Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’: a passing enthusiasm?
■ Kevin McCormick
University of Sussex
ABSTRACT
This article critiques the construction of ‘the Japanese model’ of employment relations by sociologists in English language sociological research monographs, organization textbooks and introductory general textbooks. It demonstrates how marked differences emerged across the different genres and relates them to the different purposes of researchers and textbook writers.The article examines three particular puzzles. First, why did general textbooks adopt ‘the Japanese model’ in the 1990s when media commentaries were announcing the demise of the
Japanese model in Japan? Second, why did the 1990s textbooks use 1980s organization textbooks rather than research monographs for their sources? Third, why are general textbooks ready to distance themselves from the model in 2006 when researchers confirm continuing vitality in the Japanese model in large Japanese
companies? Answering these questions reveals how sociological knowledge of Japanese employment has been generated, disseminated and used in research, teaching and policy debates.
KEY WORDS
bureaucracy / Japanese employment system / Japanization / lifetime employment / sociology textbooks
Introduction: sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’
For decades, people around the world marvelled at the economic miracle of Japanese organizations. But the praise was premature. Around 1990 the Japanese economy entered a downturn that is only now showing signs of ending. As a result of this downturn, most Japanese companies no longer offer workers jobs for life or any of the other benefits noted by Ouchi. (Macionis, 2005: 184)
751 Work, employment and society Copyright © 2007 BSA Publications Ltd®
Volume 21(4): 751–771
[DOI: 10.1177/0950017007082883]
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
The Japanese model
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Should sociologists abandon ‘the Japanese model’? Among many versions of ‘the Japanese model’ across the social sciences, sociologists made a distinctive contribution through research on work and employment relations
(McCormick, 2004). From the 1950s to the 1970s, research monographs identified a distinctive set of employment relations in large Japanese factories based around relatively long-term employment relations for regular male workers, a heavy weighting to length of service (seniority) in pay and promotion and union organization based on the enterprise (Abegglen, 1958; Clark, 1979; Cole, 1971, 1979; Dore, 1973). From the 1980s, organization texts began to attribute a large measure of the success of Japanese manufacturers to these employment relations (Clegg, 1990; Ouchi, 1981). Through the 1990s, a stream of English language sociology textbooks incorporated ‘the Japanese model’ of employment relations in order to offer an alternative to Weberian bureaucracy in chapters on organization. Positive accounts persisted in the textbooks despite proliferating media accounts of ‘the death of the Japanese model’ (Giddens, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2001; Macionis, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002). During the 1990s, the media, from financial journalism to television documentaries, were flooded with accounts of companies abandoning ‘lifetime employment’ and ‘seniority pay’ and claims that the oncevaunted distinctive features of Japanese employment lay behind the relatively disappointing performances of Japanese companies and the Japanese economy.
Ironically, general textbooks (Giddens, 2006; Macionis, 2004, 2005) now appear ready to distance themselves from the Japanese model just as researchers are confirming its continuing vitality (Inagami and Whittaker, 2005; Jacoby,
2005; Vogel, 2006).
The historical timeline of ‘the Japanese model’ suggests a diffusion process from research monographs to organization textbooks to general textbooks.
But, general textbooks drew relatively little directly from research. Instead they drew on organization textbooks. Moreover, while researchers continued to revise ‘the Japanese model’, textbook writers largely maintained their original versions through subsequent editions. While some general textbooks drew on organizational texts to argue that Japanese organizational forms could be transferred to other countries, others contended that Japanese organizational forms were too culturally embedded to be transferable. Researchers, commentators and textbook writers appear to draw on different sources and to present different accounts of the Japanese model for different purposes. Does it matter?
A priori there are several grounds for believing that it does matter. First,
the central elements in ‘the Japanese model’ – employment security, skill formation,
participation and work–life balance – remain salient for employees and
sociologists across societies (Noon and Blyton, 2007). Second, the Japanese
model was conceived in manufacturing industry and requires re-examination as
the balance of economic activity in Japan changes from manufacturing to services.
Third, the degree of resilience of national institutions regulating work and
employment institutions under the pressure of globalization excites widespread
interest. Fourth, discrepancies between research monographs, organization
752 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
textbooks and general textbooks stimulate questions about the generation of
sociological knowledge, its validity and reliability, its dissemination, and the
development of traditions in research and teaching. Fifth, the English language
accounts of the Japanese model were largely the work of foreign sociologists
either researching Japan or drawing on secondary literature to comment on
Japan in textbooks, but there is now a wealth of research in other languages
that is becoming increasingly accessible in English (Mouer and Kawanishi,
2005: 24–65).
Therefore the following sections examine three particular puzzles. First,
why did textbooks adopt ‘the Japanese model’ in the 1990s as media commentaries
announced its demise? Second, why did the 1990s general textbooks
adopt 1980s organization textbooks rather than research monographs for their
sources? Third, why are textbooks now ready to distance themselves from the
Japanese model as researchers confirm its continuing vitality in Japan?
Textbooks, media and Japanese employment
While the Japanese economy enjoyed unprecedented success in the late
1980s, it was an unsustainable ‘bubble economy’. After its collapse in 1991,
many business analysts highlighted endemic institutional weaknesses in
Japan, including the employment system. Against this background, it is surprising
that several popular general sociology textbooks advanced the merits
of the Japanese model in the mid-1990s. However, the first general
textbook accounts of the Japanese model appeared in the late 1980s, predated
the 1991 collapse and drew on images of the early 1980s. Moreover,
general textbooks did not aim to report contemporary Japan per se; rather
they intended to illustrate alternatives to Weberian bureaucracy in chapters
on organization. In addition to demonstrating the validity of the model as a
description and explanation of Japanese organization, the general textbooks
were interested in whether or not the Japanese model could be exported to
the English-speaking countries of their readership, the USA or UK. Table 1
shows the distribution of textbooks across the two dimensions of validity in
Japan and transferability outside Japan. The ‘pioneer texts’ were positive
along both dimensions, drawing on Ouchi’s (1981) organizational text to
demonstrate the validity of the model in Japan and other sources to argue
that it could be exported to the USA or UK (Giddens, 1989; Macionis,
1987). While several of the late 1990s American and British textbooks
accepted the validity of the model in Japan, they were sceptical about its
transfer to the USA or UK (Andersen and Taylor, 1999; Fulcher and Scott,
1999; Marsh, 1996; Taylor, 1996). One textbook adopted a distinctive perspective
by challenging the validity of the model in Japan, and a fortiori its
exportability (Henslin, 1996). However, after 2000, even the pioneers began
distancing themselves from the Japanese model (Giddens, 2006: 666;
Macionis, 2005: 184).
