York: Pantheon Books.

Douglas, Jack D. 1976. Investigative Social Research: Individual And Team Field Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Durkheim, Emile. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: The Free Press.

______. 1982(1895). The Rules Of Sociological Methods. New York: Free Press. ______. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

______. 1980. "Should Japan be our model?: They may be efficient, but..." The Boston Globe. Pp. A-l, A-2, Dec. 14th.

Etzioni-Halevy, Eva. 1981. Social Change: The Advent And Maturation of Mo d e m Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Everett, James E., Bruce W. Stening & Peter A. Longton. 1982. "Some Evidence for an International Managerial Culture." Journal of Management Studies. 19: 153-162.

Feagin, Joe R. 1975. Subordinating The Poor: Welfare And American Beliefs. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Fields, George. 1983. From Bonsai To Levi's: When West Meets East. New York: New American Library.

Fitchen, Richard. 1978. "Transactional Analysis of Intercultural Communication." in Fred L. Casmir. (ed) Intercultural And International Communication. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

Fraser. Douglas A. 1981. "Domestic Content of US Automobile Imports: A UAW Proposal." Columbia Journal of World Business. Winter: 57-61

Fukuoka, Toshihiko. 1980. Kikkoman. The Kaisha Series 52. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

Furuta, Gyo. 1987. Ibunka Komunikeishon. (Intercultural Communication.) Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies In Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Ghiselli, Edwin E., John P. Campbell & Sheldon Zedeck. 1981. Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: W.H Freeman & Company.

Glazer, Barney G. & Anselm L. Strauss. 1965. "Discovery Of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitative Research." The American Behavioral Scientists. Vol. 8. 6: 5-11.

______. 1967. The Discovery Of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine

Goffman, Erving. 1961. "The characteristics of total institutions." in Amitai Etzioni (ed). A Sociological Reader On Complex 205

_Organizations. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

______. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays On Face-to-face Behavior. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

______. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay On the Organization Of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

______. 1979. Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.

Goldhaber, Gerald M. 1983. Organizational Communication. 3rd. ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.

Goldthorpe, J. E. 1985. The Sociology Of The Third World: Disparity And Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goldthorpe, J. H. 1966. "Attitudes And Behavior Of Car Assembly Workers: A Deviant Case And A Critique." British Journal Of Sociology. 17: 227-44.

Goodenough, Ward H. 1971. Culture, Language And Society. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Gouldner, Alvin W. 1954. Patterns Of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press

______. 1959. "Organizational analysis." Sociology Today. by R.K. Merton et al (eds). New York: Basic Books, pp.400-426.

Gullahorn, John T., & Jeanne E. Gullahorn. 1963. "An Extention of the U-Curve Hypothesis." The Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 19. No.3.

Hage, Jerald & Michael Aiken. 1969. "Routine Technology, Social Strcture, and Organizational Goals." Administrative Science Quarterly. 14:366-376

Hall, Edward T. 1969. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

. . 1973. The Silent Language. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. (1959)

. 1974. The Dance of Life. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

. 1977. Beyond Culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, Richard H. 1982. Organizations: Structure And Process. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc. 206

Halliday, Jon & Gavan McCormick. 1973. Japanese Imperialism Today. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Hamaguchi, Eshun. 1982. "Nihonjin no ningen moderu to 'aidagara'" (Model of Japanese Human Relationships). Osaka Daigaku Ningen Kagakubu Kiyo. Vol. 8.

______. 1983. "Japan as a Soceity of ’Contextualism'-- Japanese Group Conformity as an Expression of Systematized -Interdependence at the Societal Level." Tokyo: Look Japan.

______. 1985. "Nihon Bunmeito Nihon Bunka." (The Japanese Civilization And The Japanese Culture.) Hikaku Bunmei. (Comparative Civilization.) Vol. 2.

______. 1986. "Toward a Theoretical Dialogue Between Asia and the West." The Japan Foundation Newsletter. Vol. XIV. No. 4.

______. 1986. "Nihonbunmeino Kihonteki Seilcaku." Hikaku Bunmei. Vol.2 .

Hammersley, Martyn & Paul Atkinson. 1983. Ethnography: Principles In Practice. New York: Tavistock Publications.

Hannan, Michael T. & John Freeman. 1977. "The population ecology of organizations." American Journal of Sociology 82:929-64.

______. 1984. "Structural inertia and organizational change." American Sociological Review. Vol.49.

Harootunian, Harry. 1983. "Liberal traditions of Japan." presented at The Ohio State University, May 6th.

