Comparative analysis of Japanese and American management. Comparative analysis of Japanese and American management models

The most pronounced cultural and institutional differences in management styles are manifested in Japan, the USA and Russia.

MANAGEMENT IN JAPAN

The main features of Japanese management include:

1. Management decisions are made collectively based on the principle of unanimity. Management values ​​the most important qualities of employees such as mutual trust, cooperation, harmony and full support in solving the problems facing the group. Subordinates formulate their proposals and convey them to interested parties. After group discussion has set general tasks, each employee determines his own and begins to implement them. If it is noticed that a subordinate is not able to control the situation, the middle manager will intervene and will personally provide leadership. This attitude inspires confidence that personal failures and mistakes are, in general, no big deal, and a senior will always help you get out of a difficult situation. Thus, the emphasis is not on avoiding failures, but on achieving a positive result.

2. Form of collective responsibility. The goals are to improve group performance and increase group solidarity. Japanese management always thinks from the group's perspective. The group is responsible for the success of the business as well as for the failures. Therefore, individual workers are rarely blamed for failures, especially if they are creative failures or related to a risky enterprise.

3.Management, quality oriented. Presidents of companies and managers of companies at Japanese enterprises most often talk about the need for quality control. The manager's personal pride lies in consolidating quality control efforts and, ultimately, in operating the production area entrusted to him with the highest quality.

4. Control is poorly formalized, collective control methods are used. Control is carried out not by adopting certain directives, as is customary in traditional management, but by providing assistance and identifying weak links in the production process, i.e. control is associated not with the “detection-punishment” model, but with the “verification-help” model.

5. Job evaluation and career growth are carried out slowly, career growth is tied to age and length of service, and a system of lifetime employment is widely practiced. Many employees rarely take rest days and often do not take full advantage of their paid time off because they believe it is their duty to work when the company needs it, thereby showing their loyalty to the company. Theoretically, the longer a person works in an organization, the stronger his self-identification with it should be. Lifetime employment in Japan is not a legal right, but a tribute to tradition. The company has a moral obligation to take care of its employees until retirement. Japanese managers believe that people are their greatest asset.

6. The main quality of a leader is the ability to control and coordinate subordinates. To maintain discipline and improve the quality of work, the manager relies more on rewards than on punishment. Rewards are given for useful suggestions, for saving lives in accidents, for outstanding performance in training courses, for excellent performance of duties and for dedication to work as a model for colleagues. These rewards come in different types: certificates, gifts or money, and additional leave.

Punishments include reprimands, fines and dismissals. Dismissal is permitted in cases of theft, acceptance of bribes, sabotage, cruelty, and deliberate disobedience to the instructions of superiors. Japanese managers resort to punitive measures extremely reluctantly. In contrast to the tactics of intimidation with punishment, Japanese management pays special attention to the self-awareness of workers and therefore uses the tactics of slogans encouraging increased discipline.

To quickly deal with difficulties and to help solve problems as they arise, the Japanese often place management personnel directly on the production premises. As each problem is solved, small innovations are introduced, leading to the accumulation of additional innovations.

7. Work is paid according to group performance and length of service. An employee who moves to another company loses his seniority and starts all over again.

8. Weak specialization of managers.

9. Publicity and corporate values. All levels of management and workers share a common base of information about the policies and activities of the firm. The Japanese management system also tries to create a common basis for all employees of the company to understand corporate values, such as the priority of quality service, services for the consumer, cooperation between workers and administration, cooperation and interaction of departments. Management strives to continually instill and support corporate values ​​at all levels.

Japanese management is characterized by an emphasis on improving human relations: coherence, group orientation, employee morale, job security, and harmonization of relations between workers and managers.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT MODEL

This is typical for the American management model.

1. Individual nature of decision making. The decision made by the manager is under no circumstances subject to discussion and is binding.

2. Individual form of responsibility.

3. Strictly formalized management system.

4. Individual and clearly formalized control.

5. Quick assessment of results and rapid promotion. A business career depends on personal results. Short-term hiring. Employees lack commitment to their company, which contributes to high turnover rates. Some of them manage to change up to ten companies during their work. Hiring is carried out for a relatively short time and everyone knows about this when applying for a job. The American management model is an ideal model for careerists. It ensures rapid development and advancement of employees within the company. At the same time, an employee can develop in a specialized manner, i.e. build a horizontal career. For this purpose, various advanced training courses are held at universities and colleges.

