A Survey of Literature on Japanese Leadership

Simon Cozens September 24, 2009

Students of Japanese leadership will be aware that, as Fukushige and Spicer (2007) note, whilst a great deal of literature has investigated Japanese management practises, research on leadership in Japan has been relatively sparse. This brief paper aims to review the available literature and research on leadership practises and theory in Japan. We summarize the existing material broken down into sociological interpretations of the exercise of leadership in Japan, leadership theories for evaluating the performance of Japanese leaders, and empirical studies testing hypotheses of Japanese leadership.

Sociological investigation

First we wish to consider the sociological understandings of leadership; that is, the nature of leadership expressed in Japan as distinct from how to measure or improve it, together with cultural considerations which may have given rise to particular dynamics of leadership.

1.1

Nakane

Despite its many flaws, the definitive work on Japanese social intercourse still remains Nakane (1972), which posits that members of a Japanese group have, on the whole, no independent relationship with each other but are all rooted in their vertical relationship with their oya-bun. The consequence of such a rooting is that the leader is not an external influence upon their group, but is an inseparable part of it. Indeed, the leader is expected to merge their identity with that of the group (p. 72) and cannot avoid but develop emotional and personal ties to their ko-bun subordinates, particularly over an immediate small group. Hence when Nakane declares that Japanese soil cannot grow a charismatic leader, (p. 74) she is not, as some have suggested, making a negative statement, but a positive one. She is essentially stipulating that within a culture oriented around personal and emotional ties, a dominating leader is undesirable. The effect of charisma is limited to the immediate personal relations, rather than influence directed towards the organisation at large.

1.2

Hirokawa

Hirokawa (1982) presents the classical (and therefore now considerably outdated) understanding of Japanese corporate social organisation from the point of view of internal communication pathways. He emphasises four components of Japanese managementinternal harmony, bottom-up decision making, availability of managers and the permanent employment systemand contends that these properties foster free and efficient exchange of information within the organisation. In terms of internal harmony, the collectivist spirit, engendered by a sense of duty to the organisation, is supposed to mitigate against feelings of individual achievement and success, and to allow a shared understanding and responsibility to permeate throughout a work group. Hirokawa also describes the ringi and QC-circle systems of bottom-up decision making, noting how they provide for discussion, communication and shared understanding before proposals become decisions. Next, Hirokawa considers both the physical and social availability of managers to their subordinates, developing friendship groups to create a web of trust within the organisation, and creating relationships which extend their influence far beyond matters concerning the workplace. The final aspect, the permanent employment system implies that a cohort of

workers progress together throughout their working life, meaning that the relationships built there are primary relationships, as close as family, for the workers. (While this system is now becoming less prevalent, the idea of Japanese company as surrogate family is still relevant as a strong cultural concept.) Hirokawa weaves all of these factors into a safety net which allows for honest and clear communication, as opposed to Western organisations, where mistrust and worry about speaking out of turn serves to inhibit necessary communication. Further study would be recommended to divide ideology from practise!

1.3

Taka and Foglia

In a similar vein to Hirokawas paper, Taka and Foglia (1994) contrasts idealized Japanese organisations and Western organisations, and considers why Japanese organisations suffer less from ethical problems. They highlight three spiritual factors key to Japanese leadership style: (1) emphasis on self-realization, (2) appreciation of diverse human abilities, and (3) trust in others. According to Taka and Foglia, Japanese society is permeated by two normative environments: the transcendent environment which assumes that all persons and things transcend day to day existence by being linked to a higher force, which provides self-actualization for the whole society, and a similar normative environment which provides self-actualization for societal groups. The company is seen as one such societal group with its own normative environment. Because of the transcendent normative environment, and [b]ecause all things have this spiritual implication, Japanese people work hard and not only try to make the best use of their own time and talents, thereby unifying themselves with the great life force of the universe, but also strive for optimal use of all relevant factors. Capital, equipment, information, workspace, as well as workers, should all be utilized in the best manner possible. (Consider also Hirokawas idea above that individuals are cultured to subjugate themselves to the interests of the corporate group.) Similarly because everyone is connected in a transcendent manner, earnest work is appreciated regardless of its nature; therefore, the leader ideal must respect a diverse range of abilities and activities, and be one who permits or encourages others to proceed to the life force through their own work. Appreciating the role and importance of each persons speciality leads to an appreciation of their understanding for the challenges of their work, and hence through QC circles and the like, a belief that the worker knows best how to improve and refine the working experience: a fundamentally positive view of the worker, which contrasts with the prevalent management views of workforce in the US. Flowing from this comes a third aspect, the fundamental trust a leader expresses in his subordinates. Trusting others is an opportunity for the leader to earn trust themselves, which is required for group cohesion and solidarity. Working from these characterisations of Japanese Leadership Style (JLS), Taka and Foglia discuss why Japanese organisations suffer less ethical issues than their US counterparts, and examine organisational structures for change and improvement, and show how Japanese long-term thinking affects inter-organisational negotiations.