Harris, Philip R. & Robert T. Moran. 1979. Managing Cultural Differences. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Hazama, Hiroshi, ed. 1977. Nihonno Kogyo to Shakai. (Japanese Enterprises And Society). Nihon Keizaishi Koza. Vol. 6. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha.

Heller, Frank A. 1981. "Some Problems In Multinational And Cross Cultural Research On Organizations." in Takamiya Susumu (ed). Takokusekikigyo To Keieino Kokusai Hikaku. Tokyo: Dobunkan.

Hickson, David J., C. R. Hinings, C. J. McMillan & J. P. Schmitter. 1974. "The Culture Free Context of Organization Structure: A Tri­ national Comparison." Sociology. Vol. 8. 1: 59-80.

Hinkle, Roscoe C. 1980. Founding Theory of American Sociology: 1881- 1915. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 207

Hirschmeier, Johannes & Tsunehiko Yui. 1975. The Development Of Japanese Business 1600-1973. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences In Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Honna, Nobuyuki & Bates Hoffer. (eds.) 1986. An English Dictionary of Japanese Culture. Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing Co., Ltd.

Hotta, Masayasu. 1981. Yoshida Kogyo (YKK) . The Kaisha Series 98'. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

Hsu, Francis L. K. 1972. "American Core Value And National Character." in Francis L.K. Hsu. (ed.) Psychological Anthropology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.

Inkles, A. & D.H. Smith. 1974. Becoming Modem. London: Heinemann.

Inlow, Gail M. 1972. Values in Transition: A Handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Irimajiri, Shoichiro. 1985. "Honda's approach to a mature industry." President, Honda of America Mfg., Inc. The Fifth Conference U.S.- Japan Automotive Industry. "Entrepreneurship in a mature industry." March 5.

Ishii, Kanji et al. 1977. Kindai Nihonshio Manabu: Meiji. Tokyo: Yubikaku.

Ishii, Kanji. 1981. Nihon Sanshigyo Bunseki: Nihon Sangyokakumei Kenkyu Joron. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppan Kai.

Ishii, Satoshi. 1987. "Gengo Messeji to Higengo Messeji." in Furuta (ed.). Ibunka Komyunikeishon.

______. 1987. "Ibunka Komyunikeishon." in Furuta (ed.) Ibunka Komyunikeishon.

Itasaka, Gen. 1978. Nihongono Hyojo. Tokyo: Kodansha Gendai Shinsho.

Ito, Kinko. 1982. Ethnic Tables In North Commons. An unpublished Master's Thesis. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

______. 1982 "The Japanese silk-reeling industry 1868-1920's: model construction of complex organzations." An unpublished paper. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

______. 1983. "Various Japanese ’I' forms," A paper presented at the North Central Sociological Association Meeting. Columbus, Ohio. April 30th. 208

Jacobs, Glenn (ed). 1970. The Participant Observer. New York: George Braziller.

Johnson, Richard T. 1977. "Success and Failure of Japanese Subsidiaries in America." Columbia Journal of World Business. Pp.30-37

Kamata, Satoshi. 1982. Japan In The Passing Lane. New York: Pantheon.

Kaneda, Tetsuro. 1978. Shushinkoyosei. (Lifetime Employment.) Jiji Mondai Kaisetsu 38. Tokyo: Kyoikusha.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men And Women Of The Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kato, Katsumi. 1981. Sharp. The Kaisha Series 72. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

Kerr, Clark, et al. 1973. Industrialism And Industrial Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Originally published in 1960.)

Kibi, Masato. 1980. Pioneer. The Kaisha series 19. Tokyo: Asahi sonorama.

______. 1980. Sony. The Kaisha Series 67. Tokyo: Asashi Sonorama.

Kimura, Bin. 1980. Hitoto Hitono Aida: Seishin Byorigakuteki Nihonron. (Between People: A Psychoanalytic Perspective On Japan.) Tokyo: Kobundo.

Knapp, Mark L. 1978. Nonverbal Communication In Human Interaction. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Koizumi, Tetsunori. 1979. "The Ways and Means of the Gods: An Analysis of Japanese Religion." Journal of Cultural Economics. Pp.75-88.

. 1982. "Absorption and adaptation: Japanese inventiveness in technological development." Managing Innovation. (ed.) S.B. Lundstedt and E. William Colglazier Jr.. New York: Pergamon Press.

. 1984. "The Mode of Theorizing and the Nature of Knowledge: A Systems Approach to Learning and Knowledge Acquisition." Working Paper. #84-23. Columbus, OH: Department of Economics, The Ohio State University.

Koizumi, Tatsunori & Sven Lundstedt. 1985. "Mind, culture and economy: the morphology of socio economic systems." Working Paper Series. Columbus: College Of Administrative Science. The Ohio State 209

University. January.