6. The main qualities of a leader are professionalism and initiative.

7. Work is paid based on individual achievements.

8. Very narrow specialization of managers.

MANAGEMENT IN RUSSIA

Russian management acts as a dynamic developing system, and its movement, role and place in the global management system can be understood based on the analysis and development of the existing national mentality. The Russian mentality has always been characterized by the presence of polarity, the desire for the grotesque, and taking any situation to the extreme.

Russia has always stood between Europe and Asia. Its geographic and racial-ethnic diversity reflected this geopolitical reality. The population living on the territory of Russia created a synthesized culture. From Asia, Russia absorbed a form of groupthink - groupism, and from Europe - individualism with its inherent worldview. Groupism and individualism are two fundamental qualities that form the basis of the Russian mentality, and they constantly come into conflict with each other due to the polarity of their foundations.

Currently, the dualism of the Russian mentality and its inconsistency have moved to a qualitatively different level. There is a new wave of growth of individualism, on the one hand, and the erasure of communal traditions, on the other. However, dualism has been and remains the main feature of the Russian mentality. This makes it possible to determine its place in relation to the Japanese and American mentality.

If we consider American individualism and management based on it as one extreme point, and Japanese, based on the psychology of groupism, as the other, then Russia with its duality should occupy an intermediate position between these two points.

Moreover, it should be taken into account that the Russian mentality is dynamic, with a tendency towards individualization, making its way in the conditions of the emerging market. Based on this, the main tendency in the formation of the Russian mentality is probably a gradual movement towards individualism, i.e. towards an Americanized mentality.

The formation of modern Russian management must take into account the main trend in the development of mentality towards developing individualism, increasingly focusing on the individual, the implementation of individual control, taking into account individual contribution and payment. This means that promotions based not on acquaintances and family connections, but solely on the personal abilities of each individual, should become increasingly important in enterprises. When forming a management system, it is necessary to take more into account the individual’s business qualities, his ability to perceive new things, and perseverance.

Thus, the features of the Russian management style include:

§ in most companies the decision-making process is individual;

§ decisions are made by managers at each level of management, and senior managers, as a rule, do not duplicate the decisions of their subordinates, although this does occur, it creates many problems;

§ strategic planning is carried out exclusively by senior management;

§ The Russian top manager combines in his management style the qualities of both Japanese and American management, i.e. Professionalism, initiative, ability to coordinate actions and control are encouraged;

§ The management structure at Russian enterprises, as well as the control procedure, are strictly formalized. Inspections are scheduled, personnel are warned about them in advance, therefore, this method of control indirectly stimulates the work of employees and contributes to their career growth;

§ In general, at Russian enterprises, career growth is possible and is determined in most cases by personal results, the contribution of a particular person to the common cause based on his individual achievements, and less often based on the results of the group’s work. A special place is occupied by state organizations, where seniority is of utmost importance, bonuses are common to all;

§ relations with subordinates are formal in nature, but informal relations are not completely excluded.

Comparing Russian management with Japanese and American, we can say that it combines the features of both one and the other, which meets the characteristics of the Russian market and allows Russian business to function effectively in complex, constantly changing conditions.

Thus, from the above characteristics of the management models being studied, the following conclusions can be drawn (Table 1).

Table 1 – Comparative analysis of management models

Management schools in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development. There are certain similarities between them: both schools focus on enhancing the human factor (using, however, different forms and methods), constant innovation, diversification of goods and services, disaggregation of large enterprises and moderate decentralization of production; are focused on the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise (however, if American managers develop their plans for 5-8 years, then Japanese managers develop their plans for up to 10 years or more). At the same time, despite the external similarities, these two management schools have features determined by the specific socio-economic development of their countries.

The basis of the American system of government is the principle of individualism, which arose in American society in the 18th-19th centuries, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived in the country. In the process of developing vast territories, such national character traits as initiative and individualism were developed. For Japan, in which until the end of the 19th century. feudalism was preserved, the traditional attitude of social

consciousness towards collectivism (belonging to any social group), and the formation of the modern Japanese management system took place taking this feature into account. Currently, Japanese management is becoming increasingly widespread in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, taking into account common cultural values ​​and traditions.