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 753
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
There has been heated debate whether Japan’s 1990s problems were internally
or externally generated. In 1985, the Japanese government bowed to
American pressure to revalue the yen upwards against the dollar to reduce
Japan’s trade surplus with the US. Fearing domestic recession, the Japanese
Ministry of Finance eased monetary policy, encouraged bank lending and
fuelled asset price inflation. Loans went into property speculation, generating a
‘bubble economy’. Eventually, the government curbed bank lending and the
bubble collapsed. The subsequent recession proved intractable through the
1990s despite government policies and organizational restructuring. The extent
of the difficulties, including non-performing loans, was obscured by nondisclosure,
embarrassment and hopes that economic recovery would cover the
problems. Although the problems were financial in origin, the debates on poor
economic performance spread from criticism of government policy to critiques
of deeper institutional failure.
Striking similarities in the pioneering textbooks owed much to their use of
a common source. Table 2 illustrates their use of Ouchi’s (1981) organization
text and its central thesis that Japanese organizations provided viable alternatives
to Weberian bureaucracy. Giddens echoed Ouchi’s view that Japanese success
was linked to eliciting employee commitment. In the late 1990s, Giddens
noted Japan’s economic difficulties, but maintained that the central thesis was
unaffected since the Japanese example had influenced successful reform in the
West. While Macionis located the origins of the model in Japanese culture,
Giddens remained silent on origins. Despite differences on the treatment of origins
and the significance of culture, both writers agreed that Japanese organizations
could be successful in the USA and UK and were influencing American
and British organizations. Later, Macionis collaborated with a British sociologist
on a text for the European market and incorporated Ouchi’s account into
the wider framework of Clegg’s thesis about the search for flexibility and the
general drift towards post-modern forms of organization (Macionis and
Plummer, 1997).
Some later American textbook writers also used Ouchi’s organizational text
as their main source, but with a sceptical twist. Andersen and Taylor reported
Ouchi’s account in terms of lifetime employment in one company in Japan, but
doubted its applicability to the USA because of its cultural embeddedness
754 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Table 1 Textbook Accounts of ‘the Japanese Model’
Transferable to ‘the West’ Not Transferable to ‘West’
Valid in Japan Macionis (1st ed., USA, 1987) Andersen and Taylor (1st ed., USA, 1999)
Giddens (1st ed., UK, 1989) Taylor (1st ed., UK, 1996)
Marsh (1st ed, UK, 1996)
Fulcher and Scott (1st ed., UK, 1999)
Not valid in Japan – Henslin (1st ed., USA, 1996)
Macionis (11th ed., USA, 2005)
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Table 2 Contrasting ‘the Japanese Model’ against the Weberian (or Western) model in the 1980s
1 2 3 4
The ‘Japanese Model’ US Employment Practice The ‘Japanese Model’ The Textbook Weberian
From Macionis From Macionis From Giddens Model From Giddens
A Hiring and advancement
‘In Japanese formal organizations, new In American formal organizations, ‘At all levels of the corporation,
graduates from schools are hired together employees compete with one people are involved in small teams or
as a group and receive much the same another for promotions and work groups.The groups, rather than
salary and responsibilities.As one moves higher salaries. 149 individual members, are evaluated in
ahead so do they all. Only after many years terms of their performance.’ 284
is any one person likely to be singled out
for special advancement.’ 149
B Lifetime security Job security
‘But in the large formal organizations in ‘Job security in the United States ‘The large corporations in Japan are Advancement is determined by
Japan, an employee is hired to remain for varies from organization to committed to the lifetime employment ‘a competitive struggle for
an entire career.This fosters a sense of organization, but is generally of those they hire – the employee is promotion’. 284
identification with the organization that is limited.Workers frequently guaranteed a job. Pay and responsibility
rare in the United States. Once Japanese move from company to are geared to seniority – how many
workers have spent several years with one company in an effort to years a worker has been with the
organization and learned its particular maximize their personal firm – rather than to a competitive
policies, other organizations would be advantages.’ 150 struggle for promotion.’ 284
unlikely to hire them, even if they wished
to change jobs.’ 150
(continued)
755
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
756
Table 2 (Continued)
1 2 3 4
The ‘Japanese Model’ US Employment Practice The ‘Japanese Model’ The Textbook Weberian
From Macionis From Macionis From Giddens Model From Giddens
C Non-specialized training Less specialization
‘From the outset, a Japanese organization Bureaucratic organization in the ‘In Japanese organizations, employees ‘The American trainee will almost
trains its employees in all phases of its United States is based on specialize much less than their certainly specialize in one area
particular operation.This is done, of specialized activity, so that a counterparts in the West … Take the of banking early on, and stay in
course, with the expectation that person’s entire career often example of Sugao, as described by that specialism for the
employees will remain with the has a single focus. 196 William Ouchi (1981)’. 283 remainder of his or her working
organization for life.’ 150 life’ 284
D Collective decision-making Bottom-up decision-making
‘While the leaders of Japanese organizations ‘Decision-making in American ‘The big Japanese corporations do not
have final responsibility for their company’s organizations is typically the form a pyramid of authority as Weber
performance, they encourage all workers responsibility of a handful of portrayed it, with each level being
to offer input about any issue that affects executives.’ 196 responsible only to the one above. In
them.This principle strengthens workers’ Japanese firms workers low down in
identification with the organization as a the organization are consulted about
whole, and is also reflected in the operation policies being considered by
of many semiautonomous working groups management, and even the top
within the organization. Rather than simply executives regularly meet them.The
responding to the directives of superiors, all Japanese refer to this system as
employees share some managerial “bottom-up” decision-making.’ 283
responsibilities.’ 150–1
(continued)
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
757
Table 2 (Continued)
1 2 3 4
The ‘Japanese Model’ US Employment Practice The ‘Japanese Model’ The Textbook Weberian
From Macionis From Macionis From Giddens Model From Giddens
E Holistic involvement Merging of work and private lives
‘Japanese organizations, in contrast, are ‘In the United States, a person’s ‘Japanese corporations, by contrast, ‘In Weber’s depiction of
involved in all aspects of their employees’ working life and private life are provide for many of their employees’ bureaucracy there is a clear
lives.They often provide dormitory housing generally separated’ 196. needs, expecting in return a high level division between the work of
or mortgages for the purchase of homes, of loyalty to the firm.The electrical the individual within the
sponsor recreational activities, and firm Hitachi, for example, studied by organization and her or his
schedule a wide range of social events in Ronald Dore, provides housing for all activities outside.This is in fact
which all workers participate. Employee unmarried workers and nearly half of true of most Western
interaction outside the workplace its married male employees. Company corporations, in which the
strengthens collective identity and also loans are provided for the education relation between firm and
provides a chance for the Japanese of children, and to help with the cost employee is an economic
worker – characteristically very respectful of weddings and funerals.’ 284 one.’ 284
towards superiors on the job – to more
readily voice suggestions and criticisms.’ 150
Sources: constructed from Macionis (1987) pp.148–52, and Giddens (1989) pp. 283–6.