Krause, Walter. & Wilbur F. Monroe. 1981. "Prospects of United States-Japan Trade Relations." Columbia Journal of World Business. Summer: 18-22.

Kume, Teruyuki. 1979. "Exploratory Study of Japanese Approaches to Decision-Making in the United States." Ph.D. Dissertation. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota.

______. 1987. "Soshikini Okeru IbunkaKomunikeishon." in Furuta (ed.). 1987. Ibunka Komyunikeishon.

Lammers, Cornelis J., & David J. Hickson. 1979. Organizations Alike And Unlike. London: Routledge 6c Kegan Paul.

Lawrence, Paul R., & Jay W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization And Environment. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration. Harvard University.

Lazarsfeld, Paul F. & Herbert Menzel. 1961. "On the Relation Between Individual and Collective Properties." in Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. Amitai Etzioni (ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pp. 422-40.

Lebra, Joyce et al. 1976. Woman In Changing Japan. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lee, Alfred McClung. 1970. "On Context And Relevance." in The Participant Observer. Glenn Jacobs (ed.). New York: George Braziller.

Lee, 0. Young. 1982. Chijimi-shikono Nihonjin. Tokyo: Gakuseisha.

Lee, Sang M . 6c Gary Schwendiman. 1 9 8 2 . Japanese Management: Cultural And Environmental Considerations. New York: Praeger.

Leiter, Kenneth. 1980. A Primer On Ethnomethodology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Levinson, Harry. 1968. The Exceptional Executive: A Psychological Conception. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Light, Donald, Jr. 6c Suzanne Keller. Sociology. 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Lincoln, James R . , Jon Olsen 6c Mitsuyo Hanada. 1978. "Cultural effects on organzaional structure: the case of Japanese firms in the United States," American Sociological Review. Vol., 43. Pp. 829-847. 210

Lofland, John. 1971. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide To Qualitative Observation And Analysis. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Lofland, John. 1978. Interaction In Everyday Life: Social Strategies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lundstedt, Sven B. 1963. "An Introduction to Some Evolving Problems in Cross-Cultural Research." The Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 19. No. 3.

______. 1986. "The Topography Of Implementation." Working Paper Series. Columbus: College Of Administrative Science. The Ohio State University.

Lysgaard, Sverre. 1955. "Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States." International Social Science Bulletin. VII:45-51.

McAbee, Michael. 1985. "Japan: Land Of The Setting Sun?" Industry Week. Penton/IPC. April 1985.

McCallion, Stephen W. 1983. "Silk Reeling In Meiji Japan: The Limits To Change." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

McClelland, David C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.

McKelvey, Bill & Howard Aldrich. 1983. "Populations, Natural Selection, and Applied Organizational Science." Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 101-128.

McMillan, Charles J. 1984. The Japanese Industrial System. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

March, James G. & John P. Olsen. 1979. Ambiguity And Choice In Organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

Marsh, Robert M. & Hiroshi Mannari. 1978. "Cultural effects of organizational structure: the case of Japanese firms in the United States." American Sociological Review. ______

. 1981. "Technology And Size As Determinants Of The Organizational Structure Of Japanese Factories." Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 26. 1: 32-57.

Matsumoto, Koji. 1982. Organizing For Higher Productivity: An Analysis Of Japanese Systems And Practices. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization. 211

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. "Mind, Self and -Soceity." in From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. by Charled W. Morris, (ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meyer, John W. & Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony." American Journal Of Sociology. Vol. 83.

Michels, Robert. 1966. Political Parties. New York: The Free Press. (First published in 1911.)

Miller, Brian & Laud Humphreys. 1980. "Keeping In Touch: Maintaining Contact With Stigmatized Subjects." in Fieldwork Experiences: Qualitative Approaches To Social Research, by Shaffir et al. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Minami, Hiroshi. 1980. Nihonronno Keifu. (Genealogy of Theories on the Japanese.) Tokyo: Kodansha.

Mito, Tadashi. 1981. Nihonjin to Kaisha. (The Japanese and Company.) Tokyo: Chuo Keizaisha.

Miyamoto, Musashi. 1982. The Book Of Five Rings: The Real Aft Of Japanese Management. New York: A Bantam Book.

Monette, Duane, Thomas J. Sullivan & Cornell R. DeJong. 1986. Applied Social Research: Tool for the Human Services. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Moriguchi, Chikashi. 1983. "Japan in the 80's: from economics to econo-politics." presented at the 1983 Japan Travelling Scholars Seminar. Columbus, Ohio. April 7 - 8th.

