Characteristic features of the Japanese model of management. The formula "enterprise is people" is the sincere belief of employers

There is no general theory of management suitable for all times and peoples - there is only general principles management systems that give rise to Japanese, American, French or German management systems with

Introduction 2

Chapter 1. Theoretical aspects of management models 2

1.1. Management and models 2

1.2. Description of the Japanese management model 2

Chapter 2 Comparative analysis Japanese School of Management 2

2.1. Comparison with Anglo-American Model 2

2.2. Comparison with German Model 2

Chapter 3. Application of Japanese experience in Russian management 2

3.1. Formation of Russian management on the basis of foreign management schools 2

3.2. Problems of management in Russia and the possibility of using Japanese experience to eliminate them 2

Conclusion 2

References 2

Introduction

There is no general management theory suitable for all times and peoples - there are only general management principles that give rise to Japanese, American, French or German management systems with their own unique features, since they take into account certain national values, features of national psychology, mentality, etc. d. The Japanese management system is recognized as the most effective in the world and main reason her success is her ability to work with people.

In recent years, interest in Japanese forms and methods of management has been growing all over the world. The rapid successful development of the economy of this country has allowed it to take a leading position in the world.

The Japanese system of government developed partly under the influence of local traditions, partly as a result of the American occupation after the Second World War, and partly in response to the need to combat poverty and devastation after the war.

Japanese management constantly uses the most useful management concepts Western countries, their methods and techniques, adapting them to their national characteristics, thereby preserving and strengthening their values and contributing to the establishment of a special style of thinking and methods inherent only to Japanese managers.

The Japanese management model is based on the “we are all one family” philosophy, so the most important task for Japanese managers is to establish normal relations with employees, to form an understanding that workers and managers are one family. Companies that have managed to do this have been the most successful. Management in Japan, like in any other country, reflects its historical features, culture and social psychology. It is directly related to the socio-economic structure of the country. Japanese management methods are fundamentally different from European and American ones.

Japanese management, based on collectivism, used all the moral and psychological levers of influence on the individual. First of all, this is a sense of duty to the team, which in the Japanese mentality is almost identical to a sense of shame.

What is the difference between the Japanese management method and the methods used in most European and American countries? This is the main theme of this thesis. First of all, its focus: the main subject of management in Japan are labor resources.

Chapter 1. Theoretical aspects of management models

Management - a set of methods, principles, means and forms of management of economic organizations in order to increase the efficiency of their work.

1.1. Management and models

The skills and abilities required to effectively manage an organization are not only professional group people who are called managers. Management as a universal human activity extends to various areas activities. It is noted that the "universal human process" includes five separate but interrelated elements:

Decision on setting a goal and planning activities to achieve it

Distribution of time and actions required to solve problems

Motivation and awakening to action

Coordination of separate but related activities

Keeping track of what is done to make sure the results are on track

In a fundamental sense, "management" is a universal human activity that is an integral element of most types of work, even if the term is not used for them. For various reasons and in various ways, there has been a separation of management into a function of specialists or a special profession. The degree and form of this division of labor is not constant: in modern organizations, it is common practice to combine labor and management directly.

As the organization grows, management is divided into smaller and smaller elements, there is a specialization of managerial functions within a professional group, and a management hierarchy develops. Usually distinguished:

Functional - responsibility for individual elements of the organization's activities (personnel management, research, marketing, production)

General - heading the departments of the organization, responsibility for general activities

Linear - performing functions directly related to the production or supply of products or services to the consumer

Hardware - performance of non-production functions of the enterprise, such as finance, personnel, procurement or legal issues

Management is in the flow historical events, which implies recognition of the equal impact on him of the past, present and future. The past influences all special management functions.
On a daily level, management deals with the present, with the need to integrate resources, with the coordination of various activities, with monitoring the current situation, with identifying problems, with production.
Dealing with operational issues may include verification of supplies, technical activities with resources, or dealing with customer requirements.

Management involves forecasting. No matter how favorable the situation in the present, no matter how efficient the current production, managers must carefully monitor the events in the outside world and try to look into the future. This involves testing existing systems and their continuous improvement, analysis of changes external environment and their impact on current operations.

A model is a simplified reflection of real life. It helps us understand its complexity and offers alternative points of view on the issue under study. No one model offers a complete solution, so it is useful for practitioners to learn how to combine them, using all the most valuable. For example, a company competing in the global market needs high product quality, production flexibility and low costs, so it is primarily interested in models of efficient organization of the production process from a technical point of view. Its leaders are also interested in patterns of human behavior at work that show the limitations of job simplification and its negative impact.
(decrease in flexibility, decrease in product quality) on employees in the long run.

Managerial models directly or indirectly direct the actions of managers; in order to get an idea of their nature, it is necessary to get acquainted with the widest possible range of possible points of view and the contribution of each of them to the management process.

Modeling allows us to analyze reality by formally highlighting key variables, suggesting possible relationships and predicting likely outcomes of change. Models help us understand the complexity of real life and not ignore it, but take it as "allies". Charles
Handy noted that theories: “They help to explain the past, which in turn helps to understand the present, predict the future, which allows you to influence it and bring relative order to it.

Many of those who begin a systematic study of management experience considerable difficulties at first (especially if they previously studied the physical or natural sciences, in which phenomena are governed by clear laws that allow, in certain circumstances, to more accurately predict the relationship between causes and effects). Management is far from certain. One of the reasons is a very large number of variables that determine the position and development of the organization.

However, even in natural science phenomena, many variables can be distinguished. The difference between management and natural sciences consists in problems with obtaining objective, accurate data.

The use of various models when discussing a certain phenomenon makes it possible to consider different theoretical approaches, which makes it possible to expand the horizons of analysis. Some models represent organizations as mechanisms, others as an arena of political battles, and still others as a career ladder. The images and metaphors that researchers use directly affect the assessment of the problems they are studying and the variables they consider.

Differences in metaphors are one source of inconsistent results from management studies.

Researchers develop models and theories in response to specific circumstances. AT late XIX in. the supply of skilled labor was limited, and unskilled, on the contrary, was in abundance, while managers sought to establish control over both. The problem with factory management was its ability to control the large number of available limited production experience of wage workers. In response to the needs of “production commanders” who sought to increase supply in response to growing demand, the first theories about production methods appeared, the authors of which were busy looking for ways to simplify the tasks facing workers, reduce complex labor to simple, which made it possible to expand the use of low-skilled work force.

Today, the main problem of management can be considered the question of organizing a flexible production that can meet the demand in rapidly changing markets, which means that managers are primarily interested in models that offer ways to maximize the flexibility of organizing activities. Modern theories reflect this interest, offering organizations various ways to survive in a highly turbulent and competitive world, focusing the attention of company management on the flexibility of production, the quality of goods and services, and low costs.

1.2. Description of the Japanese management model

Modern management methods developed in Japan in the conditions of post-war devastation, which set the leaders the task of restoring social, political and economic life. Under the influence of the American occupation administration, future Japanese managers got acquainted with American ideology and business management methods.
It was during this period that Japanese business leaders began to comprehend social responsibility for the consequences of their activities.

The leaders of Japanese enterprises carried out their tasks, first by applying traditional methods of management to the new conditions, and then with the help of the theories and methods of American management that they had learned. They tried not only to creatively apply pre-war experience to new conditions, but also to draw useful lessons, absorb new ideas and thus find a new, Japanese way of development.

As a result, the main features of the Japanese management system are determined by a number of concepts that are absent in the American model. The most important of these are the system of lifetime employment and the process of collective decision-making.

Japanese society is homogeneous and imbued with the spirit of collectivism. The Japanese always think in terms of groups. A person is aware of himself primarily as a member of the group, and his individuality - as the individuality of a part of the whole.
Guiding Principle Japanese management is in agreement with the studies of E. Mayo, who showed that work is a group activity.

The question of what human traits will be strong enough to be relied upon in the context of a rapidly changing social psychology and ethical values, for Japan, as well as for other countries, is still open. Many researchers believe that even the seemingly most modern features thinking and feeling of the individual and social groups are the product of past eras and will disappear in the course of the development of society. The change in management methods in Japan today is characterized by an increase in the freedom to choose concepts for creating optimal systems, but traditional management methods are not forgotten.

