It is true that modern production techniques have contributed significantly to the growth of Japanese industries. The total quality control program, in particular, which developed from statistical quality control, has greatly contributed to the superior quality of Japanese products. The effectiveness of QC circles in Japanese factories is indisputable, and the QC activities have resulted in tremendous improvement in the production process.
Nevertheless, technical superiority is not the real secret behind Japan's high productivity. If sophisticated technology alone ensured victory in economic competition, Japan would be far behind the countries from which it has imported most of the technologies. Japan's success, if it is to be called a success, has stemmed, not from the equipment, facilities, and technologies at the plants, but rather from the effective utilization of human resources in industry. Even in quality control, another imported technique, it is the workers' strong desire to produce superior goods at each level of production that has realized the high quality of Japanese products. The real key has been the "consciousness raising" of workers on the whole.
Some years ago, campaigns carried out at a large plant to improve quality and productivity created a serious labor problem. The cases were brought before the Diet and were condemned as an inhuman "efficiency first" movement by the labor union. At present, however, the General Council of Trade Unions of Japan (Sohyo) and other labor federations approve the QC activities, as long as they remain within the framework of the Labor Standards Act. They say, "What is important for the workers is how such activities are carried out. The quality circles, at present, are led by workers and pose no problem between labor and management." In the United States, most quality control campaigns are carried out under the guidance of management, but in Japan they are conducted by the workers themselves, who therefore [Can be regarded as participating members of management. The QC movement among workers is often called jishu-kanri (self-controlled activities), a concept that is now being exported and copied by many foreign industries. What is called "Japan's treasure" by the Japanese government is this self-controlled consciousness of workers. Japanese industries have been more successful in instilling among workers the highly automated desire to accomplish the jobs than in installing the quality control system in production lines.
Principles of business administration or production techniques are not absolute; they are affected by the culture of the society. The vigor of Japanese industry stems from the effective management of human resources. The successful quality control of human emotions, based on two traditional concepts of Japanese culture—duty and dependence—is the true secret behind Japan's productivity. In this chapter, therefore, I will try to demonstrate how Japanese management conducts its unique quality control system.
In order to introduce the total picture, I direct your attention to Figure 5. While referring to it, I shall explain each box in detail so you can fully understand the total quality control system.
Paternalism—Philosophy of Japanese Management
As pointed out in Chapter 1, Japan is an economic latecomer. The Japanese company system as we know it today emerged only in the Meiji era—late in the nineteenth century. Craft shops, with paternalistic masters and their apprentices and journeymen, are out of date now, but they are the forerunners of the small "underdeveloped" factories of today. The owner-manager of a small factory plays the double role of father and employer, and the workers behave like members of the company family rather than as mere employees. The relationship between workers and management, in a way, resembles that of a fraternal order in which all are fate-sharing members of the same group. An employer usually looks upon his employees as a father does his children; and a good foreman looks upon his workers as a brother does his younger brothers. The company's activities and programs penetrate the life of each worker far beyond the daily work situation. Such problems as family finances, housing, and the education of children are usually within the scope of the company's activities. What is most notable about the system is that the company's role is not taken reluctantly or accepted grudgingly. Both management and workers assume that it is the father's—management's—responsibility to involve himself in such matters, and the children's—the workers'—privilege to receive such care and attention. It is a family-like arrangement.
In larger firms, the relationship between management and workers is definitely more remote and impersonal, since management can hardly duplicate the small owner-manager's paternal and intimate knowledge of the workers. Yet even here there is a matrix of obligation and responsibility that holds all members together. When a worker enters a large company, he is committing his entire life to the organization. In return, the company is held responsible for his economic livelihood. Even an incompetent or inefficient member of the group is cared for; he is given an appropriate place and is not expelled from the group. However, the arrangement is more clan-like than family-like, since the company is so large. The president is much like a feudalistic daimyo (lord); the workers are samurai vassals; and the company as a whole is the clan of the Tokugawa period. The workers' cohesion and sense of belonging are very similar to the loyalty and devotion of vassals in feudal days.
In short, the central force used by Japanese management to drive human resources is paternalism. The basic attitude of employers in Japan is parental—to let employees depend childishly (amaeru) on management—and employees accordingly are inclined to depend (amaetagaru) on management. The verb amaeru is derived from the adjective amai, which literally means "sweet," in the sense of a sweet taste, but is figuratively used to describe self-indulgent behavior in a situation where there is some special relationship between two people or groups. It can be said that Japanese management is amai to employees and that employees amaeru on management.
In the contract society of the West, a new worker is given a job description which tells him what he is to do and how he is to behave at work. Although he receives supervision from his boss, he is fundamentally left to himself. The whole situation tells him, "Help yourself," much as if he had been invited to a feast. He has to accomplish his job by himself, according to the job description. He is free to do his own work, but at the same time he cannot expect help from others. There is an atmosphere of "Nobody else will help you!" The relationship between employer and employee is usually set off by the exchange of labor (contribution) and wages (reward). Therefore the relationship is not vertical but rather horizontal.
In Japan, a worker is employed not by written contract but by unwritten law—a law for all family members. The worker receives a written appointment paper stating his starting salary and a booklet on company regulations. The paper is not a contract but rather the announcement of the co-relationship. When he is placed in a certain work group, he is not given any job description but is usually told, "We will help you. Depend on us!" Appropriate work is assigned to him as proof that he has become a new member of the group. The entire workload is accomplished by all members in cooperation. Thus the relationship between employer and employee is based on the feudal concept of on (a psychological debt of gratitude).