Morishima, Michio. 1982. Why Has Japan Succeeded?: Western Technology And The Japanese Ethos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morita, Akio. 1982. "Playboy Interview: Akio Morita." in Playboy. August.

Nachmias, Chava & David Nachmias. 1981. Research Methods In The Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Nakagawa, Keiichiro, Hidemasa Morikawa and Tsunehiko Yui, ed. 1979, Kindai nihon keieishi no kisochishiki. (The Basic Knowledge Of Modern Japanese Business History.) Tokyo: Yubikaku Books.

Nakagawa, Keiichiro. ed. 1979. Labor And Management: Proceedings Of The Fourth Fuji Conference. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Nakane, Chie. 1970. Japanese Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. NHK Hoso Seron Chosajo. ed. 1982, Nihonjinto Amerikajin. (The Japanese and the Americans.) Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai.

Nippon Steel Corporation, Personnel Development Division. 1984. Nippon: The Land And Its People. Tokyo: Gakuseisha.

Norbeck, Edward & George DeVos. 1972. "Culture And Personality: The Japanese." in Francis L. K. Hsu.(ed.) Psychological Anthropology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc. Pp.21 70.

Oda, Yusuke. 1980. Toyota. The Kaisha Series 1. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

Ogburn, William F. 1964. On Culture And Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ohkita, Saburo & Ryuzo Sato. 1983. Boeki Furikushon. (Trade Friction.) Tokyo: Yubikaku.

Ohsumi, Eiji & Katsuhiro Matsushita. 1983. "Boekimasatsuto Sono Haikei (The Current Situation of Trade Friction and Its Background)." Chapter 2. Boeki Furikushon. Ohkita & Sato (ed.). Tokyo: Yub ikaku.

Okabe, Roichi, 1987. "Ibunkano Retorikku." (Intercultural Rhetoric.) in Furuta (ed.) Ibunka Komunikeishon. (Intercutlrual Communication.) Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

Olsen, Marvin E. 1978. The Process Of Social Organization: Power In Social Systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ouchi, William G. & Mary Ann Maguire. 1975. "Organizational Control: Two Functions." Administrative Science Quarterly. 20: 559-569.

Ouchi, William G. 1977. "The Relationship Between Organizational Structure And Organizational Control." Administrative Science Quarterly. 22: 95-113.

______. 1981. Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet The Japanese Challenge. New York: Avon Publishers of Bard, Camelot, Discus and Flare Books.

Ozaki, Shigeo. 1980. Americajinto Nihonjin. (The Americans And The Japanese.) Tokyo: Kodansha.

Pace, R. Wayne. 1983. Organization Communication: Foundations for Human Resource Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Parsons, Talcott. 1960. Structure and Process in M o d e m Societies. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. 213

Pascale, Richard Tanner. 1978. "Personel Practices and Employee Attitudes: A Study of Japanese- and American-Managed Firms in the United States." Human Relations. 13:7 Pp.597-615.

______. 1978. "Commnication And Decision Making Across Cultures: Japanese And american Comparisons." Administrative Sicence Quarterly. 23:91-110.

Pascale, Richard Tanner & Anthony G. Athos. 1981. The Art Of Japanese Management: Applications For American Executives. New York: Warner Books.

Payne, Geoff. 1973. "Comparative sociology: some problems of theory and method," British Journal Of Sociology. Vol.24.

Pegels, Carl C. 1984. Japan Vs. The West: Implications For Management. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

Perrow, Charles. 1970. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont: Wadsworth.

______. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay/ 3rd ed. New York: Random House.

Peters, Thomas J., & Robert H. Waterman, Jr. J.982. In Search Of Excellence: Lessons From America's Best-Run Companies. New York: Warner Books, A Warner Communications Company.

Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1979. "On Studying Organizational Cultures." Administrative Science Quarterly. 24: 570-581.

Pettigrew, Joyce. 1981. "Reminiscence Of Fieldwork Among The Sikhs." Doing Feminist Research, by Helen Roberts (ed). London: Routledge & Kagan Paul.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1978. "Who Governs?" in The Sociology Of Organizations: Basic Studies, (ed.) Oscar Grusky & George A.. Miller. Pp.228-247. (First appeared in Organizational Design. 1978. Pp.1-30.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey & Gerald Salancik. 1974. "Organizational Decision Making As A Political Process: The Case Of A University Budget." Administrative Science Quarterly. 19:135-151.

______. 1978. The External Control Of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Phillips, Gerald M. 1982. Communicating in Organizations. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. 214

Pondy, Louis R. & Ian I. Mitroff. 1979. "Beyond Open System Models Of Organization." Research In Organizational Behavior. 1: 3-39.