There are other differences between the Japanese and American management systems. In the United States, in the management process, the emphasis is on a bright personality who can improve the organization’s activities; in Japan, managers focus on the group and the organization as a whole. American firms have rigid management structures that have certain functions; in Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and eliminated as specific tasks are completed. The main incentive for American workers is the economic factor (money) - for Japanese workers, a more significant role is played not by money, but by socio-psychological factors (a sense of belonging to a team, pride in the company). Western European and American enterprises are characterized by the presence of moral and psychological prohibitions that restrain the initiative and creativity of workers; Japanese workers are guided by the concepts of internal duty and the subordination of their interests to the interests of the collective. In crisis situations, American managers try to fire part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive - in Japanese enterprises there is an unwritten law of the so-called lifetime employment of workers, in which working personnel are considered the highest value of the organization, and therefore the administration will do everything possible to retain its employees in the most critical situations. American workers, according to the employment contract, are focused only on fulfilling their functional duties - Japanese workers strive not only to fulfill their job responsibilities, but also to do the most useful for their organization, for example, an American foreman or engineer will never do work cleaning the workshop area, even if he has free time, and a Japanese specialist, having time free from his main activity, will definitely do something useful for his company, since he is focused

not to perform strictly defined functional duties, but to work for the good of their company.

American workers usually change their place of work once every few years, moving to companies that offer them higher wages or better working conditions. This is also due to the fact that in the United States, only a vertical career is traditionally considered successful (when an employee is promoted to a position within the structure of his organization). A common practice is to retire employees who have worked for the company for 20-25 years, even if they have not reached retirement age. In this way, company management strives to create conditions for the career growth of young professionals and retain them in their organization.

In Japan, workers usually work their whole lives in one company, and any move to another organization is considered an unethical act. The career of a Japanese specialist is often horizontal in nature (for example, a middle manager moves to other departments every 4 to 5 years, occupying positions equal to their previous status). This allows the company to improve the system of horizontal connections between departments and services, train broad-spectrum professionals, solve the problem of interchangeability, and improve the moral climate in the team. People who have reached retirement age rarely retire, trying to work for the benefit of the company as long as they have the strength, and in any areas and positions.

Russia has yet to choose the most suitable management model for it, at first simply copying it, and then creatively developing it on the basis of domestic management theory and practice. Apparently, the Japanese management model will be more attractive for us, since it is more consistent with the peculiarities of our history, culture and national psychology (for example, the priority of the group over the individual, submission to the authority of government, etc.). Such a choice, in our opinion, will undoubtedly lead to a change in Russia’s geopolitical interests, to its greater focus on countries located in the Pacific region (Japan, China, Brazil, Chile, Australia, South Korea, etc.), with their huge human populations. , financial, raw materials and technological capabilities and historical perspective.

The choice of a management model will mean a change in ideological guidelines in the process of training future managers.

This will be a choice that will determine the historical path of Russia's development for hundreds of years. After all, Russia is a country located at the junction of the West and the East and has absorbed the values ​​of both the Western and Eastern worlds.

Comparative characteristics of Japanese and American management models

§ 4. General principles
government controlled

After the Second World War, Japan quickly moved from a totalitarian-militaristic regime to the rule of law, based on the principle of separation of powers. In Art. 41 of the Japanese Constitution of 1947 states that “the parliament is the highest organ of state power and the only legislative body of the state.”

The Japanese Parliament consists of two houses: the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, each of which contains up to 20 standing committees. The commissions include deputies from various political parties in proportion to their representation in parliament. The commissions preliminary review the vast majority of draft legislative acts and carry out the main legislative work.

The highest executive bodies in Japan are the government and the cabinet of ministers. The government is formed on the basis of the laws on the cabinet of ministers and on the organization of government, adopted by parliament in 1947 and 1948, respectively. These laws determine the number of ministries and departments, their general structure, the number of state ministers and their deputies, the most general functions, rights and responsibilities of departments and their heads.

The executive authorities are constitutionally under fairly strict control of parliament. This is ensured, first of all, by legal norms and the financing system.