Another important feature of Japanese management is the concept of continuous learning. The Japanese believe that continuous learning leads to continuous improvement of skills. Each person through continuous learning can improve the performance of their work. This leads to self-development, and the results achieved bring moral satisfaction.
On the other hand, the purpose of training is to prepare for more responsible work and career advancement. But, unlike the Western approach to management, the Japanese give special meaning duty to perfect one's craft without expectation of any material gain. The Japanese are convinced that the improvement of skill itself can bring great satisfaction to a person.

The Japanese are receptive to new ideas. They love to learn from the mistakes of others and benefit from the experience of others. They closely monitor what is happening in the world and systematically supplement information from abroad. They borrow and quickly assimilate new technological methods and processes.
Japanese workers do not resist the introduction of new technological advances. Innovation is the foundation economic growth, and the Japanese are sincerely committed to it.

The ideas described above were important for preparing changes in Japanese management strategy and leadership style, as well as for the restructuring of individual enterprises and the economic system as a whole.
The core of the new concepts was the recognition of the social responsibility that lies with the managers.

Thus modern Japanese administration acquired a spirit of openness, which made it possible to subjugate technological development solving the problems of life itself. The Japanese system of government can be seen as a synthesis of imported ideas and cultural traditions.
Therefore, in order to understand the nature of modern Japanese management thought, it is necessary to touch on some features of the traditional culture of this country.

As noted, the Japanese management system has been formed to date as an organic fusion of national traditions and advanced management experience. As for national traditions, their very significant (in the context of this work) feature is that the Japanese prefer not to adhere to written rules; and their language, due to the hieroglyphic nature of writing, is not characterized by a clear unambiguity of definitions, characteristic of European languages, in particular, German.
The Japanese themselves write: “... in the traditional Japanese society, there was no general code of ethics, as well as categorical religious prescriptions. There was not even a clear system of ideas about sin...” (M. Yoshino).

The formula "enterprise is people" is a sincere conviction of employers. Japanese managers instill in their employees not only technical skills, but also moral and ethical values.

Ringi's group decision-making system can be considered as a product of the concept of "human potential". According to her, the responsibility for making a decision is not personified. The whole group is responsible for the decision. It is assumed that no one person has the right to make a decision alone.
You can consider in more detail the decision-making process of the group. The essence of the Ringi system is that decisions must be made by consensus.
The system requires everyone to make a decision. If someone is against, the proposal is returned to its initiator. This approach is still preserved, although the procedural part of the Ringi system has undergone changes. Each proposal is discussed in informal groups. A decision is never brought up for formal discussion without an informal one.

Here is how Richard Halloran describes the process of group decision making:
“In the process of formal discussion, each member of the group expresses a small part of his thoughts on this subject, but never comes out with a finished convincing speech. The Japanese, who have an extremely sensitive ego, do not want to fall into the state of being in the minority or, even worse, with a dissenting opinion. They are also afraid of accidentally offending a colleague with their harsh speech, which may contradict the opinion of their comrades. When the group leader is confident that everyone is basically in agreement with the minimum solution, he summarizes the group's opinion, asks if everyone agrees, and looks around the room for nods of approval. Not a single scream is heard."

It must be clearly understood that the Japanese method presupposes complete unanimity. This is not a majority decision. The Japanese abhor the tyranny of the majority. If there is no complete unanimity, no decision is made. If the decision is opposed by the opinion of a small minority, he is persuaded to respect the views of the rest. This compromise position will later be rewarded. It is considered impolite for a Japanese to openly object to a senior and superior: disagreement must be expressed very diplomatically.

The Japanese allow uncertainty, ambiguity, imperfection in organizational life, as well as many other things that really exist.
In addition, the Japanese feel much more interdependent. Therefore, they are ready to make further efforts aimed at improving people and cultivating the ability to work effectively with each other.

In contrast to the traditional "X" and "Y" model of behavior, the Japanese have developed and successfully applied the "human potential" model, which emphasizes the idea that people need the opportunity to use and develop their abilities, getting satisfaction from this.
The concept of "human potential" advocates working conditions in which the abilities of the worker are encouraged to develop, and pays special attention to the development in workers of the desire for self-management and self-control.

The power of management in Japan is considered to be legal and therefore readily accepted and respected. Workers feel that their managers are more educated and competent. Managers do not have excessive privileges, which could cause jealousy. Their salaries and other rewards are considered modest in relation to their merit. BUT effective management is a necessary condition for the prosperity of the workers themselves.

The conclusions that can be drawn, considering the Japanese system of management, are as follows: people get satisfaction from dependence, determined by a close vertical connection in the structure of the team, which is perceived as a guarantee of security and safety; the main task of the manager is to support the corporate spirit in the team, uniting employees with common interests and understanding the common goals of work; when an environment is created that enables group decision-making, all members of the team can contribute to the achievement of the goal to the best of their ability.

Management control is an abbreviated definition of management planning and feedback, which is a tool for managers to achieve organizational goals. The ability of a person to manage has certain limits, so the optimal scale of the business must be found to manage effectively.

It should be noted that managerial control over the fulfillment of the tasks set 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 (the word "control" is not associated with the "identification - punishment" model). ", and "check-help").

To get rid of subjectivity, Japanese managers everywhere, where there is the slightest opportunity, apply statistical methods to determine the current situation. The Japanese believe in numbers. They measure everything. They try to quantify all aspects of the business. The Japanese don't waste energy. Everything is arranged flawlessly, which is the essence of good management.

To maintain discipline and improve the quality of work, Japanese management relies more on rewards than on punishment.
Rewards are given for useful suggestions, for saving lives in accidents, for outstanding results in training courses, for excellent performance and for "dedication to one's work as a model for colleagues." These rewards are of different types: certificates, gifts or money and additional leave.

Japanese managers are extremely reluctant to resort to punitive measures. In contrast to the tactic of intimidation and punishment, Japanese management emphasizes the self-consciousness of workers and therefore uses the "tactic of slogans" to encourage discipline.

Such a position is quite understandable: on the one hand, each subordinate is an individual and has the right to make a mistake, on the other hand, a correct personnel policy when hiring “will not allow” an unscrupulous employee into the company, since the one who hired him is fully responsible for him. work.

Human resource management becomes a strategic factor due to the need to guarantee lifetime employment.

One of the distinguishing features of Japanese management is the management labor resources. Japanese corporations manage their employees in such a way that the latter work as efficiently as possible.
To achieve this goal, Japanese corporations use American personnel management techniques, including efficient systems wages, analysis of the organization of labor and jobs, certification of employees and others. But there is also a big difference between American and Japanese management. Japanese corporations make more use of the loyalty of their employees to the companies. Identification of employees with the corporation creates strong morale and leads to high efficiency. The Japanese management system tends to reinforce this identification, bringing it to the point of sacrificing the interests of the firm.

The Japanese employee identifies himself very closely with the corporation that hired him. Both senior officials and ordinary performers consider themselves representatives of the corporation. In Japan, every worker is convinced that he is an important and necessary person for his company - this is one of the manifestations of identification with the company. Another manifestation is that a Japanese worker, in response to a question about his occupation, names the company where he works. Many employees rarely take days off, and often do not take full advantage of their paid vacation, as they are convinced 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. Japanese corporations guarantee jobs for their employees and use a seniority-based reward system to prevent an employee from leaving for another firm. Those who have moved to another company lose their seniority and start all over again. The entire lifetime employment system is based on job security and promotion. In turn, each employee or ordinary worker receives satisfaction from his own efficiency in work, knowing that his actions will someday be surely appreciated.

Employment in Japan is of particular importance. It is not only a matter of contract between employer and employee. It has emotional and moral overtones.

Japanese workers work methodically and with dedication. They are punctual.
Perhaps only a slight relaxation in the last half hour of work. Japanese workers have a natural love for cleanliness and elegance. They have a very developed sense of duty. They take pride in their craftsmanship. They get great satisfaction from a job well done and feel unhappy if they fail. They don't feel like they're being exploited by the firm. Japanese workers are not forbidden to express pride in their work, as well as to express their loyalty to the firm.

Lifetime employment is not legal law. His statement is a tribute to a tradition that may have originated in the primitive community and received its finished form in the Japanese feudal society. The firm is morally obligated to take care of its employee until retirement. The staff is completed on the basis of personal qualities, biographical data and character. Loyalty is valued more than competence. Every worker is treated like a family member. In the same way, if there are financial difficulties, everyone tolerates a reduction in income with dignity.