Prasad, S. Benjamin. 1968. "A New System Of Authority In Japanese Management." in Journal Of Asian And African Studies. 3: 216-25.

Preston, Lee E. (ed). 1978. Research In Corporate Social Performance And Policy: An Annual Compilation of Research. Vol. 1. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Redding, W. Charles. 1972. Communication Within The Organization: An Interpretive Review Of Theory & Research. New York: Industrial Communication Council, Inc.

Reischauer, Edwin 0. 1977. The Japanese. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

______. 1983. "Not Westernization But Modernization." in Japan Examined, (ed.) Wray & Conroy (eds.) Honolulu:University Of Hawaii Press. Pp.369-375.

Richardson, Stephen. 1956. "Organizational contrasts in British and American ships," Administrative. Science Quarterly. Vol. 1.

Ritzer, George. 1983. Sociological Theory. New York: Alfred A. - Knorpf.

Robboy, Howard, (ed). 1983. Social Interaction: Readings In Sociology. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Rockey, Edward H. 1977. Communicating in Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.

Rohlen, Thomas P. 1979. For Harmony And Strength: Japanese White- Collar: Organization In Anthropological Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ruesch, Jurgen and Gregory Bateson. 1951. Commun.ication: The Social Matrix Of Psychiatry. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Rugman, Alan M. 1980. "A New Theory of the Multinational Enterprise: Internationalization Versus Internalization." Columbia Journal of World Business. Pp. 23-29.

Sagara, Ryosuke. 1980. Honda. The Kaisha Series 56. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

______. 1980. Kyoro Ceramic. The Kaisha Series 20. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

Saito, Masaru. 1983. Gijutsu Rikkokuron. Tokyo: Yubikaku. Sakiya, Tetsuo. 1982. Honda Motor: The Men, The Management, The Machines. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Sato, Ryuzo. 1983. Me Shakaito We Shakai. (Me Soceity & We Society). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha,

Schatzman, Leonard & Anselm L. Strauss. 1973. Field Research: Strategies For A Natural Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Schollhammer, Hans. 1971. "Organization Structures Of Multinational Corporations." Academy Of Managerial Journal. Vol.14. 3: 345-365.

Schutz, Alfred. 1944. "The Stranger: An Essay In Social Psychology." American Journal Of Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Scott, W. Richard. 1981. Organizations: Rational, Natural And Open Systems. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVA And The Grass Roots. Berkely: University of California Press.

Sethi, Prakash S. 1978. "An Analytical Framework For Making Crosscultural Comparisons Of Business Responses To Social - Pressures: The Case Of the United States and Japan." in Lee E. Preson. (ed) Research In Corporate Social Performance And Policy: An Annual Complation of Research. Vol.l. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Sethi, Prakash et al. 1984. The False Promise Of The Japanese Miracle: Illusions And Realities Of The Japanese Management System Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman Publishing Inc.

Shaffir, Williams, Robert A. Stebbins & Allen Turowetz. 1980. Fieldwork Experience: Qualitative Approaches To Social Research. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Sherif, Muzafer 0. et al. 1961. Intergroup Conflict And Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Shimizu, Ryohei. 1980. The Growth Of Firms In Japan. Tokyo: Keio Tsushin Co.

Shimokawa, Koichi. 1981. America Jidosha Bummei to Nihon. (The American Automobile Civilization And Japan.) Tokyo: Bunshindo.

Sieber, Sam. 1972. "The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods. American Journal of Sociology. Vol.78. No.6. Pp. 1335-1359.

Skidmore, Willian. 1979. Theoretical Thinking In Sociology. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 216

Smelser, Neil J. 1973. "Toward a Theory of Modernization." in Etzioni and Etzioni-Halevy. (eds.) Social Change. Pp.268-84. New York: Basic Books.

Smircich, Linda. 1983. "Concepts Of Culture And Organizational Analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly. 28: 339-358.

Smith, Robert J. 1983. Japanese Soceity: Tradition, Self, And The Social Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Speier, Matthew. 1973. How To Observe Face-to-face Communication: A Sociological Introduction. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Company.

Spradley, James P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Spradley, James P. 1979. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

Stace, W. T. 1950. What Are Our Values? Lincoln: The University of Nebraska.

Steers, Richard M. 1984. Introduction To Organizational Behabior. 2nd ed. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and company.

Stinchcombe, Arthur S. 1965. "Social structure and organizations." Pp. 153-93 in James G. March (ed.), Handbook Of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Suzuki, Takao. 1977. Kotobato Bunka. (Language and Culture.) Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten

Takamiya, Makoto. 1979. "Japanese Multinationals In Europe: Internal Operations And Their Public Policy Implications." Columbia Journal Of World Business. Pp. 5-17.