The structure, powers, rights, responsibilities, and size of the management apparatus are determined by special laws on the organization of these bodies, adopted by parliament. Departments are given the right to create the additional units they need, but subject to the limits of the established number. Other changes require the approval of parliament, whose members generally view its sprawl negatively. Therefore, the number of bureaucrats in Japan itself is relatively small.

In addition to legislation, an important lever for parliamentary control over the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers and all government agencies in Japan is Control and Audit Council, according to the Constitution, independent from the government, including the Ministry of Finance. It consists of an office, a secretariat and 5 departments specializing in

on checking the financial activities of specific ministers and departments. The Council, consisting of over 1,200 auditors, annually audits the expenses of all ministries and departments and establishes their compliance with the budget approved by parliament. The results of the audit, together with the government's financial report, are presented to parliament. If there is any financial abuse or misuse of public funds, the guilty heads of departments and their divisions are brought to justice by parliament.

The main law governing the public civil service in Japan is the Civil Servants Law, which aims to ensure a sufficiently democratic and efficient system of administrative power by establishing fundamental standards applicable to all civil servants and ensuring maximum efficiency in the performance of their official duties.

Civil servants under this law are considered to be persons who receive a salary from the state, are selected and appointed to a position by the state, and receive compensation (pension) from the state. The principles and standards for the selection of civil servants are provided for by the Japanese Constitution, which states that “all people are equal before the law.” But nevertheless, the law states that only persons of Japanese nationality can be employed in the civil service.

The basis for admission to the civil service is the candidate’s compliance with the qualification requirements for specialized knowledge and skills in the field of administration, regardless of anyone’s personal considerations and political views. To assess the candidate's abilities, there is a system of examinations and evaluation of his qualifications and experience.

Initial appointment to the civil service is made on the basis of competitive examinations or (in certain cases) an interview and assessment of the candidate's abilities. Written and oral examinations include an assessment of qualifications and performance, as well as a medical examination and other methods to objectively assess the candidate's ability to perform official duties. By law, all persons must be allowed to take exams on equal terms; Sufficient publicity must be ensured during examinations.

The names of those who successfully passed the examinations and the scores they obtained are included in the certificate of entitlement to civil service. The validity period of this certificate is 1 year.

The right of appointment to positions is vested in the heads of ministries and departments, who can delegate these rights to other high-ranking officials of their ministries and departments. The right to temporary removal from office, reinstatement, dismissal or resignation, as well as the right to impose disciplinary sanctions, belongs to the person who appointed the official to the position.

These rights are subject to certain rules. For example, no one can be appointed to a position unless he meets the requirements of the Civil Servants Act. Appointment or promotion is conditional for a period of at least 6 months. During this period, those hired for the first time do not have the status guaranteed for civil servants.

By law, promotions are made on the basis of competitive examinations between applicants or (in most cases) the results of an evaluation of their service.

The law establishes a uniform retirement age for most civil servants - 60 years. This system applies to all civil servants of regular service, with the exception of those hired temporarily or for a certain period.

Self-test questions

1. Describe the philosophy of Japanese management.

2. What is the essence of quality management in Japanese companies?

3. What are the differences between Japanese and American management?

Literature

1. Monden Y. "Toyota": methods of effective management. - M.: Economics, 1989.

2. Morita A. Made in Japan. History of the Sony company. - M.: Univers, 1993.

3. Pronkin V.A., Ladanov I.D. Personnel management in Japan. - M.: Nauka, 1989.

4. Schonberger R. Japanese methods of production management.- M.: Economics, 1988.

Approaches to enterprise management practiced in different countries can vary significantly. Among the most successful economies in the world, and therefore those involving the use of the most effective management models, are those built in Japan and the USA. What are the main features of approaches to enterprise management in these countries?

The following main components of management in modern commercial organizations can be distinguished:

• personnel policy;
• personnel Management;
• business development strategy.

Let's study what their specifics are in Japan and the USA.

Facts about Japanese management

Japan is a country that has developed independently of Western civilization for a long time, and therefore it has developed special social norms that predetermine approaches to enterprise management.

Regarding personnel policy, the key guideline for the Japanese here is the level of education of employees. If a candidate for a position does not have a diploma from a prestigious university, then his chances of getting a job in a large company will be slim. A person’s possession of certificates of completion, for example, of advanced training courses, is usually not a compelling argument for a Japanese employer.