In such circumstances, personnel management is especially important. Japanese managers believe that people are the greatest asset. When selecting applicants for management top level Most valued is the ability to lead people.
The Japanese have certain qualities that are indispensable in the management of industry. One expert said: "In Japan, everyone does not exist as an individual, but exclusively as a member of a large group." The individual identifies himself with the group. Her aspirations are those of the group; a person is proud of the work of this group. He is fully aware that he is a member of the team, and does not seek personal authority. He is always interested in the success of the team. All this enhances coordination in the organization of production, and personal friction is minimized.

Since the firm must function as one close-knit team, qualities such as mutual trust, cooperation, harmony and full support in solving the problems facing the group.
Individual responsibility and individual performance of work are deliberately obscured. The goal is to improve group performance and strengthen group solidarity.

Thus, management always thinks from the perspective of the group. The group is responsible for the success of the case as well as for the failures. Therefore, individual workers are rarely reproached for failures, especially if they are creative failures or associated with risky ventures. In Japanese firms, the decision is made by the group. Subordinates formulate their proposals and pass them on to interested parties. After group discussion general tasks are set, each employee defines his own and proceeds to their implementation. If it is noticed that a subordinate is not able to control the situation, the middle manager will intervene and will personally exercise leadership. Such an attitude inspires confidence that personal failures and mistakes, in general, do not matter, the elder will always help to get out of a difficult situation. Thus, the emphasis is not on avoiding failure, but on achieving a positive result. This requires mutual understanding.

A person needs self-respect: he likes to bear responsibility and improve his knowledge and skills. In this case, according to the Japanese, he has a long creative life. The focus of efforts on solving the problems of the company leads to his own development and the progress of the company. Managers in Japan constantly explain the goals and policies of the company to their workers, who are free to express their opinion on the matter. The workers have free access to the administration. The success of the company is their success.

The historical background of quality management was the nationwide movement "for the absence of flaws", which has grown into a comprehensive method of quality management. This movement had a significant impact not only on the quality of goods, but also on the awareness of the responsibility of each worker for the quality of the work performed, developing in them a sense of self-control.

Initially, the quality control and management system was based on quality circles. The tasks that, within the framework of the overall quality management activities at the enterprise, are:

1. Promoting the improvement and development of the enterprise

2. creation of a healthy, creative and friendly atmosphere at the workplace; comprehensive development of the abilities of employees and orientation to the use of these opportunities in the interests of the company.

Total quality management penetrates people's minds and helps to identify false information. It helps firms avoid using erroneous output and sales data. "Knowledge is power" is the slogan of total quality management.

There are three main features of Japanese industrial organizations: firstly, lifelong employment, secondly, the effect of seniority on salaries and wages, and thirdly, the organization of trade unions.

Japanese management accepts the union as a legitimate intermediary between management and workers in matters wages. But because trade unions in Japan are not divided by occupation, but are unions of workers in the same firm, they share management values such as productivity, profitability, and growth. This does not mean that the trade unions are servile: they retain their independence. They constantly monitor the correct observance of all agreed norms.

The unions are fully aware that workers can only improve their standard of living by increasing productivity, so they have begun to cooperate with management. There is a need for constant unified consulting on all issues that affect performance. The modernization process is not straightforward. There may be an oversupply of labor. But all these problems are solved through cooperation. Trade unions in Japan are constantly looking for ways and means to improve the lives of workers without harming the firm. They understand that the living conditions of workers ultimately depend on the prosperity of the firm. They critically examine and, if necessary, question the goals and policies of management. In this way, they can develop a constructive relationship with management by collaborating with it. Unions constantly compete with management in social and charitable activities. Trade unions in Japan are constantly striving to raise the level of workers' consciousness.

It should be noted that the significance, resources and power of management are not comparable with the resources of trade unions. But union leaders and management share two basic assumptions: first, the prosperity of the firm creates the conditions for solving other problems, and, second, hatred of each other does not benefit anyone.

In general, there are fewer complaints and claims against management in Japan for two main reasons: firstly, the Japanese worker does not feel oppressed, and secondly, he considers his work more important matter than rights or beliefs. The origins of this lie in the fact that the managers of Japanese firms pay great attention to the well-being of their workers. This naturally increases their confidence in both management and trade unions.

Chapter 2. Comparative analysis of the Japanese School of Management

2.1. Comparison with the Anglo-American model

The Anglo-American model is used in UK corporations,
USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and some other countries. It is characterized by the presence of individual shareholders and an ever-increasing number of independent ie. non-corporation shareholders (called "outside" shareholders or "outsiders"), as well as a well-defined legislative framework that defines the rights and obligations of three key participants: managers, directors and shareholders and a relatively simple mechanism for interaction between the corporation and shareholders, and between shareholders both at annual general meetings and between them.

Shareholding is a common way for corporations to accumulate capital.
UK and USA. Therefore, it is not surprising that the United States has the largest capital market in the world, and the London Stock Exchange is the third in the world in terms of market capitalization after New York and Tokyo. Moreover, there is a causal relationship between the dominance of equity financing, the size of the capital market, and the maturity of corporate governance. The US is the largest capital market and at the same time the site of the most developed proxy voting system and unprecedented activity of independent (institutional) investors. The latter also play an important role in the capital market and in corporate governance.
Great Britain.

The Anglo-American model, developed in a free market, involves the separation of ownership and control in the largest corporations.
This legal separation is very important from a business and social point of view, because investors, by investing their funds and owning an enterprise, are not legally responsible for the actions of a corporation. They delegate management functions to managers and pay them to perform these functions as their business agents. The fee for the separation of ownership and control is called "agency services".

The interests of shareholders and managers do not always coincide. The corporate laws in force in countries that apply the Anglo-American model of management resolve this contradiction in different ways.
The most important of them is the election by the shareholders of the Board of Directors, which becomes their trustee and begins to fulfill fiduciary obligations, i.e. to act in favor of the shareholders in the exercise of the functions of control over management.

The increase in the number of institutional investors has led to an increase in their influence. In turn, this led to legislative changes that contribute to their activation as participants in corporate relations.

Traditionally, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have been the same person. Often this led to various abuses, in particular to the concentration of power in the hands of one person (for example, the board of directors is controlled by one person who is both chairman and chief executive officer); or concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people; The Management Board and/or the Board of Directors try to hold on to power for a long period of time, ignoring the interests of other shareholders ("rooting"); as well as a gross violation of the interests of shareholders. At present, both American and British corporations are gravitating toward the inclusion of an increasing number of independent directors on the Board of Directors.

There are a number of factors that have contributed to the increase in the number of independent directors on the board of directors of UK and US corporations.
Among them: a change in the ownership structure, i.e. an increase in the number and influence of institutional investors and their participation in voting at annual general meetings of shareholders, as well as recommendations from independent, independently regulated organizations such as the UK Corporate Governance Financial Committee and various shareholder organizations in the USA.

The composition of the Board of Directors and representation on the board remain important issues of concern to shareholders in the UK and the US. Perhaps this is because other corporate governance issues, such as information disclosure and the mechanisms for interaction between corporations and shareholders, have been largely resolved.

Boards of directors in the UK and the US are smaller than in
Japan. A survey of the 100 largest American corporations conducted in
1993 by the Spencer Stewart Corporation showed that the size of Boards of Directors is decreasing, and on average it has 13 members compared to
15 in 1988

Laws governing activities pension funds also have an impact on corporate governance. In 1988, the US Department of Labor, which is responsible for the operation of private pension funds, ruled that these funds have fiduciary obligations, that is, they act as "attorneys" for their shareholders in the affairs of the corporation. This ruling had a strong impact on the activities of private pension funds and other institutional investors: they became interested in all issues of corporate governance, shareholder rights and voting at annual general meetings of shareholders.

It should be noted that in the United States corporations are registered and established in a certain state, and the laws of this state form the basis of the legislative framework for the rights and obligations of the corporation.

Compared to the capital markets of other countries, in particular Japan, in
The United States has the most stringent disclosure rules and a clear system of relationships between shareholders. As discussed above, this has a lot to do with the size and importance of the stock market in the US economy and internationally.

In the Anglo-American model, institutional investors and various financial professionals oversee the activities of the corporation and corporate governance. These include investment funds (for example, index funds and industry-specific funds); venture capital funds, or funds that invest in new corporations; agencies that assess the creditworthiness of borrowers or the quality of securities; auditors and funds focusing on bankrupt enterprises or unprofitable corporations. In the Japanese model, many of these functions, as a rule, are performed by one bank. That is, in Japan there is a strong relationship between a corporation and its main bank.