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
(Andersen and Taylor, 1999, 2003, 2004: 163–4). By contrast, Henslin
discussed the Japanese model in terms of ‘myth’ versus ‘reality’: Ouchi represented
the ‘myth’ of how Japanese organizations were supposed to work, while
a variety of sources (including Wall Street Journal articles) were used to reveal
‘the reality’ (Henslin, 1996, 1998, 2004, 2006). Henslin proclaimed that not all
workers participate in the lifetime employment system, but this was a straw man
since Ouchi never claimed that they did. Henslin cited Morita’s championship of
the Sony Walkman to deny Ouchi’s portrayal of ‘bottom-up decision-making’ in
Japanese bureaucracy. Yet the example of an owner-entrepreneur cannot confound
the typification of a bureaucracy, since the owner-entrepreneur stands
above and outside the bureaucracy. Moreover, the attribution of the Sony
Walkman to heroic entrepreneurship and the presentation of Sony as a typical
Japanese company were both problematic (Du Gay et al., 1997: 46–51).
Later British textbooks used the concept of ‘Japanization’, focusing on the
potential transferability of Japanese organizational forms to the UK rather than
examining organizations in Japan. These texts gave greater prominence to
labour unions and industrial relations, neglected by Macionis and Giddens. All
doubted the likelihood of successful Japanization. Taylor used Clegg’s organizational
text to portray Japanese companies as ‘post-modern organizations’
(Taylor, 1996, 1998). To the core elements of lifetime employment, seniority
pay and enterprise unionism, Taylor added network subcontracting, just-intime
production, flexible work practices, quality control and group support to
support the thesis that Japanese companies have a central concern with ‘flexibility’
(Taylor, 2004: 378–9). Citing secondary sources, Taylor doubted the
transferability of Japanese forms to the UK since they were too deeply rooted
in Japanese culture and only selectively adapted by British managers. Again,
this is a straw man since Japanese managers engage in selective adaptation too.
Using secondary sources, Marsh added another sceptical note about
‘Japanization’, particularly the prospects for flexibility and teamwork (Marsh,
1996; Marsh and Keating, 1999, 2006). Marsh contended that Japanese companies
had limited impact in the UK since they had only 15,000 employees
compared to 450,000 in American-owned firms (Marsh and Keating, 1999:
187–8). This focus on ‘direct Japanization’ neglected the potential for emulators
to introduce elements of Japanese organizational practice (Oliver and
Wilkinson, 1992). Unusually among textbook writers, Fulcher and Scott had
both researched Japanese institutions. They wove the Japanese model into three
chapters from industrial relations to organizations to welfare policy, basing
their version on a research monograph (Fulcher, 1988; Fulcher and Scott, 1999,
2003; Scott, 1986). Their interest lay in the 1980s Japanization thesis of British
industrial relations reform. They cited Dore’s 1973 comparative study as the
template for differences, concluding that the Japanese model had had little
influence in Britain (Fulcher and Scott, 1999: 532–3). However, this view
underestimated reforming influence through sapping confidence in British institutions
rather than by replacing them with Japanese institutions (McCormick,
2002). Like other textbook writers, they examined the Japanese model as
758 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
debureaucratization and cited Clegg’s critique of Weber’s universalism in
bureaucracy (Fulcher and Scott, 1999: 662–3, 669–70). Unusually, they
extended ‘Japanization’ to British debates on the changing role of the state in
social welfare and made cross-references to the incorporation of workers at
company level (Fulcher and Scott, 2003: 760).
Textbooks, research and polemics
General textbooks largely ignored the research that comprised the core English
language literature of the Japanese model. Instead, textbook writers tended to
rely on secondary materials in organizational textbooks (Clegg, 1990; Ouchi,
1981). Ouchi’s attraction for textbook writers lay in his bold polemic, authoritative
style and the neat fit with their debureaucratization theme. Clegg’s text
was attractive for links to contemporary theorizing on post-modernity. In both
cases, textbook writers have tended to simplify to the point of distortion and
misleading interpretation. For example, they omitted Ouchi’s caveats about the
extent of employment security and Clegg’s caveats about cultural explanations.