2
2.1

Leadership theories
Performance-maintenance theory

The primary Japanese-born theory of leadership is expressed by Misumi (1995). Misumi carried out wide-scale research on over 5,000 Japanese workers and managers, and analysed the results according to two metrics: Performance (or P), and Maintenance (M). Performance is concerned with the achievement of goals, particularly goals relevant to the work group; Maintenance is concerned with the cohesion of the work group. The original paper which proposed the theory ((Misumi, 1964)) explains the distinction as follows: Assuming three types of leadership, P, M, and PM, we experimentally analyzed their relationship with the productivity of the group. P-type corresponds to conventional autocratic or work-centered type. Mtype corresponds to democratic or human-relation-centered type, and PM-type is both work and human 2

relation centered. The results obtained at a governmental training institution showed that PM type leadership was most effective in terms of both productivity and group moral. Another study conducted with eight groups of coal mine workers confirmed this finding. While this appears superficially similar to the transactional-transformational measures of leadership, there are two major distinctions: the first is that transformational-transactional is seen as a continuum scale, whereas P and M factors reinforce each other; the second is the emphasis on group over individual. Leaders were categorised into four quadrants: PM, highfunctioning leaders, scored highly on both scales; Pm leaders emphasis performance, goal completion and achievement; pM leaders are skilled at social cohesion but are not so developed in requiring performance; pm leaders adopt a lassez-faire approach. Ideal leaders were found to combine P and M functions. Misumi and Peterson (1985) demonstrated that leaders operating in both P and M functions gave superior job satisfaction and performance to those operating out of one of the two factors alone. Several papers written in Japanese take the performance-maintenance theory as their basis. Seki, Yoshida, Kinjo, Misumi, Misumi, Hiraki, Sakurai, Shinohara and Sintani (1998) studied correlations between personality types and leadership behaviour: using the YG personality test and PM metrics to analyse a group of 458 leaders from different professions; some of these leaders then underwent leadership training appropriate to their PM style. While calmness and assertiveness were correlating traits for all leaders, no clear correlation was found between leadership style and personality traits, and no specific personality traits could be linked to an affinity for leadership development. (On the other hand, Banzai (1989) does show correlation between followers personality traits and leaders PM style.) Seki, Takaoka, Misumi and Misumi (1992) was a five-year research programme which applied annual leadership development training courses to shop owners and staff in the Nagoya area. Through a programme of counselling, feedback, case studies and mutual evaluation, the team saw a distinct increase in PM leadership, and corresponding increases in morale, sales and follower satisfaction.

2.2

PMs generality

Smith, Misumi, Tayeb, Peterson et al. (1989) took the PM metrics and analyzed their cross-cultural generality, using a survey of 1117 workers in Britain, the US, Hong Kong and Japan. They found that while the measures of leadership style clustered universally around the performance and maintenance axes, showing the PM analysis is generally applicable, the individual behaviours which made up the analysis could not be independently investigated in a generally applicable cross-cultural manner. In essence, the study shows that while leaders in all cultures are at their best when achieving high metrics for both P and M behaviours, thus proving the generality of Misumis categorizations, leaders also need to learn the locally understood implications of their behaviours.