For a deeper understanding of the essence of the Japanese management style, it seems appropriate to consider the main differences in the very approach to the formation of a management system in the American and Japanese management schools. The most significant differences are in the following aspects:

Personnel policy in US firms is usually based on more or less the same principles in the following areas.

American firms that use traditional recruiting principles focus on specialized knowledge and skills. General criteria for recruitment are: education, practical work experience, psychological compatibility, ability to work in a team.

In American firms, there is a focus on the narrow specialization of managers, as well as engineers and scientists. American specialists, as a rule, are professional in a narrow area of knowledge and therefore their promotion in the management hierarchy occurs only vertically, which means that a financier will make a career only in this area. This limits the possibility of promotion through the levels of management, which leads to the turnover of managerial personnel, their transition from one company to another. In Japan, the employee who came to work is the so-called "clean slate" improving himself in the course of work, passing from the lowest step to the top.

In American firms, when hiring, potential candidates are tested to identify professional training. Typically, each firm develops its own selection criteria and the procedure for hiring employees.
After hiring, there is an induction procedure, where the employee is introduced to his duties in accordance with instructions limited to his narrow specialization, and is not introduced to the activities of the company as a whole and its organizational culture.

In Japanese firms, they are of the opinion that the manager should be a specialist capable of working in any part of the company, and not in its individual functions. Therefore, when improving the qualifications, the head of a department or subdivision chooses to master a new field of activity in which he has not worked before.

Japanese firms use as criteria: combining professions, the ability to work in a team, understanding the importance of one's work for a common cause, the ability to solve production problems, link the solution of various problems, write competent notes and the ability to draw graphs.

Typically, potential candidates are screened for their ability to work in semi-autonomous teams.

Japan has its own specifics in personnel management, which was discussed in detail in the first chapter. Taking into account all of the above about the features of personnel management in Japan, the following basic principles of the Japanese type of management can be distinguished:
. the interweaving of interests and spheres of life of firms and employees: the high dependence of the employee on his firm, the provision of significant special guarantees and benefits to him in exchange for loyalty to the firm and readiness to protect its interests;
. the priority of the collective principle over individualism, encouraging the cooperation of people within the company, within various small groups, an atmosphere of equality between employees, regardless of their positions.

In modern conditions, the training and retraining of managers is of great importance both at the official level and at the level of individual firms.

Each company practically has its own retraining system. New employees are required to undergo retraining annually, as a result of which the learning process is ongoing.

In 1985, the United States spent $60 billion on all forms of management education, including $13 billion on managerial development.

Japanese firms spend three to four times more on training per worker than American firms. In Japan, continuing education is part of the labor process, on which each employed person spends approximately 8 hours a week, including 4 hours at the expense of work time and 4 hours at the expense of personal time.

The basis of the Japanese system of vocational training in firms is the concept of "flexible worker". Its purpose is to select and train an employee not in one, but at least in two or three specialties, and then to improve their skills throughout their lives.

American companies highlight the acceleration of the turnover of invested funds and the increase in the value of shares as the main tactical task.
It is by these indicators that the effectiveness of the work of the administrative apparatus is determined.

Japanese companies usually single out the expansion of market share and an increase in the share of new products in the total volume of manufactured products as the main goals of an operational nature, which, according to the leaders of these companies, should ensure an increase in competitiveness and profits, but not only in the short term, but also, what is more important in the long run. Such a target orientation significantly affects the production and marketing strategy of corporations, as well as the features of the construction and operation of the entire management system.

For an American company, in accordance with the chosen tactical goals (focus on current profitability), a predominant focus on the maximum flexibility of the management system in terms of distribution and redistribution of all types of resources to increase profits in the short term is characteristic. For the implementation of such installations, formalized organizational charts with a clear formulation of sets of goals for each leader are most suitable.

In contrast, the orientation of Japanese companies to maximize profits in the long term leads to the fact that the company's management apparatus is formed on the principles that provide for the long-term accumulation of managerial resources, universal training and retraining of managerial personnel with their attachment to a given company for a long period of time.

Differences in tactical settings that determine production and marketing activities cause some differences in the approaches of American and Japanese companies to the choice of the most priority areas of activity and development directions. Thus, at present, American companies direct most of their resources to such areas as improving their products and technological processes. As a result of this orientation, most of the funds allocated for research and development are concentrated in these areas, since this investment structure provides shortest time their turnover.

Japanese companies will allocate the largest share of funds for fundamental research and development, as well as work on the creation of fundamentally new product samples. As a result, although in absolute terms the period of turnover of this part of financial resources is delayed, the manufacture of fundamentally new goods enables Japanese companies to produce more competitive products and thereby sharply increase profits, for example, at the end of a five-year period. An analysis of the situation in the capitalist markets shows very clearly the advantages of the tactics used by Japanese companies in the competitive struggle.

The fundamentally important point that determines the approach to management practice is that traditionally American managers were focused on certain individual values and results, while the Japanese approach is to ensure the effective operation of the group, and not the individual employee. At the same time, all management activities in American companies are based on the mechanisms of individual responsibility, evaluation of individual results, development of clear, quantified and, as a rule, short-term goals. The ideal American manager usually appears as a leader - a strong personality who closes the entire management process and is able to force his subordinates to work intensively to fulfill their specific goals.

The management style that prevails in Japanese companies is focused primarily on group activities. Emphasis on implementation managerial influences is done to include everyone, including the leader, in the activities of the group. At the same time, conditions are created and special measures are taken to establish horizontal links and coordination mechanisms both within groups and between all groups across the company, which significantly reduces the possibility of conflicts. Therefore, the ideal manager in Japanese appears as a person who is able to ensure the effective functioning of a team of like-minded people headed by him, in which the individual successes of each directly depend on and are connected with successful joint activities.

The Japanese manager must not only understand the nature of his subordinates, but also use their psychological characteristics to intensify work, without showing his superiority, but rather diligently demonstrating complete (however, ostentatious) equality and personal interest in the success of each member of the group he leads.
Based on this, the main task of the Japanese manager is the ability not to force subordinates to work effectively using the methods of bureaucratic coercion (orders, instructions, etc.), but to orient their activities in the right direction using implicit methods of influence that provide a voluntary focus on maximum return their productive and creative potential.

Comparison of characteristics of Japanese and American management models

2.2. Comparison with the German model

The German model is used in German and Austrian corporations.
Some elements of this model are also present in the Netherlands,
Scandinavia, France and Belgium.

German management model joint-stock companies significantly different from the Anglo-American and Japanese models. Although there is still some similarity with the Japanese model.

Banks are long-term shareholders of German corporations and, similar to the Japanese model, bank representatives are elected to the Boards of Directors.
However, unlike the Japanese model, where bank representatives are involved in the board only in crisis situations, in German corporations, the representation of banks on the board is permanent. The three largest universal German banks (i.e. banks providing a wide range of services) play a major role; in some areas of the country, state-owned banks are key shareholders.

There are three main features of the German model that distinguish it from other models. Two of them are the composition of the board of directors and the rights of shareholders.

First, the German model provides for a bicameral Council, consisting of a Management Board (executive board), corporation officers
(internal members) and the supervisory board (representatives of workers, employees of the corporation and shareholders). These two chambers are absolutely separated: no one can be a member of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board at the same time.

Secondly, the size of the supervisory board is established by law and cannot be changed by the shareholders.

Thirdly, in Germany and other countries that use the German model, the restriction of the rights of shareholders in terms of voting is legalized, i.e. the number of votes that a shareholder has at a meeting is limited, which may not coincide with the number of shares that this shareholder owns.

Most German corporations prefer bank financing to equity financing, so the capitalization of the stock market is small compared to the strength of the German economy. The percentage of individual shareholders in Germany is low, reflecting the general conservatism of the country's investment policy.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the management structure of a joint-stock company is shifted towards contacts between key participants, namely banks and corporations.
The system is somewhat controversial in relation to small shareholders: on the one hand, it allows them to make proposals, on the other hand, it allows corporations to impose restrictions on voting rights.

The percentage of foreign investors is quite large compared to
Japan: in 1990 it was 19%. This factor is gradually beginning to influence the German model, as foreign investors from countries
The European Community and other countries are beginning to protect their interests.
The spread of the capital market is forcing German corporations to reconsider their policies. When Daimler-Benz AG Corporation decided to list its shares on the New York Stock Exchange in 1993, it was forced to adopt existing general financial reporting standards.
USA which are also used in Japan. These standards provide greater openness compared to the German ones. Thus, Daimler-Benz AG was forced to report large losses that could have been hidden by applying German accounting principles.

