Japanese Management Essays - Employee Relations, Management

Japanese Management Abstract As we know, Japan's economy, situation, and condition was totally destroyed during the World War II. But surpassingly, Japan now become one of the powerful countries in the world especially in the economic in only took for less than fifty years. This the reason why I choose this topic. In this Paper we will look at how are the Japanese managing their company that is one of the key of their success in the business. Also I will comparing the Japanese way with what the western country way of how to manage. The possibility of us in putting in the Japanese Theory in our (western) world are also discussed in this paper. 1.0. INTRODUCTION As we know, Japan had a very amazing growth in economy in the 70's and 80's. We remembered that before Japan had this growth, Japan's economy was really destroyed by the World War Two. Japanese bounced back from disaster to one of the most powerful countries. Two reasons Japanese firm became so successful is how h well managed their firms are. They blend their own culture with others in operating their firms, as a result, they come out with their own unique way of management. They are also successful in the way they develop their human resources. The Japanese business and management system is strongly rooted in Japanese culture and tradition. Japanese have a very unique relationship between institutions and state , between individuals and the state, and between individuals and individuals. These relationships are linked to culture and traditional values. The Japanese is a plural homogeneous society. They have varieties of people but instead of individualism, they tend to form a group and there are no competition between group. They have very good loyalty in a group. Lee and schwendian wrote in their book," When a Japanese man asked his occupation, he will usually answer that he is a Sony or Hitachi man, not that he is an accountant, sales person, or business manager. (Japanese Management, 1982. pp 9). The Japanese also tend to look a non-Japanese as an outsider. They will treated non Japanese differently until they are learned how Japanese culture works. The Japanese often refer to their nation as our country (waga ku! ni) and non Japanese as outside people (gaijin). (Lee and Schwendiman, 1982. pp. 7). In the Japanese psyche is a concept of inside (uchi) and outside (soto) that not only defines one's membership, in a group but determines how one speaks to and interact with others. (Iwata 1977, pp. 60-65). 1.1. CULTURE INFLUENCE The Japanese have a very unique culture. They are good at mixing other cultures with their own. As a result of this blending, they come out with their own identity. China was the most importantly influenced. Buddhist and Confucian philosophy are the basic framework the Japanese use to develop their way of thinking. Buddhist was contributing the way of life. The Confucian taught the Japanese about traditional value, external values, and harmony within the society, while at the same time emphasizing the collective aspect of the social order. These systems are the most important thoughts of Japanese management system. The Japanese used these influences to reject individualism. They prefer the natural order represented by people living in human community, rather than by individual living in the state of nature. Even though Japanese culture had a lot of influence by others, Japanese still use their own culture to develop their management system. One of the Japanese traditional values is the samurai. Samurais are a leader in a society. They have three codes: first, giri, social obligation, second, on, the concept of benevolence and thus obligation to the lesser status, third, ninjo, a human felling- a kind of tolerance for human nature. These three characteristics are known as the code of ethics in a professional's life. Beside these three, samurai are also known for the loyalty to their landlord. Today's Japanese dedicate their life to a corporation for their work. These system in their society are well known and apparently will be used as long as this form of elitism justified itself through legitimate behavior. Japanese firms used ringi-sei to make a decision regarding firm decisions. Ringi-sei is a document circulated from

The Successes And Failures Of The League Of Nation Essays

The Successes And Failures Of The League Of Nation Essays The Successes And Failures Of The League Of Nations In The 1920S This isn't really an essay, its just a summary of the actions of the League of Nations that might come in handy if you have no notes. The Successes and Failures of the League of Nations in the 1920s Extracts from the Covenant of the League: To promote international co-operation and to achieved international peace and security: -by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war -by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations. -by the firm establishment of international law as the rule of conduct between governments. -by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another. Successes and Failures of the League Vilna (1920)- Both Lithuania and Poland claimed Vilna, but it was given to Lithuania even though it had a majority Polish population. In 1920, Poland occupied Vilna, and refused to leave. This was definitely one league member showing aggression against another, the League didnt want to get involved. The League wanted to leave Poland alone as it was a strong barrier between Germany and communist Russia. In 1923, the League of Nations confirmed Polands occupation of Vilna Verdict on the League: Weak and useless. The Aaland Islands (1921)- These islands are situated about halfway between Norway and Sweden. Both had made a claim for tem and were ready to fight, but they invited the League to make a judgement on the dispute. The League decided that the islands should go to Finland, and Sweden accepted this. Verdict on the League: A satisfactory outcome, but only because the nations in the dispute were willing to accept the Leagues authority. Upper Silesia (1921)- This was a plebiscite area defined by the League. Germany and Poland were both determined to get it as it was very important for industry. In the plebiscite people voted in favour of Germany 700,000 to 480,000. The League partitioned the area, the Germans got over half the land and population, where Poland got most of the industry. Germany was not pleased with this, but both countries accepted. Verdict on the League: A messy compromise, but whatever the League decided would have displeased someone. In difficult circumstances, it did as well as it could. Economic collapse in Austria and Hungary (1922-3)- After the war, Austria and Hungarys economies were in crisis, and with the burden of reparations it seemed they would simply collapse. The League arranged loans for the two countries and in effect, took over the economic management of the two countries. With this help, both Austria and Hungary were able to begin economic recovery. Verdict on the League: The Leagues action was prompt and effective. Corfu (1923)- In August 1923, five Italian surveyors mapping the Greek-Albanian frontier were shot dead on the Greek side of the border. When Greece didnt pay compensation, Mussolini invaded Corfu, an island off the Greek coast. This was completely against the principles of the League, of which it the Italians were a big part. The Council wanted to condemn Italy, but the great powers would not allow it, instead, pressure was put on Greece to apologise and pay up. Verdict on the League: A disaster confronted by a great power willing to use force, the league backed down. The Greek-Bulgarian dispute (1925)- After the Treaty of Neuilly, the border between Greece and Bulgaria remained a source of tension. After a number of violent incidents, Greece invaded Bulgaria in October 1925. The League condemned the Greek action and pressurised them to withdraw, which they did. Verdict on the League: Successful action brought a return to peace exactly what the League was for. But cynics suggested that the League was only willing to take firm action when no great powers were involved.