In the early 1970s, Richard Tanner Johnson and William Ouchi collaborated
in a prominent account of Japanese companies’ successful introduction of
features of Japanese organization into their US factories (Johnson and Ouchi,
1974). Later, Johnson (now named Pascale) co-authored a best-seller text on
Japanese management style that gained a direct channel of influence into US
business through the McKinsey consulting organization (Pascale and Athos,
1981). Ouchi also entered the bestseller lists with an emphasis on the social
context of business (Ouchi, 1981). He argued that Weberian bureaucracy
became a model of efficiency in small-scale 19th-century Prussian society, but
saw serious problems for this organizational form in late 20th-century America
(Ouchi, 1981: 63–4). By contrast, Ouchi claimed that Japan retained many of
the characteristics of small scale society in its cultural practices and used lifetime
employment, participative decision-making and a holistic concern for people
to build organizational communities. Ouchi’s ‘Theory Z’ offered solutions
for the USA with a superior blend of Japanese and American best practice.
Cross-cultural psychologists, however, criticized the vagueness about how cultural
practices were to be hybridized (Schein, 1981).
A decade later, Stewart Clegg’s organization text focused on the parallel
oppositions of modernity/post-modernity and differentiation/de-differentiation,
and the potential for organizational forms to transcend bureaucracy as the
archetypical modern organization (Clegg, 1990: 2–24). Since Japanese organizations
offered examples of post-modern and de-differentiated organizations,
Clegg argued that Japanese organizations could not be fully understood within
Weberian paradigms, although the Japanese model was just one of several alternatives
to bureaucratic forms, including French bakeries and Italian clothing
production (Clegg, 1990: 132–52). Yet Clegg picked his way through the literature
to challenge excessive emphasis on cultural factors in explanations of
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 759
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Japanese organization. He noted that many features of Japanese organization
had been imported and adapted from the USA. The attraction of Clegg’s
account for textbook writers lay in its use of post-modern theorizing, the scope
for ideal types of the modern/inflexible versus the post-modern/flexible organization
and links to debates about flexibility in business studies. Textbook writers
overlook his critique of assumptions about the culture-bound character of
Japanese organization. Later, Clegg collaborated with a Japanese researcher to
show how Japanese companies were responding to pressures from lower economic
growth prospects, new technologies and increased global competition
with more flexible uses of lifetime employment, increasing use of specialists,
incorporating ability and performance elements in pay, and accepting widening
pay differentials in their labour force (Kono and Clegg, 2001: 270–78).
In the 1980s, ‘Japanese-style management’ (nihonteki keiei) was widely
perceived to be positively linked to production systems that not only delivered
success in Japan, but overseas too. It appeared to provide human resource management
that gave relatively more effective support for international managers
than American methods (Tung, 1982). Yet, in the process of experimenting and
learning about transplants, elements of the production system were more readily
applied than elements of the employment system. Moreover, elements of the
human resource management system seen as most crucial to production were
least likely to be hybridized (Liker et al., 1999: 5–11).
Textbooks, research and ‘the end of the Japanese model’
The general textbooks’ presentation of ‘the Japanese model’ has been problematic
both in their selective treatment of their source material and in their relative
neglect of contemporary sociological research. Both shortcomings are evident
in closer examination of the main dimensions of the Ouchi–Macionis–Giddens
versions of the Japanese model (Table 2).
Employment security
Ouchi put employment security at the heart of Japanese organizations: ‘The
most important characteristic of the Japanese organization is lifetime employment:
it is the rubric under which many facets of Japanese life and work are
integrated’ (Ouchi, 1981: 17). But Ouchi added two important qualifications.
First, he estimated that only 35 percent of the labour force was included, mainly
those in large companies and the public sector. Second, he emphasized that the
retirement age was 55, when an employee might go to a satellite company on
less generous terms than those in the core company. Although Macionis and
Giddens mention the qualification of large corporations, references to ‘job
guarantees’ were misleading (see Table 2, row B).
Ouchi added three further qualifications about the use of ‘buffers’ that
were omitted in textbook summaries. First, he noted that the twice-yearly
760 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
bonus element in pay related pay to variations in overall company performance.
Second, he noted that non-regular workers, typically women, protected the
security of regular workers – ‘The central fact remains, however, that women
serve as a “buffer” to protect the job stability of men’ (Ouchi, 1981: 24). Third,
he saw another buffer in the small firm sector where suppliers and sub-contractors
were used to absorb economic shocks and protect employment in the
large firm sector (Ouchi, 1981: 24–5). These qualifications identified a segmented
labour force inside and outside the large companies. Omitting these
qualifications meant missing the links to issues of social class and gender.
The distinctive feature of post-war Japanese manufacturing organization
was not the employment security of white-collar employees, but the blurring of
the white-collar and blue-collar distinctions that had marked pre-war Japanese
organizations. The new pattern emerged from bitter industrial struggles
through the late 1940s and early 1950s (Gordon, 1993, 1998). One positive
outcome of ‘the white collarization of the blue-collar worker’ was the boost to
skill formation on the shop floor of manufacturing industry (Koike, 1988: 53).
Now, the open question is whether Japan’s labour movement has either the will
or the strength to sustain some of these gains of the early post-war compromise
in a changing economy and society.
While many blue-collar men were incorporated into ‘salaryman’ terms and
conditions, women were largely excluded. Although the 1945 Constitution
offered formal equality, the structure of lifetime employment and seniority pay
reinforced ideological continuities and female exclusion from the scarce ‘good
jobs’ since it penalized career breaks. Meanwhile enterprise unions represented
(male) regular workers. So long as the economy prospered, companies grew and
household incomes rose, critics of the gendered division of labour could be
chastised for rocking the boat of economic success. That economic success cannot
be attributed to the functional flexibility of secure salarymen. Female parttime
labour provided much flexibility too (Gottfried and Hayashi-Kato, 1998).
The subtle and the not-so subtle aspects of gender politics in Japanese corporations
can be seen in the efforts of relatively powerless female clerical workers
(the Office Ladies) to influence the careers of the male salarymen (Ogasawara,
1998). Some Japanese managers and companies have bumped awkwardly into
equal opportunity legislation in Britain and the USA (Sakai, 2000). Although
Japan’s 1986 Equal Employment Opportunity legislation had negligible sanctions,
there have been some changes. It has stimulated educational aspirations
and some limited recruitment of women to the male dominated ‘managerial
career track’.
