Michael Rossiytsev

03/31/17
Comparative Management Essay

Introduction
The environment of an organization has a large impact on the management style used. The
difference between North America and Japan is exhibited through multiple frameworks of
cultural values. Using Hofstede's framework for cultural values (with the support of others as
well), the differences between North America and Japanese values are significant and they do
not share large similarities. This dissimilarity inhibits the possibility that North America can
implement the Japanese model for innovation that Min Basadur discusses in “Managing
Creativity: A Japanese Model.” There are three major issues in North American culture that
prevents this implementation: Individualism, Long-term Orientation, and Uncertainty
Avoidance. Keep in mind that these values do not represent the entire population that is
categorized within the North American culture, however the information is a valuable
generalization for organizations that reside within the culture.

Before describing the reasons, a brief summary of the Japanese model that Min Basadur
describes ought to be stated. The Japanese model that Basadur describes drives to motivate
employees through a system of suggestions (Employee Suggestion System), and a group
approach (Quality Circles). Employees are rewarded for each suggestion completed, big or
small. Suggestions are completed when a problem is defined, solved, and implemented.
Furthermore, managers are not allowed to contribute to the suggestion system directly, but
indirectly through the employees. Thus, ownership for employees is developed and creates a
more motivating environment to finish and solve problems.

Individualism
Individualism is compared to collectivism. To be an individualistic culture means that values are
associated with private and independent responsibility. Individualism also includes immediate
family as well whereas a collectivistic culture shares responsibility. The Hofstede model exhibits
a score of 91 for individualism compared to Japan’s score of 46. The Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck
framework for cultural values also states that North American culture values individuality and
private space (Thomas, 49).

North America is a culture based on individualism. An individualistic environment in an

organization will value private workspace. However, the Japanese model described by Min
Basadur incorporates a system around groups. These groups are called Quality Circles. The
Quality Circle activity is a group oriented approach to problem finding, solving, and
implementation. Each team member can earn rewards for the group based on individual
achievement. The contradiction between the two cultures approach on individualism and
collectivism removes the capability for the United States culture to implement the Japanese
model.
Long-term Orientation
Long-term orientation is a value concerned with the planning and strategies for the years to
come. The Hofstede model exhibits North American cultures long-term orientation value to be at
a low 26.

The work that North American managers are involved in is to reduce “short-term cost” (Basadur,
39). To incorporate the Japanese model will require training employees, and this will involve
time and money. Training is viewed as a “luxury” activity that can only be committed when “the
pressure is off” (Basadur, 31) so, with the current value of long-term values in North American
culture, it is difficult to establish a new system. Though Min Basadur describes that the Japanese
model inherently lowers short-term costs, the initial cost for training will remove an incentive for
North American managers to continue because it does not reduce short-term cost. This barrier
will prevent consideration to implement the system.

Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is concerned with the preparedness of a culture and whether or not they
are more susceptible to taking risks. A culture that exhibits high uncertainty avoidance implies a
prepared culture that tends to avoid risk. A low score means that the culture is more risk-taking
and reactive to instances instead. North America’s score resided at 46 where Japan had a score of
92.

As a North American employee, there is an inherent reluctance to avoid problems. (Basadur, 33).
That means that North American employees will tend to avoid problems until it is absolutely
necessary to face. This enforces Hofstede’s value for North American uncertainty avoidance
value and reveals an issue. The Japanese model is driven on the discovery of problems.
Therefore, since the uncertainty avoidance score for the United States is much lower than
Japan’s, and the approach to problem discovery differs drastically between the two cultures,
success of implementing the Japanese model is unlikely.

Conclusion
The drastic differences in cultural values removes the opportunity for implementing the Japanese
model. However, there are two exceptions. (1) Cultures can change over time and so what may
not be as easy to accept as a management style today can be seamlessly implemented in the
future. Also, (2) all cultural frameworks and models do not represent every entity in a culture and
so though an organization in the United States has the capability to implement the Japanese
model based on its specific cultural values, it does not necessarily mean that it can and will
succeed as well as the Japanese model in Japanese organizations.
References
Basadur, Min. Managing creativity: a Japanese model. Hamilton, Ont.: McMaster U, Michael G.
DeGroote School of Business, 1992. PDF.

Thomas, David C. “Comparing Cultures: Systematically Describing Cultural Differences.”

Cross-Cultural Management: Essential Concepts. Sage Publications, 2008. 47–69. Print.

Kochanski, Mark. “Comparative Management Notes.” CSS 350. University of Washington

Bothell. 31 Mar. 2017.