Takamiya, Susumu (ed.). 1981. Takokusekikigyo To Keieino Kokusai Hikaku. (Multinational Corporation And A Crosscultural Comparison Of Management.) Tokyo: Dobunkan.

Takenaka, Emiko (ed.). 1983. Joshi Rodoron: "Kikaino Byodo" kara "Kekkano Byodo" e. (Labor- Theory On Women: From "The Equality Of Opportunity" to "The__Equality Of Consequence." Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

Tanaka, Hiroshi. 1980. "The Japanese Method Of Preparing Today's Graduate To Become Tomorrow's Manager: A training system from the country where lifelong employment with one company and high productivity are the norm." Personnel Journal. February: 109-112. 217

Taylor, Charles Thomas. 1977. The Values. New York: Philosophical Library.

Taylor, Jared. 1983. Shadows Of The Rising Sun: A Critical View Of The" Japanese Miracle." New York: William Morcow and Company, Inc.

Thomas, W. I. 1937. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little Brown.

Toennies, Ferdinand. 1940. Community And Society. (Gemeinschaft Und Gesellschaft.) Charles P. Loomis, translator and editor. New York: American Book.

Toffler, Alvin. 1984. Previews And Premises. Boston: South End Press.

______. 1985. The Adaptive Corporation. New York: Bantham Books.

Tracy, Phelps K., & Koya Azumi. 1976. "Determinants of administrative control: a test of theory with Japanese factories." American Sociological Review. Vol.41.

Tsuda, Masurai. 1979. "The Formation and Characteristics of the Work Group in Japan." in Labor And Management, ed. by Nakagawa. Pp. 29- 44.

Tsurumi, Kazuko. 1972. Kokishinto Nihonjin. (Curiousity & The Japanese.) Tokyo: Kodansha.

Tsurumi, Yoshi. 1976. The Japanese Are Coming: A Multinational Interaction Of Firms And Politics. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.

______. 1977. "Critical Choice for Japan: Cooperation or Conflict With The United States." Columbia Journal Of World Business. Pp. 14-20.

______. 1978. Japanese Business: A Research Guide With Annotated Bibliography. Praeger Pacific-Basin Series In Business And Economics. New York: Praeger Publishers.

______. 1978. "The Best Of Times And The Worst Of Times: Japanese Management in America." Columbia Journal Of World Business. Pp. 56-61.

Turner, Jonathan H. American Society: Problems of Structure. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Ueda, Nobuko. 1982. Ibunka Taiken to Nihonjin. (Crosscultural Experience and the Japanese.) Osaka, Japan: Sogensha.

Upshaw, Harry S. 1968. "Attitude Measurement." in Methodology In Social Research. New York: McGrow Hill. 218

Urawa, Saburo. 1981. Matsushita Denki. The Kaisha series 91. Tokyo: Asahi Sonorama.

Vander Zanden, James W. 1979. Sociology. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Vidich, Arthur J. 1955. "Participant Observation And The Collection And Interpretation Of Data." American Journal Of Sociology. Vol.60. No. 4. Pp. 354-360.

Vogel, Ezra T. 1979. Japan As Number One. New York: Harper Colophon Books, Harper & Row Publishers.

Wagatsuma, Hiroshi. 1985. Nihonjin to Amerikajin Kokoga Oochigai. (The Japanese And The Americans: These Are The Big Differences.) Tokyo: Bungei Shunju.

Watanabe, Eiki. 1982. Ningen Hakai Kojo. (The Factory Destroying Human Beings.) Tokyo: Sanichi Shobo.

Webb, Eugene, et al. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research In The Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

Weber, Max. 1930(1905). The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

______. 1964(1947). The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. New York: Free Press.

Williams, Lawrence K . , Willisrn F. Whyte & Charles S. Green. 1966. "Do Cultural Differences Affect Workers' Attitudes?" Industrial Relations. Vol. 5.

Williams, Robin M. Jr. 1970. American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. 3rd ed. New York: Knorpf.

Woodward, Joan. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory And Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Work in America. 1981. Report Of A Special Task Force To The Secretary Of Health, Education, And Welfare, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Wray, Harry & Hilary Conroy. 1983. Japan Examined: Perspectives On M o d e m Japanese History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Yagi, Akio. 1981. Nihon Kindai Keizaishi. (Japanese Modern History.) Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Hyoronsha. 219

Yamada, Mitsuhiko. 1981. "Japanese-style Management In America -- Merits And Difficulties." Japanese Economic Studies. 10:1.