The term ‘lifetime employment’, widely used in research, organization textbooks
and general textbooks has been eye-catching, but problematic. Abegglen
(1958) coined it in both English and Japanese, in the latter case because his
Japanese translator had to find a term (shu-shin koyo-) where none existed in
Japanese (Takanashi, 1999: 14–19). Subsequently, Abegglen called it naive,
preferring ‘career employment’, since employment was never for life (Abegglen,
2001). Takanashi complained that the term’s popularity reflected excessive
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 761
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Japanese deference to foreign researchers, and that it obscured the considerable
flexibility existing in Japanese labour markets (Takanashi, 1999).
The 1991 collapse revived debates about the viability of Japan’s ‘lifetime
employment’ system, particularly as the American and British economies prospered
and revived interest in the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. Critics
lambasted ‘the lifetime employment system’ as a prime example of Japan’s institutional
sclerosis. Employment security was blamed for inhibiting responses to
changed circumstances, for curbing rewards to initiative and effort, for discouraging
risk-taking and entrepreneurship. While some called for its abandonment,
others called for incremental change. Nikkeiren (the Japanese
Managers’ Association) proposed reduction of the proportion of the labour
force in the long-term employment system and expansion of more short-term
contracts to reflect employer needs for specialist skills (Nikkeiren, 2000). Some
companies kept faith with expectations of secure employment for core employees
by re-interpreting ‘lifetime employment’ as employment within the company
group rather than an individual company, albeit with potential re-location and
less advantageous employment terms (Sato, 1997).
Media announcements of change in Matsushita, often portrayed as a very
conservative and quintessential Japanese company, have served as weathervanes
of change in Japan. Yet Kono and Clegg argue that Matsushita has been
increasing variety in its employment and reward practices rather than making
wholesale changes (Kono and Clegg, 2001). Company statements on their
retention of lifetime employment for the core of regular workers are used to
illustrate the economic rationality of the employment system for skill formation
and technology strategies (Oaklander, 1997). Some companies used announcements
of dramatic change as symbolic signals to the workforce of the need for
adaptation rather than forerunners of substantial redundancy (Lincoln and
Nakata, 1997). Japanese corporations have broadly maintained ‘lifetime
employment’ for the male regular workers in their existing labour force while
shrinking the scope of the system by severely restricting new hiring, leading to
concern about skill formation opportunities for young non-regular workers and
widening income inequalities (Inagami and Whittaker, 2005: 32–50; Jacoby,
2005: 69–72; Matanle and Lunsing, 2006).
Work roles and rewards
Accounts of work roles allocated to groups rather than individuals and heavy
weight given to seniority are usually linked to images of Japan as a hierarchical
‘group oriented society’ (Nakane, 1970). Yet this has been a highly contested
view, criticized for an excessive and ideological stress on the cultural dimensions
of ‘groupism’ in Japanese life. Contrasts between collectivism versus individualism
should not be used as self-evident shorthand, sociologists should spell
out the links between the group level and the wider organization and the way
that groups are linked to organizational designs (Rohlen, 1975: 208).
762 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
The image of a wholly ‘generalist’ managerial labour force has been challenged
by calls for more short-term contracts and differentiated human resource
management practices for increasing numbers of specialists, such as R&D and
IT workers (Nikkeiren, 2000). But surveys of ‘creative workers’ and company
professionals suggest that the main obstacles to their effectiveness lie with management
practices rather than traditional employment practices (Inagami and
Whittaker, 2005: 51–68).
The role of ‘seniority’ (length of service) in pay determination has been
much debated, re-interpreted and revised. While there was an intuitive consistency
in rewarding length of service alongside lifetime employment, there
has been more discussion of shifts to ‘ability wages’, or even ‘performance
pay’ as the main principle underlying pay during the 1990s. But once
account is taken of the many elements used in pay determination in Japan
and the changing weights attached to them, then the more explicit references
to ‘ability wages’ do not represent a sharp break with the past so much as
contemporary adaptation (Holzhausen, 2000). Nevertheless, seniority is
declining in its significance and companies are introducing larger wage differentials
in their pay schemes (Rebick, 2005: 44–53). Experience with performance-
related pay has been very mixed, some trials have been abandoned
and it is still used far less than in the USA (Jacoby, 2005: 143; Vogel, 2006:
123–4). Pay flexibility being sought through increases in bonus rather than
base pay.
Decision-making
Although many popular accounts contrast a Western propensity for individual
decision-making with a Japanese propensity for collective decision-making,
research monographs offered more nuanced accounts of authority and decisionmaking
(Abegglen, 1958: 71–93; Clark, 1979: 125–34; Dore, 1973: 224–31).
Abegglen complained that Ouchi pushed contrasts too far with the impression
that all decisions in Japan were made slowly and by groups and that all decisions
in the West were made quickly and by individuals (Abegglen and Stalk,
1985: 208–9).
Ouchi highlighted the ringi system of decision-making where a relatively
lowly official proposed a course of action and sought support from colleagues
and seniors. The ringi-sho document spiralled among peers and seniors to
gather comments, support and formal approval, typically by the stamp of a personal
seal. A document could carry several dozen seals before reaching the top
level. One problem with the contrast of Japanese ‘bottom-up’ image of decision-
making set against Western ‘top-down’ decision-making lies in disentangling
whether juniors only initiate proposals favoured by their senior. The
definition of ‘ringi’ as ‘a system of reverential inquiry about a superior’s intention’,
with roots in the Meiji era, should prompt caution about strong contrasts
with heroic Western leadership (Tsuji, 1968: 457).
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 763
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Some textbooks followed Ouchi in contrasting informal modes of decisionmaking
in Japan with the distribution of formal authority in the Weberian ideal
type (see Table 2). Giddens goes too far in asserting that Japanese organizations
do not have formal structures of authority as in the Weberian model (Giddens,
1997: 295; Ouchi, 1981: 43). A more complex picture emerged from matched
comparisons of Japanese and American manufacturing plants. Japanese companies
delegated less formal authority in decision-making than their American
counterparts, but used a greater variety of supplementary informal modes of
consultation (Lincoln et al., 1986: 353).