German banks and, to a lesser extent, German corporations are key players in the German governance model. As in the Japanese model described earlier, the bank plays several roles: it acts as a shareholder and creditor, an issuer of securities and debentures, a depositary and a voting agent at the annual general meetings of shareholders.

In Germany, corporations are also shareholders and may have long-term investments in other unaffiliated corporations, i.e. corporations that do not belong to a specific group of related (commercially or industrially) corporations. This type is similar to the Japanese model, but is fundamentally different from the Anglo-American one, where neither banks nor corporations can be key institutional investors.

The inclusion of representatives of workers (employees) in the Supervisory Board is an additional difference between the German model and the Japanese one.

Bicameral government is a unique feature of the German model. German corporations are governed by a supervisory board and a board of directors. The Supervisory Board appoints and dissolves the Management Board, approves management decisions and makes recommendations to the Management Board. The Supervisory Board usually meets once a month. The Articles of Association of the corporation stipulate the documents that require approval by the supervisory board. The board is responsible for the day-to-day management of the corporation.

The board consists exclusively of employees of the corporation. The supervisory board includes only representatives of workers (employees) and representatives of shareholders.

The composition and size of the Supervisory Board are determined by the Industrial Democracy and Equality of Employees Acts; these laws also determine the number of representatives chosen by the workers (employees) and the number of representatives chosen by the shareholders.

The number of the Supervisory Board is established by law. In small corporations (less than 500), shareholders elect the entire
Supervisory Board. In medium-sized corporations (the size of the corporation depends on the size of funds and funds and the number of employees), employees elect one third of the supervisory board, consisting of 9 people. In large corporations, employees elect half of the 20-member supervisory board.

It should be noted that there are two main differences between the German model and the Japanese one:

1. The number of members of the Supervisory Board is established by law and is not subject to change.

2. The supervisory board includes representatives of workers (employees) of the corporation.

The fact that the Supervisory Board does not include "insiders" does not mean that only "outsiders" are included in it. Members of the supervisory board, elected by shareholders, are usually representatives of banks and corporations, i.e. large shareholders. It would be more correct to call them
"affiliated outsiders".

Germany has a strong federal tradition. Federal and local (land) laws influence the management structure of joint-stock companies. Federal laws include laws on joint-stock companies, laws on stock exchanges, commercial laws, as well as laws on the composition of supervisory boards listed above. However, the regulation of the activities of exchanges is the prerogative of local authorities.
The Federal Securities Agency was established in 1995. It also supplemented the missing element of German legislation.

Germany has fairly strict disclosure rules, but less stringent than Japan. Corporations must provide a variety of information in the annual report or at general meetings, including financial information (every semester), capital structure data, limited information about each candidate for the supervisory board (including name and surname, address, place of work and position held), aggregate information on remuneration paid to members of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board, data on shareholders owning more than 5% of the corporation's shares; information about a possible merger or reorganization; proposed amendments to the bylaws; and the names of persons or corporations invited to audit.

The main difference in the German financial reporting system is that German corporations are allowed to have significant retained earnings, which allows corporations to understate their value.

The actions of the corporation that require the approval of shareholders are the distribution of net income (payment of dividends, use of funds), ratification of decisions of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board for the past financial year, election of the Supervisory Board, appointment of auditors.

Approval of decisions of the executive council (Board) and
The Board of Supervisors essentially means "seal of approval" or "vote of confidence". If the shareholders want to take any legal action against individual members or against the Board as a whole, they will refuse to ratify the decisions of the board for the past year.

Unlike the Japanese models, shareholders do not have the right to change the size or composition of the Supervisory Board. The size and composition of the council are established by law.

Other actions that also require shareholder approval are: decision to incur costs (which automatically recognizes pre-emptive rights, unless overruled by shareholders), cooperation with affiliates, amendments and changes to the Articles of Association (for example, changing the approved activity), increasing the remuneration ceiling members of the Supervisory Board. Extraordinary actions requiring shareholder approval are a merger, a majority stake purchase and a reorganization.

In Germany, shareholder proposals are commonplace. After the announcement of the agenda of the annual general meeting, shareholders may submit two types of proposals in writing: a counterproposal, i.e. contrary to the proposal of the Management Board and/or the Supervisory Board included in the agenda. It may concern an increase or decrease in the amount of dividends or, for example, present an alternative candidate for the Supervisory Board.
The shareholders' proposal may contain an addition to the agenda. Examples of shareholder proposals: alternative candidates for the Supervisory Board, conducting a special investigation or review, requesting the removal of restrictions on voting rights, recommendations for changing the capital structure.

If these proposals meet all the established requirements, the corporation must announce them and notify the shareholders before the meeting.

Existing in Germany the legislative framework takes into account the interests of employees, corporations, banks and shareholders. The multifaceted role of banks has already been discussed earlier. In general, the system is focused on key participants. But, despite this, a lot of attention is paid to small shareholders, for example, the above-mentioned proposals of shareholders are allowed.

However, there are certain obstacles to the participation of shareholders in management, namely in terms of the powers of banks as depositaries and voting members.

Most German shares are bearer shares (they are not registered). Corporations issuing such shares must announce annual general meetings in government publications and send their annual reports and agenda to the depositary bank, which in turn sends these materials to those shareholders who are interested in them.
This procedure often makes it difficult for foreign shareholders to obtain materials.

In Germany, most shareholders buy shares through a bank, and banks, as depositaries, have the right to vote at meetings. The process is as follows: the shareholder gives the bank a power of attorney, according to which the bank has the right to vote within a specified period - up to 15 months. The corporation sends the agenda and the annual report to the depository bank. The Bank provides the shareholder with these materials, as well as its voting recommendations. If the shareholder does not give the bank special voting instructions, the bank has the right to vote at its own discretion. This leads to a potential conflict of interest between the bank and the shareholder. This also leads to increased voting power of banks, as not all shareholders give voting instructions to banks, and banks vote at their own discretion. But, since the number of individual shareholders in Germany is small, this does not pose much of a problem, although, on the other hand, it reflects the "pro-banking" and "anti-equity" side of the system.

In addition, legal restrictions on the right to vote and the inability to vote by mail also prevent shareholders from participating in the affairs of the corporation. As already mentioned, the shareholder must either attend the meeting in person or be represented by his depositary bank.
Despite these obstacles, small shareholders are not excluded from the process, and at meetings they often bring their proposals against the managers every year. AT
Austria's small shareholders are not as active. Maybe because the Austrian government is directly or indirectly a major shareholder in most corporations.

Chapter 3. Application of Japanese experience in Russian management

3.1. Formation of Russian management on the basis of foreign management schools

The most important factor influencing the specifics of management is the mentality of the nation. Currently, in the proposed basic concepts of the formation of Russian management, mentality is given different meanings:

1. The concept of copying Western management theory. It does not take into account the features Russian mentality. Russia “needs to take a ready-made management model and use it in managing the economy...”. To master the theory, it will only be necessary to translate textbooks on management into Russian.
Then, without changing anything, use these provisions in practice.
The probability of implementing this concept is very high due to its simplicity and the habit of thoughtlessly copying foreign experience. But it also carries a great danger. It is not a fact that the Japanese School of Management will fully take root in
Russia, and the fact that it is American, is also unlikely. It is possible to predict various shocks that await Russia in the implementation of this concept. At least, due to the fact that in our unstable situation (although it improves over time), the lifetime employment system used in Japanese companies is unlikely to take root.

2. The concept of adaptation of Western management theory. It assumes partial consideration of the peculiarities of the Russian mentality, i.e. not blind copying, but the adaptation of foreign theory to modern Russian conditions. This raises an important problem, which of the Western management theories will we adapt? Control systems of Japan, USA, Western
Europe is very different. Which of these options should be taken as analog? But with any choice, we run the risk of using a theory that takes into account specific features, the conditions for the functioning of the economy, the level of socio-economic development of these countries, the mentality of their inhabitants.
Here it is advisable to recall the words of M. Weber: "Western-type capitalism could arise only in Western civilization." In Russia at the end of the 80s, being late or leaving work earlier than the deadline, petty theft, poor product quality have become a normal phenomenon and have survived to this day. Based on this, the national management system will have to be amended to combat delays, “nonsense”, introduce new methods to improve quality, add what is not acceptable to other countries. As a result, adapted theories that poorly take into account the specifics of Russian reality will not be able to give the Russian economy what is expected of them.