One of the key features of the Japanese management model in terms of personnel is the guarantee of indefinite employment of workers. At the same time, their initial qualifications are not particularly important - over the course of many years of work in the organization, they can repeatedly change their profile.

In terms of personnel management methods, the emphasis in Japan is placed, first of all, on the priority of the collective over the individual. It is expected that every employee of the company will work, aware of the global goal of his company.

In Japan, the practice of Kaizen is widespread, which is the formation of attitudes among employees of an organization for continuous improvement of their work. It is expected that all company employees will adhere to such priorities - from ordinary specialists to top managers.

As for the social aspect of employee management in Japan, a notable component of it is encouraging employees to join trade unions, which are formed within the structure of the employing company. This model of interaction between employees, the employer, and the body representing the interests of the former suggests an extremely low potential for social discontent among employees. Strikes in Japanese corporations are rare.

Building a business development strategy in Japan is based, first of all, on a systematic approach to decision making. The actions of managers in terms of improving the corporate management model must be justified and dictated by economic realities. The leaders of Japanese companies thus practice reasonable conservatism.

Another significant feature of management in Japan is that the owners of companies there are considered primarily investors - carriers of capital, along with banks. They are generally not seen or positioned as the main beneficiaries of the business. These are considered to be hired employees who have the opportunity, by giving their labor, to earn good money for themselves and their family. The profit of corporate owners is considered primarily as the merit of the company's employees, as a result of their collective work. Japanese entrepreneurs also strive not so much to extract personal profit, but to increase the level of socio-economic development of society and the state.

Facts about American Management

The USA is a country that has absorbed elements of the culture of a wide variety of peoples. Including in the aspect of management in organizations. However, over time, the American business environment has developed certain corporate governance standards that are characteristic of most companies.

Regarding personnel policy, in the USA, unlike Japan, not too much importance is given to the fact that an employee has a diploma. Unless, of course, we are talking about a person who graduated from Harvard or Yale University. One way or another, the main thing is the real skills of the candidate for the position. In turn, fresh certificates of completion of certain advanced training courses are often welcomed. A very compelling argument for an American employer is positive recommendations about a candidate.

The employee management strategy in the United States is based mainly on the principle of individual responsibility for the quality performance of job functions. The most important thing for an American employer is to see that an employee is doing his job well. If this is not the case, then he can be fired at any time. There are no laws in the United States that require employers to justify their desire to relieve an employee from his position.

The noted features of the employee management policy form, in turn, the desire of employees to search for various tools to protect their own rights. One of the most common is the participation of company employees in trade unions - unlike the Japanese ones, which are independent of employers. Legal confrontations between organizations representing the interests of workers and corporations in the United States are a frequent occurrence.

The strategy for building a business in the United States, in turn, allows the corporation's management to take decisive, sometimes radical, actions. Conservatism is not the most characteristic feature of American management.

In the United States, the rank of managers, as well as other employees, as a rule, is significantly lower than that of the owners of the corporation. Business owners and management are often separated from each other. The interests of the owner may not coincide with those of managers and other employees.

Comparison

What is the main difference between Japanese management and American management? First of all, in the level of consolidation of those people who participate in the life of the enterprise. Japanese corporations in this sense are more united; the role of each employee is considered as important as the functions of a top manager. The owners only contribute to such internal corporate consolidation. In American management, the interests of the company's owners are a particular priority. Often this becomes about extracting as much profit as possible. Employees are expected, first of all, to be personally responsible for performing the functions under the contract - corporate consolidation is secondary.

When considering the main characteristics of Japanese and American management, which we cited above, it becomes obvious that by most criteria both models are very different. Let's try to summarize the differences between Japanese and American management in a table.

Table

Management schools in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development. Despite the polar differences, there are, however, certain similarities between them: both schools focus on enhancing the human factor (using, however, different forms and methods), constant innovation, diversification of manufactured goods and services, disaggregation of large enterprises and moderate decentralization of production; are focused on the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise (however, if American managers develop their plans for 5-8 years, then Japanese managers develop their plans for up to 10 years or more). At the same time, despite the external similarities, these two management schools have features determined by the specific socio-economic development of their countries.