Many Western observers, keen to emphasize the virtues of greater
employee participation in decision-making, liked the image of ‘bottom-up’ decision-
making. Yet stressing the positive side of collective decision-making,
Ouchi and the textbook writers glossed over the relatively slow speed of decision-
making (albeit often off-set by speedier implementation) and the factionalism
rampant in Japanese bureaucracies.
Contemporary debates about the reform of corporate governance have
moved discussion of decision-making above the managerial layers of corporate
bureaucracy. During the 1990s, many Japanese companies sought the
creation of more high value added and creative products. In turn, reform
champions called for personnel policies to foster more creative labour and
greater reliance on capital markets. Reformers urged greater attention to the
interests of shareholders, often implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) marking
a shift away from the interests of the long-term employees. Early research suggested
that changes in the structure and composition of company boards of
directors or the criteria for decision-making and corporate governance were
unlikely to undermine employment stability as a goal for companies (Berggren
and Nomura, 1997; Inagami, 2001). Dore argues that government initiatives,
corporate governance reforms (smaller boards, the addition of more outsiders
and the introduction of the US-style ‘corporate officer’ system), ideological
shifts among managers (more attention to share prices than market share),
and relative movements in dividends upwards and wages downwards herald
a changed kind of capitalism in Japan (Dore, 2006/07). Yet explicit comparisons
at corporate level suggest that ‘corporate governance reforms and
employment reforms have been somewhat decoupled’ (Inagami and
Whittaker, 2005: 108), and that there are still significant differences between
Japanese and American corporations in corporate governance (Jacoby, 2005:
144–5; Vogel, 2006: 134–40).
Boundaries of employment
Japanese success in building employer–employee relations that transcended the
cash nexus is a core theme from Ouchi to the early textbooks. Allegedly, companies
exchanged paternalistic benevolence for employee loyalty. In an unusual
citation of a research monograph, Giddens noted Dore’s 1973 account of housing
provision for ‘all unmarried and nearly half the married male employees’
764 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
(Giddens, 2006: 666). Yet Japan is losing this international distinctiveness in
the level of company provided housing, as new hires fell and many unused
housing assets were sold over the 1990s (Wiltshire, 2004).
There are deeper debates about the notion of loyalty for benevolence
too. Employers and managers worked hard to minimize ‘the free rider’ problem,
using a mix of positive and negative sanctions to discourage settling for
‘the quiet life’. At its extreme, some of the pressure of intrusive and overbearing
control of the white-collar workforce secured official recognition in
karoshi (‘death from overwork’) (National Defense Counsel for Victims of
Karoshi, 1990). The desirability and feasibility of adopting Japanese-style
work organization prompted debates where champions argued that Japanese
factories were post-Fordist, offering new levels of worker satisfaction; while
critics argued that Japanese work organization was merely a novel brand of
super-Fordism, even more ruthless in the exploitation of workers (Kato and
Steven, 1993).
While many employees continued to value security in the turbulent 1990s,
growing confidence in a resurgent economy is now encouraging speculation
about the aspirations of young employees for greater control of both their work
lives and their lives beyond the workplace (Matanle, 2003). Some observers
identify changing values and more aspirations for self-development among the
salarymen, arguing that ‘the selfless, salaried samurai, one-time superstar of
Japan’s golden economic era, is now a misfit, shunned by company and family’
(Nakamoto, 1997: I).
Conclusions
For almost half a century since Abegglen’s slim research monograph, sociologists
have conceptualized employment relations in large Japanese companies in
terms of difference and a distinctive Japanese model. They have debated their
origins, functions and benefits for employees, employers, customers, suppliers
and citizens. Yet the world of work has become more complex. In the early
years, the Japanese model could be conceived in terms of Japanese employees
in Japanese-owned organizations operating in Japan. Now Japanese corporations
operate outside Japan and more foreign corporations operate in Japan. An
extensive literature examines how the Japanese model overseas has been modified
to different host environments and how foreign companies have adapted
human resource management to Japanese labour markets (Abo, 1994; Cole,
1998; Elger and Smith, 1994; Liker et al., 1999). Japanese sociologists, writing
in English, have added a critical counterweight to earlier bullish business perspectives
(Mouer and Kawanishi, 2005). The durability of the Japanese model
has been a remarkable achievement. Yet it has taken different forms in different
genres from original research monographs to organizational textbooks to
general introductory textbooks in mass higher education markets. To understand
how they co-exist we can return to our opening questions.
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 765
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
1) English language general textbooks pioneered the Japanese model in the
late 1980s when Japan’s economic success reinforced their account of a
viable alternative to Weberian bureaucracy. Given this prime focus, they
ignored the mid-1990s media accounts of changing employment relations
for another decade. Most textbooks with first editions from the mid-1990s
took the model in Japan uncritically because they were largely focused on
questions about institutional transferability to the UK and USA, rather
than Japan.
2) The general textbooks have tended to prefer the summaries of organizational
texts to research monographs for their source material because they
lend themselves more readily to the formidable tasks of simplification
required of textbook writers. Simplification is inherent in model building;
for example, the early researchers were selective in choosing which dimensions
of employment relations to characterize as different between factory
life in Japan and their home countries. Now, with increasing variety in
employment practices across Japan, researchers will be increasingly cautious
about titles such as ‘the Japanese factory’ or ‘the Japanese company’
(Wood, 1991). The textbook writers’ awesome task is to squeeze ‘the
Japanese model’ into just two or three pages in chapters on organizations
or employment relations. Their dilemma is how to achieve the simplification
involved in condensation without misleading omission or gross caricature.