Yanagida, Kunio. (ed.) 1976. Nihonjin. (The Japanese.) Tokyo: Mainichi Shimbunsha.

Yokoyama, Gennosuke. 1949(1900). Nihonno Kaso Shakai. (The Japanese Lower Classes.) Tokyo: Rodogakuen.

Yoshida, Nobuyuki. 1986. Soshite Honda wa Tonda. (And Honda Flew.) Tokyo: Jitsugyono Nihonsha.

Yoshii, Tadaaki. 1980. Nissan. The Kaisha Series. Vol. 39. Tokyo: Asashi Sonorama.

Yoshino, M.Y. 1968. Japan's Managerial System: Tradition And Innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

______. 1975. "Emerging Japanese multinational enterprises." Modeim Japanese Organizations And Decision Making, by E.F. Vogel(ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

______. 1976. Japan's Multinational Enterprises. Cambridge: Harvard University Press APPENDIX

COVER LETTERS, QUESTIONNAIRE

220 221

f r ^ ' L T ' {fnn\.jfrrt tfM tf 1 % % $ < r > fr/Sfc^fc i^'f. k t -fr'l 3 - ^ ,

v T t ^ u H T m%*\ # p f « £ frffi. t f c CT^ 3**n % ?m£1o-f^^ z'Q ^-. ffl/Sfrn \%ye% p£\ -£ o f : f M ' f ^ f ' f •• ? # ^ v l^p] r y # < nz'^f. M% w ^ /fi* f&o'z $fu%iw i * $ £ ? £ cr

I'f $1^- ft* 3f** V f - ^ t O fc. f a ^ j f e ^ Y J - ifaftyg.^ . *?f &/*#&-.,£

3^, iN**? fci'j tf. i^l£4> tfisK? [* ^e-f? (s tt'tfr'tvTiC'rf'j.fZ&iLz

0 flfc1^ b--. f* fe & *6. cf '7 '^ ,

f#p ^ fif] ^ ^"-Cf” o & is 1c h b W - 4-2-¥- b b ?#■L&&L ) ^ z " # P i E i ^ 1:: 'Z'-'^'d. . V n V ? ? 7 l < 222

Dear Mr. ______, February 10, 1987

Through the cooperation of International Trade & Business Office, I am contacting you to participate in my doctoral dissertation on the organizational adaptation of Japanese companies in the United States.

I have enclosed a copy of "Opinion Survey of Workers In Japanese Companies." Please note that no company or employee names will be given in my dissertation and your strict confidentiality and anonymity is guaranteed since employee data from all companies will be statistically analyzed as a collective. The survey takes about 15*20 minutes to complete.

If your company is interested in participating in this survey, please circle ves on the enclosed post card and send it to me as soon as possible. If not interested, please circle no on the card and send It to me soon.

If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (614)-424-6684.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Cordially,

Kinko Ito Doctoral Candidate 223

Opinion Survey of American Workers In Japanese Companies

1. I am Klnko I to, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at the Ohio State University. 2. This survey is for a sociological study of Japanese companies operating in the United States, which I am conducting as a part of my doctoral dissertation. 3. The data you supply will be used for generating information on the attitudes of employees working in these companies. 4. You need not write down your name. Your identity will not be revealed as your responses will be statistically analyzed in the Sociology Research Laboratory at the Ohio State University. 5. Please answer all the questions as ca-'sfully and honestly as you can. 6. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation! Section A. General Information: Please circle. 1. Sex: male female

2. When did your company start production/operation? (1) less than 1 year ago (2) between 1 and 2 years ago (3) between 2 and 3 years ago (4) between 3 and 4 years ago (5) more than 4 years old (6) I don't know. 3. How long have you been working for this company? (1) less than 1 year (2) between 1 and2 years (3) between 2 and 3 years (4) between 3 and 4 years (5) more than 4 years

4. Before you got your current job, what were you doing? (1) unemployed — Please answer # 4* below. (2) working for another company (3) in school (4) other (please specify ______)

4*. If you were unemployed before you got your current job, how long was the duration? (1) less than 1 year (2) between 1 and2 years (3) between 2 and 3 years (4) more than 4 years

-1- 224

5. Are you in a supervisory position? (1) No -- Please go to Section B. (2) Yes — Please ansv7er the following questions and then go to Section B .