3.Creation concept Russian theory management. It proceeds from the full consideration of the peculiarities of the Russian mentality using aspects of world management experience. At the same time, neither blind copying of the Western and Eastern experience, nor a complete denial of the achievements of the Western and Eastern schools of management is possible. Both the first and the second are equally inapplicable.
It should be noted that even A. Marshall argued that: "Economics is not a collection of specific truth, but only a tool for discovering specific truth." In our opinion, this statement can be completely transferred to the science of management. Therefore, Russian management must have its own specific content, forms and methods of management that correspond to the specifics of the Russian mentality.

At present, it is generally recognized that the national and regional mentality is the most important factor influencing the forms, functions and structure of government. However, stating this fact is not enough. There is a deeper essential relationship between management and mentality. There are a number of definitions of mentality: mentality -
"a set of historically developed psychological characteristics of the behavior of the nation"; “a peculiar memory of the people about the past, a psychological determinant of the behavior of millions of people who are true to their historically established “code” in any circumstances...”; "... a certain socio-psychological state of the subject - a nation, a nationality, a people, its citizens - imprinted in itself (not "in the memory of the people", but in its subconscious) the results of a long and sustainable impact of ethnic, natural-geographical and socio- economic conditions of residence of the subject of mentality”. In these definitions we are talking not only about the psychological, but also about the socio-psychological nature of the mentality. So, analyzing the forms and methods of management in different countries, we cannot ignore German punctuality, English conservatism, American pragmatism, Japanese paternalism, Russian laxity. A person cannot be free from society, from himself, his mentality. At the same time, he is always in a certain hierarchical system: either he subordinates and leads, or he obeys. Even in solitude, he directs his actions, deeds, proceeding subconsciously from his mentality. This shows the correspondence of management to the mentality.
So, “mentality-management”, their correlation, correspondence and contradiction acts as content and form, as essence and phenomenon. They are in an inseparable, objectively conditioned, constantly recurring relationship, which can be qualified as "the law of correspondence between mentality and management". The correspondence between management and mentality determines a relatively stable system of production, smoothes out contradictions between the managed and the managers, and helps to overcome crisis situations.
Correspondence between management and mentality is one of the fundamental features of the balance of social systems characterized by the absence of social conflicts. An example of this is the economic development of Japan. The contradiction in the "mentality-management" system is one of the reasons for the emergence and duration of socio-economic crises. A striking example is Russia, where the transition to a market economy and the associated need to reform the management system presupposes bringing it into line with the specifics of the Russian mentality.

The main problem is the following: should Russia blindly adopt the theory of Japanese management and apply it in practice, or some other foreign school? Borrowing someone else's experience by Russia can bring even more negative results. This is explained by the fact that the Russian mentality has always been characterized by the presence of polarity, the desire for the grotesque, bringing any situation to an extreme. Traditionally, there were several points of view about the types of Russian mentality:

1-Westerners;

2-Slavophiles;

3-Eurasianism.

Westerners (P.Ya. Chaadaev, A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky and others) denied the original form of Russian thinking. In their opinion, a transition to Western standards and forms of thinking is necessary. Westernism has had a significant impact on the Russian mentality. The introduction of American economic principles and their lifestyle in our country is presented as a way out of the current critical situation.

Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, etc.), on the contrary, believed that Russia has a fundamentally different way of development from the Western European one, its own way of thinking, based on its originality, patriarchy, conservatism and Orthodoxy . The basis of this mentality is a social form of management. Based on this provision, a number of scholars believe that “the mentality of Russians is the main obstacle to Americanization
Russia. He is the reason for the failure of Yeltsin's economic and socio-political reforms. Any attempt to bring about change in Russia, if it ignores the Russian mentality, is doomed to failure.”

However, extreme points of view are most often wrong. In our opinion, Russia is a bizarre combination of Westernism and Slavophilism. This is reflected in the theory of Eurasianism. The latter does not deny the influence on the Russian mentality, both west and east, most of which had an impact on us.
Japan. Russia has always stood between Europe and Asia. Its geographic and racial-ethnic diversity has absorbed this geopolitical reality. The population living on the territory of Russia created and created a "synthesized" culture. Berdyaev noted: "... The inconsistency of the Russian soul was determined by the complexity of Russian historical fate, the clash and confrontation in it of the Eastern and Western elements."

From Asia, Russia absorbed a form of group thinking - groupism, and from
Europe - individualism with its inherent worldview. Groupism and individualism are two fundamental qualities that form the basis of the Russian mentality. Moreover, they come into conflict with each other due to the polarity of their foundations. Their ratio in the course of historical development was not constant.

The tradition of the command economy was one of the most important reasons for the inefficiency of the Soviet system. At present, the dualism of the Russian mentality, its inconsistency, have moved to a qualitatively different level.
Observed new wave the growth of individualism, on the one hand, and the erasure of communal traditions, on the other. However, dualism was and remains the main feature of the national mentality. This makes it possible to determine its place in relation to the American and Japanese mentality. If we consider American individualism and management based on it as one extreme point, and Japanese, based on the psychology of groupism, as another, 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, tending to individualization, making its way in the conditions of the emerging market. Based on this, we believe that the main trend in the formation of the Russian mentality is a gradual and steady movement towards individualism towards an Americanized mentality and a gradual deviation from the Japanese direction. Whether this is right or not, time will tell.

The formation of Russian management should take into account the main trend in the development of mentality towards developing individualism, focusing more and more on the individual, the implementation of individual control, accounting for the individual contribution and payment in accordance with it. This means that in enterprises, promotions that are not based on acquaintance and family ties but solely on the personal abilities of each individual. When forming a management system, it is necessary to take into account as much as possible the business qualities of the individual, his ability to perceive the new, perseverance. AT major cities with a developed psychology of individualism, relationships are increasingly built on practicality, the desire for enrichment is increasingly manifested. The system of the emerging Russian management should take this into account, distinguishing and celebrating individuals whose individual mentality predominates. It is best for such people to entrust individual areas of work, where they could show all their abilities and receive a salary in accordance with them. It is advisable to use workers with a collectivist psychology in areas where specific management methods are applied that are adequate to them, with an emphasis on collective work, collective responsibility and control, the use of a brigade form of labor organization and its payment, etc. With this approach, it is possible to carry out a targeted selection of managers. A modern Russian manager should be distinguished by flexibility in defining goals and objectives of management and firmness, when a goal is chosen, in a steady striving to achieve it. This type of leader, combining flexibility, adaptability and huge volitional qualities will take years to build. A specific feature of Russian management should be reliance on the worker's diligence, focus on diligence and punctuality. These qualities inherent in the people must be encouraged in every possible way. When cultivating these qualities, in the process of establishing a national management system, we can make a gradual transition from rigid management decisions to flexible ones. Today, rigidity is a necessary but necessary measure. The strategic perspective of Russian management is a movement towards softer in form, but also more effective in content management. Russian management must take into account Christian traditions. Berdyaev noted that “the soul of the Russian people was formed by the Orthodox Church, it received a purely religious formation. The religious formation has developed some stable properties, dogmatism, asceticism, the ability to bear suffering and sacrifice in the name of faith, aspiration for the transcendent, which refers either to eternity and another world, then to the future, then to this world. The desire for wealth increasingly permeates various strata of society and is a defining incentive for activity.
Christianity in its essence is undesirable about greed, the power of the “yellow devil”. Hence another feature of the Russian mentality: people can work not so much for the sake of money, but for the implementation of some social, political or religious idea. The enthusiasm of the Russian people was used by many generations of Soviet leaders. At the same time, the enthusiasm that arose on the basis of some unifying national idea could become the most important component of Russia's way out of the crisis, giving impetus to its socio-economic development even today. It is worth recalling Taylor's words: "The art of scientific management is an evolution, not an invention." However, evolution also involves conscious selection. Therefore, we can add the following to Taylor's statement: “... the art of scientific management is the evolution and selection of optimal forms and methods of management, reflecting the most important specific features of the national mentality” .

In Russia, the word "management" as management in a market economy is a new term, the essence of which differs from the traditional management of the centralized command-administrative system that functioned in Russia throughout the Soviet period.