The basis of the American system of government is the principle of individualism, which arose in American society in the 18th-19th centuries, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived in the country. In the process of developing vast territories, such national character traits as initiative and individualism were developed. For Japan, in which until the end of the 19th century. Feudalism was preserved, the traditional orientation of public consciousness towards collectivism (belonging to any social group) was characteristic, and the formation of the modern Japanese management system took place taking this feature into account. Currently, Japanese management is becoming increasingly widespread in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, taking into account common cultural values ​​and traditions.

There are other differences between the Japanese and American management systems. In the United States, in the management process, the emphasis is on a bright personality who can improve the organization’s activities; in Japan, managers focus on the group and the organization as a whole. American firms have rigid management structures that have certain functions; in Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and eliminated as specific tasks are completed. The main incentive for American workers is the economic factor (money) - for Japanese workers, a more significant role is played not by money, but by socio-psychological factors (a sense of belonging to a team, pride in the company). Western European and American enterprises are characterized by the presence of moral and psychological prohibitions that restrain the initiative and creativity of workers; Japanese workers are guided by the concepts of internal duty and the subordination of their interests to the interests of the collective. In crisis situations, American managers try to fire part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive - in Japanese enterprises there is an unwritten law of the so-called lifetime employment of workers, in which working personnel are considered the highest value of the organization, and therefore the administration will do everything possible to retain its employees in the most critical situations. American workers, according to the employment contract, are focused only on fulfilling their functional duties - Japanese workers strive not only to fulfill their job responsibilities, but also to do the most useful for their organization, for example, an American foreman or engineer will never do work cleaning the workshop area, even if he has free time, and a Japanese specialist, having time free from his main activity, will definitely do something useful for his company, since he is focused not on performing strictly defined functional duties, but on working for the good of his company. American workers usually change their place of work once every few years, moving to companies that offer them higher wages or better working conditions. This is also due to the fact that in the United States, only a vertical career is traditionally considered successful (when an employee is promoted to a position within the structure of his organization). A common practice is to retire employees who have worked for the company for 20-25 years, even if they have not reached retirement age. In this way, company management strives to create conditions for the career growth of young professionals and retain them in their organization.

Table 2.1 - Comparison of Japanese and American management models

In Japan, workers usually work their whole lives in one company, and any move to another organization is considered an unethical act. The career of a Japanese specialist is often horizontal in nature (for example, a middle manager moves to other departments every 4 to 5 years, occupying positions equal to their previous status). This allows the company to improve the system of horizontal connections between departments and services, train broad-spectrum professionals, solve the problem of interchangeability, and improve the moral climate in the team. People who have reached retirement age rarely retire, trying to work for the benefit of the company as long as they have the strength, and in any areas and positions.

Table 2.1 shows a comparison of Japanese and American management models, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Another major difference lies in the management organization itself. In American enterprises, official and production responsibilities are strictly delineated, and their use is controlled by a superior person, so workers and employees are aware of a limited range of issues, the implementation of which they are entrusted with. At Japanese enterprises, responsibility for many important issues of production activity rests with personnel who constantly improve their skills. Thus, management in the United States is “hierarchical”, while in Japan it is “universal”.

In the short term, the Japanese management system is inferior to the American one due to the great complexity of decision-making and the large amount of time and money spent on training personnel at all levels. But in the long run, it increases production efficiency because it encourages worker participation in management and increases their responsibility and interest in the affairs of the company.

The defect rate and breakdown rate of Japanese cars, televisions, integrated circuits and other products are more than ten times lower than those of Western products. A comparison of these two concepts demonstrates the “myopia” of American attitudes. For example, redesigning a production system or production unit to improve quality increases production costs in the short term but reduces them in the long term.

Recently, Americans have been making a lot of efforts to find out the essence of Japanese management methods and transfer the positive experience of Japan to their enterprises. In the 50-60s. the situation was the opposite, Japanese firms adopted American principles of production organization, production technology, approaches to the formation of organizational structures, etc. As noted above, “quality circles” and the “just in time” delivery system originated in America, but did not become widespread there. However, they have brought good results in Japanese firms. At the same time, another American innovation - American methods of managing “human resources” has not found application in Japan.