3) The readiness of textbooks that had championed ‘the Japanese model’ to
revise their accounts might appear long overdue. However, it begs the question
which Japanese model? Initially, Giddens was agnostic about economic
success and conceded that it might have stemmed from long hours
and exploitation rather than employee commitment, but this caveat disappeared
from later editions (Giddens, 1989). Later, Giddens outlined the
familiar model, omitted reference to Ouchi, recognized conflicts between
‘traditionalists’ (keen for continuities) and ‘radical capitalists’ (eager for
reform towards individualistic practices) but refrained from speculation on
the likely outcome (Giddens, 2006: 664–6). Macionis went further to abandon
the model (Macionis, 2005: 184). Yet, having dropped Ouchi’s important
caveats they had been presenting an overly rosy version of the model
compared to organization texts and research monographs. Abandonment
of that version was long overdue.
Researchers undertook major revisions. Later, Abegglen gave more weight
to the timing of industrialization, compared to his earlier emphasis on cultural
factors (Abegglen, 1973). Dore gave more attention to finance in revision (Dore,
1990: 425–7). Above all, it is clear that ‘the Japanese model’ has been a ‘contested
concept’ in its description, interpretation and explanation. As the sense of
‘model’ changed in the 1980s from description of difference to exemplar of ‘best
practice’, sociologists became more directly involved in American and British
policy debates about neo-liberal restructuring. Pioneers re-interpreted earlier
766 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
studies in the new context of debate. Abegglen cautioned against over-emphasis
on culture and ‘managerial style’ (Abegglen and Stalk, 1985). Meanwhile, Dore
urged more attention to culture and values and their part in shaping organizational
forms and their success (Dore, 1987: 91–5). Many Japanese businessmen
became attracted to explanations of national and company economic success in
terms of national cultural distinctiveness in the 1980s (Yoshino, 1992). In the
context of debates about the ‘varieties of capitalism’ in the 1990s, Dore pointed
to the pressures from demography, globalization, long-term shifts in values and
models of success elsewhere that are changing ‘the Japanese enterprise system’,
but cautioned against throwing away elements that had contributed to the quality
of life in society (Dore, 2000: 1–19).
A fourth, more general question arises. Should sociologists abandon the
Japanese model? While researchers have long been debating the reconfiguration
of Japanese employment relations, the readiness of English language textbooks
to throw away baby and bathwater seems premature. Using large-scale data
surveys and a case study of Hitachi (the original ‘community firm’ in Dore’s
1973 study), Inagami and Whittaker found a blend of strong continuities and
adaptation in employment practices, corporate governance and management
priorities, typified as the ‘new community firm’ (Inagami and Whittaker, 2005).
Researchers provide evidence of both changes across Japan and growing variety
within Japan across economic sectors and by degree of foreign ownership.
While most companies have adopted more market-oriented approaches, those
in the service sector or those with higher foreign ownership have moved further
than those in manufacturing or with lower foreign ownership. Yet explicit
international comparisons of corporate restructuring in Japan and the USA,
using matched samples, still find merit in contrasting central tendencies and a
Japanese versus an American model (Jacoby, 2005: 157–74; Vogel, 2006:
157–204).
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions were given to section 23 (sociology of organizations) of the
International Sociological Association conference in Brisbane (2002) and the British
Association for Japanese Studies (2005). I am grateful to participants and to Peter
Matanle (University of Sheffield) for their constructive comments. The research was
supported by a Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation grant and by a British Academy
travel grant.
References
Abegglen, J.C. (1958) The Japanese Factory: Aspects of its Social Organisation.
Glencoe: Free Press.
Abegglen, J.C. (1973) Management and the Worker: the Japanese Solution. Tokyo:
Kodansha International.
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 767
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Abegglen, J.C. (2001) ‘Interview’, J@pan-Inc, February, URL (consulted 1 August
2007): http://japaninc.net/article.php?articleID=152
Abegglen, J.C. and Stalk, G. (1985) Kaisha: The Japanese Corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Abo, T. (1994) Hybrid Factory: The Japanese Production System in the United
States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andersen, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (1999, 2003, 2004) Sociology: Understanding a
Diverse Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Berggren, C. and Nomura, M. (1997) The Resilience of Corporate Japan: New
Competitive Strategies and Personnel Policies. London: Paul Chapman.
Clark, R. (1979) The Japanese Company. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
Clegg, S.R. (1990) Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Post-
Modern World. London: Sage.
Cole, R.E. (1971) Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Tradition. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Cole, R.E. (1979) Work, Mobility and Participation: A Comparative Study of
American and Japanese Industry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cole, R.E. (1998) ‘Learning From the Quality Movement: What Did and Didn’t
Happen and Why?’ California Management Review 41(1): 43–73.
Dore, R.P. (1973) British Factory: Japanese Factory. London: Allen & Unwin.
Dore, R.P. (1987) Taking Japan Seriously. London: Athlone Press.
Dore, R.P. (1990) British Factory: Japanese Factory, 2nd Edition. Berkeley and
Oxford: University of California Press.
Dore, R.P. (2000) Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism – Japan and
Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dore, R.P. (2006/07) ‘Japan’s Shareholder Revolution’, CentrePiece 11(3): 22–4.
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H. and Negus, K. (1997) Doing Cultural
Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London: The Open University/Sage
Publications.
Elger, T. and Smith, C. (eds) (1994) Global Japanization. London: Routledge.
Fulcher, J. (1988) ‘The Bureaucratisation of the State and the Rise of Japan’, British
Journal of Sociology 39(2): 228–54.
Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. (1999, 2003) Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1989, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2006) Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gordon, A. (1993) ‘Contests for the Workplace’, in A. Gordon (ed.) Post-War
Japan as History, pp. 333–94. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gordon, A. (1998) ‘The Invention of Japanese-Style Labour Management’, in
S. Vlastos (ed.) Mirror of Modernity, pp. 19–36. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Gottfried, H. and Hayashi-Kato, N. (1998) ‘Gendering Work: Deconstructing the
Narrative of the Japanese Miracle’, Work, Employment and Society 12(1):
25–46.
Henslin, J.M. (1996, 1998, 2004, 2006) Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth
Approach. Boston: Pearson.
