Comment on Andrew Gordon

R I C H A R D RICE*

Gordon's research on the history of the Japanese labor movement tells us how they created a system of industrial relations that works, and apparently not just in Japan. Although the American educational system may be falling behind in training an educated work force, Japanese companies operating successfully in the United States - - over 70 in Tennessee alone - - use the same products of the American educational system as American companies do. It is important to stress, as Gordon has, that the Japanese industrial system is the product of the post-war years. If Japan could move so quickly from a confrontational strike- prone industrial relations system to its successful position today, so can other countries if they are willing to change and remain open to new ideas, even ones from Japan.

In the Winter 1989 issue of The Journal of Japanese Studies, Thomas Rohlen described how the educational system in Japan during the early years created an emotional attachment to the group through activities that mobilize the individual by setting routines and sharing both tasks and pleasures. This educational back- ground creates a desire for cohesion that companies further by stressing the boun- dary between all individuals within and outside an organization. Rohlen, like Gordon, argued that social order is not a given, determined by culture or history; it is something that is created and subject to change. It may be that Japanese com- panies operating in the United States will re-introduce a new social order to the United States. I say "re-introduce," because many successful Japanese tech- niques originated in America. Japanese organizations, however, seem to be better at bringing together the elements of their own culture and ideas from abroad, such as Deming's. This talent, along with the production engineering they have become so famous for, has made Japanese companies formidable competitors in one field after another.

There may be some factors imbedded in Japanese culture that make it easier for them to create a motivated, productive work force; but Gordon's historical perspective cautions us from relying too much on this explanation. Americans work just as hard as the Japanese do; in fact, many of us are workaholics. The Toyota-General Motors NUMMI Plant in Fremont, California, shows that Americans can be productive if labor-management dynamics are changed. As a former factory worker, I know that labor will respond to attention from manage-

*Richard Rice is the Director of the Japan Project at The University of Tennessee at Chat tanooga ,

TN 37403.

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH Volume XI, Number 3 Summer 1990

256 JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

ment, to being informed about the decision-making process, to gestures of equal- ity, and to concrete benefits such as profit-sharing. Good American companies know this as well as the Japanese; there is no cultural monopoly on management focused on group cohesion.

Recent studies on Japanese companies operating in England, supposedly the land of intractable labor-management division, show that " Japanese" labor rela- tions work there as well. Reportedly, English workers prefer working for Japa- nese managers in spite of the cultural and language barriers. There are lessons here for American management, for we are now talking about a level playing field. If Japanese companies do well on American soil, then we can learn from them without ascribing their success to history or Confucianism or some obscure feudal military strategy. After all, isn't that what Dr. Gordon has just described to us in his paper - - a willingness to learn and to change?