Recently, American corporations have begun to introduce innovations that have led Japanese firms to significant success. Thus, the American company General Motors introduced a “just in time” system, and another company, General Electric, introduced “quality circles”. However, not all management methods used in Japan take root on American soil. This refers to the system of long-term or “lifelong employment” of workers, the formation of funds to meet the needs of workers through deductions from the profits of the company, etc.

A comparison of Japanese and American management models shows that it is impossible to transfer one management model to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.

However, a comparison of models is of significant interest, since the formation of a domestic management model requires studying the experience of other countries.

The study of the American management model is of some interest. It was in the USA that the science and practice of management was first formed.

American management has absorbed the foundations of the classical school, the founder of which is Henri Fayol. Americans Luther Gulik and Lyndal Urwick did a lot to popularize the main provisions of the classical school. The classical school had a significant influence on the formation of all other directions in American management theory.

The transition from extensive to intensive management methods in the 20-30s. demanded a search for new forms of management. Gradually, an understanding developed that for the survival of production it was necessary to change the attitude towards the position of the worker in the enterprise, to develop new methods of motivation and cooperation between workers and entrepreneurs.

Modern American management as it currently exists is based on three historical premises:

1. Market availability.

2. Industrial method of organizing production.

3. Corporation as the main form of entrepreneurship.

American economist Robert Heilbroner pointed to three main historical approaches to the distribution of society's resources. These are traditions, orders and the market. The traditional approach refers to the distribution of the economic resources of society through established traditions, from one generation to the next. The team approach involves the distribution of resources through orders. The market approach involves the allocation of resources through the market, without any interference from society. This approach is the most effective.

The modern American management model is focused on such an organizational and legal form of private entrepreneurship as a corporation (joint stock company), which arose at the beginning of the 19th century.

American corporations widely use strategic management in their activities. This concept was introduced into use at the turn of the 60s and 70s, and in the 80s. covered almost all American corporations.

The basis of strategic management is a systemic and situational analysis of the external (macroenvironment and competitors) and internal (research and development, personnel and their potential, finance, organizational culture, etc.) environment.

The most important component of the planning work of a corporation is strategic planning, which arose in conditions of market saturation and the slowdown in the growth of a number of corporations. Strategic planning creates the basis for making effective management decisions.

To reduce workers’ resistance to organizational changes taking place in corporations, programs are being developed to improve the “quality of working life”, with the help of which corporation employees are involved in developing a strategy for its development, discussing issues of rationalization of production, and solving various external and internal problems.

American scientists continue to pose and develop real management problems. The American practice of selecting executives places the main emphasis on good organizational skills, rather than on the knowledge of a specialist.

As for Japan, over the past two decades it has taken a leading position in the world market. And this despite the fact that Japan's population is only 2% of the world's population.

One of the main reasons for Japan's rapid success is its human-centered management model. At the same time, the Japanese do not consider one person (individual), like Americans, but a group of people.

The Japanese place social needs above others (belonging to a social group, the employee’s place in the group, attention and respect from others). Therefore, they perceive rewards for work (incentives) through the prism of social needs.

Unlike workers in other countries, the Japanese do not strive to unconditionally fulfill rules, instructions and promises. From their point of view, the manager's behavior and decision-making depend entirely on the situation. The main thing in the management process is to study the nuances of the situation that allow the manager to make the right decision.

Before the development of the capitalist mode of production in Japan, it was characterized by equalized remuneration for labor. The establishment of machine production required the development of a labor motivation system, taking into account the existing desire of workers for equalization and the personal contribution of each of them. A solution was found in the development of a system of remuneration for workers based on length of service.

The strongest means of motivation in Japan is the “corporate spirit” of the company. It is based on group psychology, which places the interests of the group above the personal interests of individual workers.

Quality management occupies a central place in the operational management of Japanese management. In all spheres of the Japanese economy, quality groups (circles) currently operate, which in addition to workers include foremen and engineers. The Japanese quality management system does not fail. This is the result of its thoughtfulness and simplicity.

In the early 70s. Vice President of the Toyota automobile company T. Ono proposed the Kanban labor organization system. Its essence lies in the fact that at all phases of the production process they abandoned the production of products in large batches and created continuous flow production.

Recently, American corporations have begun to introduce innovations that have led Japanese firms to significant success.

However, not all management methods used in Japan take root on American soil. It is impossible to transfer one management model to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.