Holzhausen, A. (2000) ‘Japanese Employment Practices in Transition: Promotion
Policy and Compensation Systems in the 1990s’, Social Science Japan Journal
3(2): 221–35.
768 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Inagami, T. (2001) ‘From Industrial Relations to Investor Relations? Persistence and
Change in Japanese Corporate Governance, Employment Practices and
Industrial Relations’, Social Science Japan Journal 4(2): 225–41.
Inagami, T. and Whittaker, D.H. (2005) The New Community Firm: Employment,
Governance and Management Reform in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jacoby, S. (2005) The Embedded Corporation: Corporate Governance and
Employment Relations in Japan and the United States. Princeton and Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Johnson, R.T. and Ouchi, W.G. (1974) ‘Made in America (Under Japanese
Management)’, Harvard Business Review 52(5): 61–9.
Kato, T. and Steven, R. (eds) (1993) Is Japanese Management Post-Fordism? An
International Debate. Tokyo: Mado-sha.
Koike, K. (1988) Understanding Industrial Relations in Japan. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Kono, T. and Clegg, S.R. (2001) Trends in Japanese Management: Continuing
Strengths, Current Problems and Changing Priorities. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Liker, J.K., Fruin, W.M. and Adler, P.S (1999) ‘Bringing Japanese Management
Systems to the United States: Transplantation or Transformation?’, in J.K.
Liker et al. (eds) Remade in America: Transplanting and Transforming
Japanese Management Systems, pp. 3–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, J. and Nakata, Y. (1997) ‘The Transformation of the Japanese
Employment System: Nature, Depth and Origins’, Work and Occupations
24(1): 33–55.
Lincoln, J., Hanada, M. and McBride, K. (1986) ‘Organisational Structures in
Japanese and US Manufacturing’, Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3):
338–64.
McCormick, K. (2002) ‘Post-War Japan as a Model for British Reform’, in G.
Daniels and C. Tsuzuki (eds) The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations,
1600–2000. Volume 5: The Social-Cultural Dimension, pp. 352–77.
Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
McCormick, K. (2004) ‘Whatever Happened to “the Japanese Model”?’, Asian
Business and Management 3(4): 371–93.
Macionis, J. (1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004,
2005) Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Macionis, J.J. and Plummer, K. (1997) Sociology: a Global Introduction. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Marsh, I. (1996) Sociology: Making Sense of Society. Harlow: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Marsh, I. and Keating, I. (1999, 2006) Sociology: Making Sense of Society. Harlow:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Matanle, P. (2003) Japanese Capitalism and Modernity in a Global Era: Re-fabricating
Lifetime Employment Relations. London and New York: Routledge
Curzon.
Matanle, P. and Lunsing, W. (eds) (2006) Perspectives on Work, Employment and
Society in Japan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mouer, R. and Kawanishi, H. (2005) The Sociology of Work in Japan. Cambridge
University Press.
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 769
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Nakamoto, M. (1997) ‘Death of the Salaryman’, Financial Times Weekend 17–18
May: 1.
Nakane, C. (1970) Japanese Society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
National Defense Counsel for Victims of Karoshi (1990) Karoshi: When the
‘Corporate Warrior’ Dies. Tokyo: Mado-sha.
Nikkeiren (2000) Creating a Society Rich in Choices. Tokyo: Japan Federation of
Employers’ Associations.
Noon, M. and Blyton, P. (2007) The Realities of Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Oaklander, H. (1997) ‘The Canon Case’, Japan Forum 9(2): 149–53.
Ogasawara, Y. (1998) Office Ladies and Salaried Men: Power, Gender and Work
in Japanese Companies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1992) The Japanization of British Industry: New
Developments in the 1990s. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ouchi, W.G. (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese
Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981) The Art of Japanese Management. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Rebick, M. (2005) The Japanese Employment System: Adapting to a New
Economic Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rohlen, T.P. (1975) ‘The Company Work Group’, in E. Vogel (ed.) Modern
Japanese Organisation and Decision-making, pp. 185–209. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Sakai, J. (2000) Japanese Bankers in the City of London. London and New York:
Routledge.
Sato, H. (1997) ‘Human Resource Management in Large Firms: The Case of White-
Collar Graduate Employees’, in M. Sako and H. Sato (eds) (1997) Japanese
Labour and Management in Transition, pp. 104–30. London: Routledge.
Schein, E.H. (1981) ‘SMR Forum: Does Japanese Management Style Have a
Message for American Managers?’, Sloan Management Review 23(1): 55–68.
Scott, J. (1986) Capitalist Property and Financial Power. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Takanashi, A. (1999) Japanese Employment Practices. Japanese Economy and
Labour Series, 4. Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labour.
Taylor, P. (1996, 1998, 2004) Sociology in Focus. Ormskirk, Lancashire: Causeway
Press.
Tsuji, T. (1968) ‘Decision-making in the Japanese Government: A study of Ringisei’,
in R.E. Ward (ed.) Political Development in Modern Japan, pp. 457–76.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tung, R.L. (1982) ‘Selection and Training for US, European and Japanese
Multinationals’, California Management Review 25(1): 57–61.
Vogel, S. (2006) Japan Remodeled: How Government and Industry are Reforming
Japanese Capitalism. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Wiltshire, R. (2004) Housing the Japanese Worker: Geographical Perspectives on
Direct Employer Provision. Folkstone: Japan Library.
Wood, S.J. (1991) ‘Japanization and/or Toyotaism?’ Work, Employment and
Society 5(4): 567–600.
Yoshino, K. (1992) Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: A Sociological
Enquiry. London: Routledge.
770 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 4 ■ December 2007
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
Kevin McCormick
Kevin McCormick is a senior lecturer at the University of Sussex, researching Anglo-
Japanese comparisons of work and employment, especially engineers and IT specialists.
Address: Department of Sociology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9SN, UK.
E-mail: k.j.mccormick@sussex.ac.uk
Date submitted June 2006
Date accepted June 2007
Sociologists and ‘the Japanese model’ McCormick 771
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on September 28, 2016