3
3.1

Empirical Studies
Fukushige and Spicer

Fukushige and Spicer (2007) begins by applying Bass and Avolios full-range leadership model to Japan, testing the hypothesis that the preference for transformational over transactional leaders is universal. Through an admittedly small-scale series of interviews with Japanese followers, they discovered that idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behaviours, and inspirational motivation, theoretically the most effective leadership styles under Bass and Avolios model, received little endorsement as an ideal style. Intellectual stimulation was universally welcomed, while individualized consideration and contingent reward were broadly supported, despite the latter being a transactional style. Next, a free-form questionnaire survey was classified into the Bass-Avolio categories, showing a strong preference for individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and contingent reward, in that order, and almost no support for other styles; a further direct questionnaire measuring support for each Bass-Avolio category independently showed similar results, with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration scoring the highest preferences. Contingent reward was preferred by 60% of respondents, many of whom suggested that its simplicity was its strength. Inspirational motivation was considered over-confident and over-positive, particularly in the uncertain economic climate of recession, which called for more cautious, risk-aware leadership. 3

The survey next turned to considering whether the Japanese and Western cultures had converged due to globalization, and to what extent this would change patterns of work. A slim majority saw convergence, with Western-style meritocracy replacing Japanese dependence relations in the workplace. 60% saw a shift from collectivism to individualism, and 70% saw a shift from seniority to meritocracy. The next area of study was the respondents perceptions of actual and preferred styles of leadership in areas beyond the Bass-Avolio scale. Further areas mentioned by respondents as actual styles were the directive style, participative style, the significance of social activities after work, and the management of required overtime hours. Notable areas in the preferred styles were protective leadership, network leadership and gender equalitythese were categorized as Japanese culture-specific preferences. In the area of network leadership, the respondents were looking for leaders who would use their network of influences to advance the careers of their subordinates. When given a free-form questionnaire on actual leadership styles, participative and consultative leadership was observed by a majority of respondents. By participative, the respondents meant leadership which observes carefully the subordinates activities and provides reactive advice; consultative leadership set goals and asked for ideas and feedback to enable their actualisation. Directive and authoritarian leadership were the next two commonly observed styles, followed by protective, bargaining, laissez-faire, supportive, punctual and egocentric. Further questions determined that leaders were showing more preference for competence and performance than more traditional factors such as seniority or gender. Almost all respondents showed a preference for protective and network styles of leadership. Most respondents believed that social activities with their leaders (so called after-five) were beneficial but relatively infrequent. A matrix of preferred leadership properties was inferred from free-form responses, with a descending order of preference for liberalism, (fairness and impartiality, as distinct from conservative values) trustworthiness, punctuality, participation, use of network ties, supportiveness, directive leadership, protection, after-five activities and achievement-oriented leadership as leadership qualities. Many of these values, particularly liberalism, trust, punctuality, use of network ties, protection and after-five styles, are not considered by American leadership theories and thus should form part of an integrated theory of Japanese leadership. Though small-scale, Fukushige and Spicers (2007) study reveals important new considerations for theorising about leadership in Japan.

3.2

Yoshioka

A similar attempt to apply American leadership theories to Japanese society is provided by Yoshioka (2006). This study tests Japanese subordinates preferences against the model suggested by Hersey and Blanchard (Situational Leadership). Situational Leadership theory provides correspondences between the readiness of subordinates and the proposed idealized behaviour of the leader. As subordinates mature, the leader should provide greater independence and flexibility, in accordance with the following four phases: Telling (S1): Provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance. Selling (S2): Explain your decisions and provide opportunity for clarification. Participating (S3): Share ideas and facilitate in making decisions. Delegating (S4): Turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation.

Against this model, Yoshioka tests four hypotheses: 1. The combination of the leaders perceived leadership style and a followers readiness level affects the followers outcomes in Japan. 2. The outcomes of the follower whose leaders style matches that recommended by the Situational Leadership model will be higher than the others. 3. A person working with a leader whose style matches ones desired leadership has higher satisfaction than a person who is not. 4. The leadership style that a follower desires ones leader to have differs according to ones readiness level. And the most preferable leadership style at each readiness level in Japan shifts generally toward more relationship and more task behaviors than the Situational Leadership model holds. 4

