This article addresses the issue of exportability of the Japanese model of labor relations consisting of lifetime employment, length-of-service wage and promotion, and enterprise unionism, which together are sometimes called three divine treasures. A quick examination of the model's applicability in Japan itself reveals that it is a myth rather than a reality. A survey of literature on the practices of Japanese-owned companies in Southeast Asia and North America indicates that there is a wide variation of employment practices and that the divine-treasures model is seldom followed in its entirety. Even if there is partial adoption of the model, it is difficult to determine if those seemingly Japanese features are actually imported from Japan or home grown. It is concluded, therefore, that Japanese companies are pragmatists in adapting to local conditions and that globalization of business tends to bring about convergence of different models into one that is most suitable under dynamically changing conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. For an insightful review of what has occurred in various countries, see Koji Taira, “Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations: Japanization of America or Americanization of Japanese Techniques,” (Manuscript, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1989).
2.
2. See Taishiro Shirai, ed., Contemporary Industrial Relations in Japan (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983).
3.
3. Yasuo Kuwahara, Industrial Relations System in Japan: A New Interpretation, Japanese Industrial Relations Series 16 (Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labour, 1989), esp. pp. 9-13.
4.
4. John T. Dunlop, Industrial Relations Systems (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958).
5.
5. Everett M. Kassalow, “Japan as an Industrial Relations Model,”Journal of Industrial Relations, 258(2):201-219 (June 1983).
6.
6. JTUC-RENGO, The Direction of RENGO (Tokyo: Japanese Trade Union Confederation, n.d.). Statement issued at time of Rengō's inauguration on 21 Nov. 1989.
7.
7. Kazuo Koike, “Workers in Small Firms and Women in Industry,” in Contemporary Industrial Relations in Japan, ed., Taishiro Shirai, pp. 89-116.
8.
8. Ibid., p. 102.
9.
cited in Japan Institute of Labour, Japanese Working Life Profile: Statistical Aspects (Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labour, 1989), p. 25.
10.
10. Akira Takanashiet al., Shunto Wage Offensive: Historical Overview and Prospects, Japanese Industrial Relations Series 15 (Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labour, 1989).
11.
11. Solomon B. Levine, “Employers Associations in Japan,” in Employers Associations and Industrial Relations: A Comparative Study, ed. John P. Windmuller and Alan Gladstone (New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 318-356.
12.
12. Solomon B. Levine and Koji Taira, “Interpreting Industrial Conflict: The Case of Japan,” in Labor Relations in Advanced Industrial Societies, ed. Benjamin Martin and Everett M. Kassalow (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1980), pp. 61-88.
13.
13. Koji Taira and Solomon B. Levine, “Japan's Industrial Relations: A Social Compact Emerges,” in Industrial Relations in a Decade of Economic Change, ed. H. Juris, M. Thompson, and W. Daniels (Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1985), pp. 247-300.
14.
Koji Taira , “Colonialism in Foreign Subsidiaries: Lessons from Japanese Investment in Thailand,”Asian Survey, 20(4):373-396 (Apr. 1980).
15.
See also Ichimura Shinichi, ed., Nihon kigyō In Ajia [Japanese companies in Asia] (Tokyo: Tōyō Keizai Shinpōsha, 1980), pp. 35-41.
16.
16. Nihon Rodo Kenkyu Kiko, ed., Nikkei kigyō no keiei to jinji senryaku: Ajia no jirei [Management and personnel strategies of Japanese-owned companies: The case of Asia] (Tokyo: Nihon Rōdō Kenkyu Kikō, 1990).
17.
17. See Wendy A. Smith, “The Relevance of the Japanese Model of Industrial Relations for the Analysis of Management-Labour Relations: A Case Study of a Japanese-Malaysian Venture,” in Viability of the Japanese Model of Industrial Relations, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of International Industrial Relations Association (Kyoto: International Industrial Relations Association, 1983), 5:144-181.
18.
18. Makoto Ohtsu and Hem C. Jain, Viability of the Japanese Industrial Relations System in the International Context: The Case of Canada—Management Report, Working Paper Series no. 83-02 (Saskatoon, Canada: University of Saskatchewan, College of Commerce, 1983).
19.
19. Recently, there have been notable upsurges of Japanese foreign direct investment: also in Great Britain and Australia. See, for example, the special issue on Japanization of Industrial Relations Journal, 19(1) (Spring 1988).
20.
20. Taira, “Human Resource Management.”
21.
21. William D. Torrence, “Viability of the Japanese Industrial Relations Model on the Great Plains of the United States: Kawasaki Motors Corporation, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA,” in Viability of the Japanese Model of Industrial Relations, pp. 1-13.
22.
22. Kassalow, “Japan as an Industrial Relations Model,” p. 211.
23.
23. Ibid.
24.
24. Duane Kujawa, “Technology Strategy and Industrial Relations: Case Studies of Japanese Mutinationals in the United States,”Journal of International Business Studies, 14(3):9-22 (Winter 1983).
25.
25. Haruo Shimada, “Labor Problems of Japanese Companies Abroad: Lessons from Some Successful Cases of Japanese Management Working with American Trade Unions,”Japan Labor Bulletin, 29(1):4-8 (Jan. 1990).
26.
See also Robert Grosse and Duane Kujawa, “Case NUMMI,” in International Business: Theory and Managerial Applications, ed. R. Gross and D. Kujawa (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1988), pp. 322-327.
27.
27. Full duplication of a foreign system is probably impossible. Host-country legal requirements are bound to require changes, as Sumitomo Bank discovered when it failed to promote women employees on an equal basis with men in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right Act, or when Honda conceded it had failed to provide equal employment opportunities in hiring and paying back wages to black workers. See Taira, “Human Resource Management.” It should be noted that those principles have been incorporated in a 1985 fair-employment-opportunity law in Japan, so that in Japan itself affirmative action now has to be reconciled with established recruitment, training, tenure, compensation, and promotion practices.