The old management paradigm in Russia for 70 years was based on the Marxist ideology of economic development, which was characterized by the following features:

1. The closeness of the economic complex of the country and the focus on national economic efficiency.

2. A criterion for social orientation, for public property and a fair division based on the results of labor.

3. Extreme politicization, which caused the monopolization and concentration of production.

4. Centralization and bureaucratization of management.

In the new paradigm of management in Russian management, such processes are developing as:

1. Integration of the Russian economy into the world economy.

2. Formation and functioning of market economic entities as open systems.

3. Flexible combination of public administration methods and market regulation.

4. The use of market and administrative methods of managing enterprises of various activities and forms of ownership.

A Russian enterprise, becoming an independent object of commodity-money relations, fully responsible for the results of its economic activity, must form an effective management system
(management), which could allow the company to achieve a competitive and sustainable position in the market.

Compared to the old management system that has existed for many years at Russian enterprises, new functions appear in the new conditions: developing strategies and development policies, finding the necessary material and labor resources, improving the production and organizational structures of enterprise management.

Under these conditions, the demands on Russian managers for the timeliness and quality of decisions made have sharply increased. The role of scientific and technical progress, which makes it possible to satisfy the needs of the market through innovations, has increased. In Russian business, there is an urgent need to marketing research to explore these needs. For the implementation of the production of competitive products in the conditions of minimizing production costs, issues related to the management of personnel, which in the new Russian realities becomes the main resource, are becoming increasingly important.

Management at Russian enterprises places high demands on the professionalism of management personnel and management style. In the conditions of a shortage of financial resources, it became necessary to use the methods of motivation developed by the world practice of management. Japan's lifetime employment experience is unlikely to suit Russian enterprises, due to their instability, but still in a number of large enterprises this can be fully implemented, because yet people are trying to stay in stable operating companies in which there is an opportunity for advancement. Although sometimes you can advance professionally much faster by changing one job to another, with a promotion or just a salary. as.

The Russian experience in the field of business management is reduced only to the use of methods of planning and control over the execution of plans.

The Russian so-called "new commercial structures" are not yet business enterprises, but purely speculative enterprises. Manufacturing enterprises attempting to operate in the market environment face many challenges and constraints in the environment of their operations.
Therefore, it is important for Russian managers to study foreign management experience and creatively use it in the new Russian conditions in order to build an organization of a new type for our country, including modern methods of corporate and anti-crisis management, focused on diversification, competitiveness and financial stability.

The approach from the standpoint of the human factor for Russia, which has many years of experience in administrative-bureaucratic, overly formalized management, is very important today.

Features of Russian management:

Priorities in issues, acceptance of attention and efforts;

Management infrastructure, socio-economic and political conditions for its implementation;

A set of factors that hinder and facilitate the strengthening of management in Russia:

Cultural environment, features public consciousness which cannot be changed.

Russian management is a creative understanding of foreign experience, taking into account Russian specifics, i.e. synthesis of the world experience of effective management and the existing domestic experience based on the national and historical features of our culture. To put it simply, everything is still in its infancy and we are trying to find an average between the Japanese school of management and the American one and are looking for acceptable methods from both.

3.2. Problems of Management in Russia and the Possibility of Using Japanese Experience to Eliminate Them

The transition from an administrative-command economy to a market economy, on the one hand, and the specifics of the Russian system of values, the Russian mentality, on the other, determined the features of Russian management at the present stage. In the period after 1992, the real direction of economic and management reforms, as well as the role of individual spheres of managing socially active groups and individuals. Different rates of restructuring of the main groups of business entities: the state, labor collectives
(staff, managers, managers) - complicated the transition processes and their analysis.

The behavior of managers within the framework of a favorable economy is characterized by: maintaining jobs, minimizing the loss of skilled workers while reducing production volumes and diversifying it. But sometimes we have cases of "sitting" when one person, in order to advance, tries in every possible way to throw off the person who works there from the position they are striving for. As a result, there is a possibility of losing one of the employees. These methods are not allowed in Japan - this principle must be followed by our people.

As part of rational economy this is a rigid distribution of resources within the enterprise: the struggle for sales markets, strengthening one's position in the market, pursuing a new financial policy and changing the internal organization, while strengthening the role of financial capital over production and human capital.

Changing the behavior and goals of the workforce towards a more rational attitude towards themselves. First of all, these are proposals coming
"from below" and concerning more rational use resources, the production of more profitable and marketable goods.

Working shareholders are aware of the dilemma that arises when demanding dividend payments, wage increases, on the one hand, and additional tax in the form of payments to non-working shareholders, on the other.

Such a mixture occurs due to the fact that the separation of interests between management and workers has not completely passed. Where the separation has occurred, control becomes managerial, and workers become a cost element in the activities of the enterprise.

On the other hand, one can note an increase in the number of retrained workers, a non-conflict resolution of dismissal issues, a reduction in production and administrative and managerial personnel. The active role of workers - shareholders manifested itself and facilitated the change of the management team at the enterprise.

Poor product quality is another of our problems, which by and large does not allow us to enter the world market. All our exports consist only of raw materials, due to their large availability. But it ends with time. And there are still no goods that freely compete on the world market. So experience must be adopted in terms of product quality. Control over which in Japan has been worked out from and to.

Russian managers at the beginning of the transition period focused on management from the standpoint of the rational use of all internal resources and relied on employees - the owners of this enterprise (owners of large blocks of shares). Now the emphasis has changed and the management is voluntarily going to increase the proportion of shares held by outside owners. In other words, the shift has taken place from "closed" management towards "open". At the same time, the share of "external" share holders often expands in order to attract investors for the reconstruction of production, its re-profiling and diversification. There are also trends of voluntary reduction of the "price" for the transition under "external" control. We are talking about the concession by managers of part of their power to "external" management in exchange for guaranteed ownership of a certain share of shares.

The formation of this category of managers took place in two directions. On the one hand, these are workers who took advantage of economic freedom and built their own business. The initial stage of almost all was the creation of small enterprises. As a rule, these are highly educated young people (25-40 years old), capable of quick reorientation, good organizers, willing and able to work hard to achieve their goals. Managers of this category are characterized by a quick perception of the norms of economic behavior of their "foreign" colleagues, the ability to comprehensively see and solve the problems of their business, the rapid development of methods for building business, partnerships with "foreign" colleagues. At the same time, earlier these people, as a rule, did not have the experience of managing work, economic facilities, large production teams, since they did not go through the school of economic interaction of the administrative-command economy.

On the other hand, there are managers of large enterprises whose managerial experience has developed in an administrative-command economy, but who are forced to manage in market conditions, on their own experience. "Mistakes" in such training acquire a great price for the enterprise. Moreover, another qualitative certainty of control in market economy largely determined the small proportion of successful leaders. These are the leaders of the older generation (50-65 years old) who are being replaced by younger ones (30-
40 years) with management experience in this enterprise. These include workers who left their jobs and tried to build their own independent business. This category of employees is united by the experience of independent business management in market conditions. In other words, employees of this enterprise come to the positions of the first heads of large enterprises. Work according to the Japanese principle - people want to work. And that is why the desire for self-expression plays an important role for new managers in Russia, they are trying to achieve the goals that they have set for themselves. They bring experience market management, their capital accumulated in private business and established ties with banks.

The management of the Russian Federation is still far from the parameters set by globalization (those set by world leaders in the field of management
Japan and America) at all levels: from an individual firm to society as a whole.
However, the years of market reforms have laid positive prerequisites for the formation of market management principles and a new generation of managers with new views and attitudes, which are based on foreign experience and the Japanese School of Management makes a significant contribution to this. They know how to establish and organize a business, conclude deals, manage rationally, they know how to reduce the cost of production and the volume of goods, find a supplier and a consumer.
They care about their own reputation and image. They are prosperous, they are engaged in philanthropy. As a rule, this is a highly educated class, where it is not uncommon for two higher education, candidate and doctoral degrees. Many of them have studied at prestigious foreign universities and have internships in successful companies. Japanese companies, of course, are no exception, training and learning from them is significant. This class has its own associations, unions, associations and even political organizations, and through them initiates the solution of important local, regional and national problems.
The state is obliged to reckon with this new class, and society must comprehend this new phenomenon in Russian life. Their business philosophy, high professional education and pronounced intellectual and voluntaristic talent, multiplied by patriotic thoughts and high responsibility for the fate of the fatherland, are the key to high competitiveness Russian business and rapid adaptation to the conditions of globalization.