Building on previous studies by Hayashi and Matsubara (1998) and Takahara and Yamashita (2004), Yoshioka emailed a questionnaire to two hundred workers in a Tokyo utilities company, with 130 respondents. The studies findings were that 1. Followers job satisfaction was related to their readiness level alone. 2. Satisfaction with supervisor was related to the combination of their leaders leadership style and their readiness level. 3. The combinations of leadership style and readiness level where people felt high satisfaction with their supervisor were different from what the Situational Leadership model suggests. 4. When working with the leader who behaved as they felt that they needed, people felt higher satisfaction than when they were not working with such a leader, as the principles of the Situational Leadership model hold. 5. The leadership style which Japanese people wanted their leader to exhibit was both higher relationship behavior and higher task behavior than the Situational Leadership model suggested. Yoshioka then goes on to modify the Situational Leadership model for use in Japan, by increasing both the relationship and task behaviour metrics of leadership behaviour; in short, the model was restricted to two classifications rather than the original four, with lower-readiness subordinates best satisfied with the S2 (Selling) style and higher-readiness subordinates responding best to the S3 (Participating) style. Telling and Delegating were contraindicated.

Summary

While the academic literature on modes, methods and metrics of Japanese leadership remains relatively sparse, particularly when compared to understanding on Japanese organisation, this survey has attempted to sketch out current thinking and trends in this area, and to provide references for the researcher to enable further investigation.

References
Banzai, T. (1989). Leadership effects as a function of followers personality characteristics, The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology 37: 107116. Bass, B. and Yokochi, N. (1991). Charisma among senior executives and the special case of Japanese CEOs, Consulting Psychology Bulletin 1: 3138. Bolon, D. S. and Crain, C. R. (1985). Decision sequence: A recurring theme in comparing american and japanese management, meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA. Fukushige, A. and Spicer, D. (2007). Leadership preferences in Japan: an exploratory study, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28(6): 508530. Hayashi, F. and Matsubara, T. (1998). The influence of subordinate readiness on leadership effectiveness, The Japanese Journal of Administrative Science 12(2): 103112. Hayashi, S. and Baldwin, F. (1988). Culture and management in Japan, Univ of Tokyo Pr. Hirokawa, R. (1982). Improving intra-organizational communication: A lesson from Japanese management, Communication Quarterly 30(1): 3540. Lee, J., Roehl, T. and Choe, S. (2000). What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms., Journal of International Business Studies 31(4). Lee, S. and Schwendiman, G. (1982). Japanese management: cultural and environmental considerations, Praeger Publishers.

Misumi, J. (1964). The structure and function of leadership in education and industry : Proposed study, The Annual report of educational psychology in Japan 4: 83106, 131. URL: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110001896871/en/ Misumi, J. (1995). The development in Japan of the Performance-Maintenance (PM) theory of leadership, Journal of Social Issues 51: 213228. Misumi, J. and Peterson, M. (1985). The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: Review of a Japanese research program, Administrative Science Quarterly pp. 198223. Nakane, C. (1972). Japanese society, Univ of California Press. OConnell, M., Lord, R. and OConnell, M. (1990). Differences in Japanese and American leadership prototypes: Implications for cross-cultural training, meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA. Peterson, M., Smith, P. and Peng, T. (1995). Japanese and American supervisors of a US workforce: an intercultural analysis of behavior meanings, Navigating the Japanese market: business and socio-economic perspectives, IC2 Institute, Austin, TX, pp. 229249. Seki, F., Takaoka, S., Misumi, J. and Misumi, E. (1992). An empirical study of leadership development on the basis of pm leadership theory, Memoirs of Kyushu University School of Health Sciences 19: 3740. URL: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000055167/en/ Seki, F., Yoshida, M., Kinjo, A., Misumi, J., Misumi, E., Hiraki, T., Sakurai, Y., Shinohara, S. and Sintani, T. (1998). An empirical study on the relation between leadership and personality traits, Memoirs of Kyushu University School of Health Sciences 25: 19. URL: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000055212/en/ Smith, P., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M., Peterson, M. et al. (1989). On the generality of leadership style measures across cultures, Journal of Occupational Psychology 62(2): 97109. Taka, I. and Foglia, W. (1994). Ethical aspects of Japanese leadership style, Journal of Business Ethics 13(2): 135148. Takahara, R. and Yamashita, M. (2004). , Japanese Journal of Interpersonal and Social Psychology (4): 4129. Wu, M.-Y. (2006). Compare participative leadership theories in three cultures, China Media Research 2(3): 1930. Yokochi-Bryce, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers: Transformational and transactional. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Yoshioka, R. (2006). An empirical test of the Situational Leadership model in Japan, Masters thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington.