Japanese And Western Management Approaches: Is Convergence Occurring?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japans rapid economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s, and the success of a number of Japanese factories overseas, led to great interest in the Japanese managerial system and some specific techniques used by Japanese companies. A plethora of books and articles were written about the value of (or threat from) Japanese business-government cooperation, the Japanese employment system and management-labor cooperation, the avoidance of excessive competition, the wide use of long-term relationships and planning, and the emphasis on growth rather than short-term profits. There was also much written about specific Japanese techniques including the use of quality circles, continuous improvement, total quality management, flexible production, and just-in-time and lean production. Many European, Canadian, and U.S. companies adopted some of the most widely publicized Japanese techniques, often in substantially modified form. Important aspects of production and logistics were revolutionized. Some companies also used modified Japanese approaches in attempting to improve management-labor relations.In Japan, the economic problems from the 1990s to the present, and the success of some foreign firms, led to increased interest in Western management approaches. There was growing concern that the traditional Japanese ways of doing business were inadequate to cope with the changing international and domestic environments. During the past decade, there has been wide discussion in the business press of the need for adopting selected Western methods. A number of Japanese companies have announced that they are changing their traditional employment practices, and mergers and acquisitions have become increasingly common. It thus might appear that Japanese and Western managerial philosophy and approaches are converging.While Japan and the West have each benefited substantially from the adoption of ideas and techniques from the other, basic differences remain in the values, beliefs, and objectives of business, government, and society. In this paper, these differences are discussed, and the degree of convergence is seen to be limited more to techniques than to the basic assumptions, objectives, and strategies that drive business.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".