Newspaper article THE JOURNAL RECORD

U.S. Has Yawning Lead in Overall Productivity

Newspaper article THE JOURNAL RECORD

U.S. Has Yawning Lead in Overall Productivity

Article excerpt

We've been touting the Japanese ``consensus model of management'' for over a decade. Many have tried to transplant it root and stock into North America, with spotty results.

A reviewer in The New York Times (assessing a book on Mazda's U.S. operation) explains part of the problem: Consensus in Japan is ``almost opposite'' to consensus in America.

For us, achieving agreement typically means workers and the boss shouting, scrapping and finally coming together. The boss, though having the final up or down vote, is treated like a peer in the process.

In Japan, such egalitarianism is by and large unthinkable. Every person knows his place in an intricate pecking order. To be sure, a course of action emerges without the Japanese boss having to issue an explicit order (there's no ``That's it, we go with option A''); but hierarchy is far more pronounced than even in the Western ``military model.''

Consider research done by Andre Laurent at INSEAD, Europe's leading business school. Managers from a dozen nations were asked to assess the following statement:

``It is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most of the questions that his subordinates may raise about their work.'' The participative Japanese would dismiss any pretense of management omniscience, right? Guess again. Seventy-seven percent of the Japanese polled said ``yes,'' the boss must know all - most by far among all nations' respondents. Just 13 percent of Americans agreed. Incidentally, the supposedly rigid Germans were closer to us than to the Japanese.

In short, national character varies widely and often not according to stereotype.

Let's look again to Europe. The bumper sticker on my Nissan Pathfinder is a blue oval surrounded by 12 gold stars. It reads ``Europe Unie.'' The Single Market in Europe that it portends for 1992 is an exhilarating prospect.

Talk abounds of newly homogeneous continental tastes; and sizable firms are merging and forming ``strategic alliances'' at a breathtaking pace. But some observers are leery.

``Removing avoidable barriers to trade between isolated national markets is unquestionably a good idea,'' writes London Business School Professor Paul Geroski in the Sloan Management Review. ``But what gives one cause for concern is the further, often implicit proposal to populate this market with a small number of giant Eurofirms, each producing a small range of Europroducts. . .It is hard to believe that it is in anyone's interest to have a few large, arthritic dinosaurs thrashing about on the European industrial landscape. . .What will result from 1992. . .is not a large mass market, but a large market composed of very heterogeneous consumers.''

Harvard's Michael Porter, writing in The Economist, likewise fears excessive industry consolidation: ``The most competitive industries in all the European nations were those where capable national rivals were pressuring each other to advance: German cars and chemicals; Swiss pharmaceuticals, heating controls and flavorings. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.