6. How many tines per week do you have a chance to discuss, talk and interact with the Japanese staff? (1) never (2) 1-2 times _ (3) 3-5 times (4) more than 6 times

7. How many times per week do you have officially scheduled meetings with your subordinates? (1) never (2) 1-2 times (3) 3-5 times (4) more titan 6 times 8. How many times per week do you have non-scheduled meetings with your subordinates? (1) never (2) 1-2 times (3) 3-5 times (4) more than 6 times

9. How often do you have officially scheduled meetings among yourselves? (1) never (2) 1-2 times (3) 3-5 times (4) more than 6 times 10. How often do you have non-scheduled meetings among yourselves? (1) never (2) 1-2 times (3) 3-5 times (4) more than 6 times

*** PLEASE GO TO SECTION B NOV. 225

Section B. Please read the following statements and circle the answer which best fits vour situation. Please answer ell the questions.

1. "I would recommend this company to a close friend for a job." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 2. "I feel the worker morale is usually pretty high around here." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree

3. "The pay of this company is satisfactory." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4> strongly agree 4. "I am satisfied with the various benefits this company offers." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 5. "I would like to work for this company until my retirement." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 6. "I am more satisfied with my current job than my previous Job with another American company." (If you have never worked somewhere else, please skip this question.) (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 7. "1 think it is important that everyone helps one another to accomplish company goals." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 8. "This company, as a whole, operates as one team.” (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 9. "It is a virtue to sacrifice oneself (ofte's time, energy, family etc) for one's company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 10. "Absenteeism is generally low in my company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree

11. "Cooperation is an important part of work in this company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 12. "If I have a problem with my work, management will give me a fair hearing." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree f 13. "My company has good communication channels to let us know what is going on." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 14. "It is important to have meetings in which everyone's opinion is viewed in order to increase job efficiency." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree

15. "This company has a system of committees in which those concerned can join." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree

-3- 226

16. "In my company, workers should be paid according to their age and length of service." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 17. "Seniority should always be an important factor for promotion." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 18. "My company will not lay off or fire workers for any arbitrary/ambiguous reasons." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 19. "I feel the management is concerned not only with my work but also my overall well-being as a person." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree

20. "The uniform is functional for working and saves me money on clothes." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 21. "When I wear my uniform, I feel I am one with other workers." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 22. "I like to take my paid vacation to fit in with my family, not at this company's convenience." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 23. "The chain of command and information routes of my company are clear-cut and efficient." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 2A. "The management style of my company is different from American managerial system and combines Japanese and American.managerial systems." (1) strognly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree

25. "I have problems with communication when 1 talk with the Japanese co­ workers ." (1) never (2) seldom (3) sometimes (A) very often

26. "This company's selection process of employees is different from most other American companies." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree

27. "I think this company selects certain kinds of employees who will get along here." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree 28. "Every worker goes through a systematic job training program when she/he is hired with this company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree

29. "I would be willing to go to Japan for a few week's training even if I have to leave my spouse and children." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (A) strongly agree

-A- 227

30. "If I do not perform well at one job, I can ask for another job within the company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 31. "I feel I am equal to everybody in my company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 32. "I feel I work as a member of a team in this company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree. 33. "I feel guilty to my co-workers when I have to call in sick or take a leave." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 34. "Evaluation of the workers by the management is rather slow in this company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 35. "I am willing to work overtime than go home, if I am asked to by the company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 36. "I would like to learn skills needed for various jobs in this company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 37. "I like to associate (talk, do things together) with my co-workers during break and lunch time." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 38. "Most of my friends now are from my company." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 39. "I enjoy company activities such as bowling tournaments, Christmas party and picnics." (i) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 40. "I would rather stay home than participate in company activities." (1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) disagree (4) strongly disagree 41. "I think my company is very generous in spending money on company activities." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 42. "We should work hard, but it is also important that we enjoy work." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree

« 43. "I think it proper for my boss to be concerned with my problems both on and off the job if I ask him/her." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree

-5- ♦ 228

44. "I am often invited to birthday parties, go drinking or participate in sports by my co-workers." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 45. "I feel that this company has a family type atmosphere." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree 46. "Did you have problems in communication with the Japanese staff when you first join this company?" (1) often (2) sometimes (3) seldom (4) never 47. "Db you have the same problem now?" (1) often (2) sometimes (3) seldom (4) never 48. "In my company, communication problems exist between the Japanese staff and Americans (ex. differences in gestures, and eye contacts, not finding the right words, etc) because of differences in culture. (1) often (2) sometimes (3) seldom (4) never

49. "As compared with communication between the Japanese and Americans, communication between Americans in my company is" (1) worse (2) about the same (3) better (4) much better

50. "I feel it necessary for the Japanese to convey all the information on this company to everyone." (1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) agree (4) strongly agree *This Is the end of questionnaire.

****** THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION !

-6-