Of course, a lot in our work, career, life depends on the social and other conditions common to all, on the characteristics of each place of work that has fallen to the lot, on many other objective circumstances, perhaps not very subject to each individual person.

Of course, modern world diverse, depends on many factors, but this thesis should become a guide for those who want to assume the burden of responsibility for managing our economy in the conditions of perestroika and who are ready to do everything to be at the level of this responsibility.

Conclusion

Japan is a small country. The population density is high. Resources are limited. Natural disasters evoke a sense of danger. Therefore, the Japanese have a keen sense of the need for national unity. They are fully aware that their survival depends on unity and social cohesion.

The Japanese work as a group more effectively than the Europeans, especially when they are given a difficult task. Even decision-making is done in Japan by group consensus. Japanese society is divided into separate institutions not horizontally, but vertically.
The enterprise is one of such institutions. Managers and employees may have disagreements, but these are purely internal business of the firm. Both look at competing firms as their sworn enemies. Each company strives to be the first in its field. Prestige means more than profit.

Japanese management appeals to the natural healthy instincts of workers to develop their creativity, skill and consciousness.

During the 30-40 years of post-war development, Japanese management and the Japanese economic model allowed the country to effectively mobilize the personal and social potential of the people to realize the constant growth of production, prevent excessive society and prevent the distortion of socio-economic relations under the influence of criminal elements.

An understanding of Japanese management will certainly help Russian business executives, economists, and businessmen to better understand the problems of their country's economy, and makes it possible to improve production.
Moreover, enterprises operating “in Japanese style” have already been created in the United States,
UK, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries. One example is the German concern Porsche, which by 1992 was on the verge of bankruptcy. The help of a Japanese consulting firm made up of ex-Toyota employees gave a brilliant result: the production of cars increased, the number of employees decreased by 19%, the occupied territory by 30%, profit appeared, and the product range increased.

Mastering the core of Japanese management is the rejection of narrow specialization, the universal development of the employee and the stable employment associated with such development, the rotation of personnel within the company, training in the process of work, etc. - is necessary for every company that wants to not only succeed, but at least exist.

List of used literature

1. Vakhrushev V., Principles of Japanese management. - M: FOZB, 1992.

2. Kaoru I., Japanese methods of quality management. - M: Economics,

3. "How Japanese enterprises work" // under. Edited by I. Kaoru. - M:

Economics, 1989.

4. Kartavy M.A., Nekhashkin A.N., Methodological principles of the formation of Russian management // Management in Russia and abroad. 1999. No.

5. Kravchenko A.I. Management History: Tutorial for university students. - M.: Academic Project, 2002.

6. Kuritsyn A.I. Management in Japan: organization and methods. - M., Science,

7. Matrusova T.N., Japan: financial incentives in firms. - M:

Science, 1992.

8. Meskon M. H., Albert M., Hedouri F. Fundamentals of management Per. from English.

- M .: "Delo", 1992.

9. Monden Ya., "Toyota" methods of effective management. - M.:

Economics, 1989.

10. Tatarnikova A.A. HR management in corporations in the USA, Japan,

Germany. - M., INE, 1992.

11. Management of the organization, ed. A.G. Porshneva, Z.P. Rumyantseva. M.:

INFRA - M, 2000

12. Personnel management and labor relations in Japan //

Personnel Management. 2001. -№7.

13. Personnel management, ed. T.Yu. Bazarov. Moscow: Banks and exchanges,

UNITY, 1998

14. Shamkhalov F.I. American Management: Theory and Practice. – M.:

Science, 1993.

15. "These incredible Japanese" // Parkinson S.N., Rastomdzhi M.K., Sapre

MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS, STATISTICS AND INFORMATION

COURSE WORK

in the subject "Management"

on the topic: "Japanese model of management"

Completed by: Kondrashkin S.A.

code number 94057

Introduction ................................................ ................................................. ................................................. ................................................

I. Principles of Japanese governance .................................................. ................................................. ...............................

II. Behavior in the organization .................................................................. ................................................. ...............................................

III. Control system................................................ ................................................. ................................................. ........

IV. Human resource management .................................................................. ................................................. .................

V. Quality management system .......................................................... ................................................. ...............................

VI. Trade unions in Japan .............................................................. ................................................. ................................................. .

VII. The role of Japanese philosophy, art .............................................. ................................................. ........

Conclusion................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ...............................

References................................................ ................................................. ......................................

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Over the past two decades, Japan has taken a leading position in the world market. It accounts for 44.5% of the total value of shares of all countries in the world. And despite the fact that the population of Japan is only 2% of the world's population.
One of the main reasons for Japan's rapid success is its human-centered management model. Over the entire period of historical development in Japan, certain methods of work and behavior have developed that correspond to the specific features of the national character.
Economy and frugality are hallmarks of the Japanese character. Savings slogans can be found at every Japanese enterprise. The requirements of economy and thrift are directly related to the production of high-quality products. The essence of Japanese management is the management of people. At the same time, the Japanese do not consider one person (personality), like Americans, but a group of people. In addition, Japan has developed a tradition of submission to the elder, whose position is approved by the group.
It is known that human behavior is determined by its needs. At the same time, the Japanese put above others social needs(belonging to a social group, the place of the employee in the group, the attention and respect of others). Therefore, they perceive remuneration for work (incentives) through the prism of social needs, although in recent times Japanese management has absorbed some of the motivational concepts of American management, focused on the psychology of the individual. This found expression in the fact that the need for personal consumption began to be recognized. The Japanese began to purchase consumer goods in large quantities.
The Japanese management model is focused on " social person”, the concept of which was put forward by the “school of human relations” that emerged in the United States, which replaced Taylorism, which put the material demands and incentives of the “economic man” at the forefront. A "social person" has a specific system of incentives and motives. Incentives include wages, working conditions, leadership style, interpersonal relationships between workers. The motives for work are the labor successes of the employee, recognition of his merits, career growth, professional excellence, the degree of delegated responsibility, and creativity. However, the attitude of the Japanese to the concept of "social person" is more flexible than the Americans.
The Japanese take into account the current situation and adapt to it. Unlike workers in other countries, the Japanese do not strive for the unconditional implementation of rules, instructions and promises. From their point of view, the manager's behavior and decision-making depends entirely on the situation. The main thing in the management process- is the study of the nuances of the situation, which allow the manager to make the right decision. The Japanese build relationships with their partners on the basis of trust.
The strongest motivator in Japan is the "corporate spirit" of the firm, which refers to merging with the firm and devotion to its ideals. The "corporate spirit" of the company is based on the psychology of the group, which puts the interests of the group above the personal interests of individual employees.
Every Japanese firm is made up of many groups. In each group there are seniors and juniors, leaders and followers. Seniors and juniors in the group differ in age, seniority and experience. The younger ones in the group unconditionally perceive the authority of the elders, show them signs of attention and respect. They obey the elders. Groups are focused on the goals and objectives of the firm. Working for the purpose of the company, every Japanese understands that he is working for the group and for himself. Each employee feels like a part of the company. When meeting someone, the Japanese introduce themselves: “I am from Sony, Honda, etc. In this way, the Japanese differ from the Americans, who use this form of presentation only when talking on the phone, and in all other cases they first of all call their name.
Large Japanese firms are characterized by a system of "lifetime employment", which covers up to 30% of the total number of employees. The essence of this system is as follows: every year at the beginning of April (after school year) firms fill existing vacancies with graduates of schools and universities, who, after adaptation and training, begin to directly fulfill their duties. Firms guarantee their employees employment not only until they retire at 55 (and in some firms at 60), but also in the event of a decline in production and other unforeseen circumstances.
Japanese workers seek to get into firms that practice a "lifetime employment" system. An employee dismissed from such a firm perceives his position as catastrophic, humiliating him in social terms. The employee hides the very fact of dismissal from his family and relatives, who, due to established traditions, look at him as an outcast who lacks knowledge, professionalism, abilities and efforts. The system of "lifetime employment" is very beneficial for both employers and employees. Entrepreneurs acquire loyal and dedicated employees who are ready to work for the benefit of the company with the greatest return. Employees hired "for life" by the firm experience a sense of deep satisfaction from the fact that they have received recognition for their abilities, education and level of training. The employee has a feeling of stability in his position in life, confidence in the future. To the firm that hired them, employees are imbued with feelings of gratitude, devotion and affection. Throughout the time of work at the company, employees feel like its debtors. In this regard, the Japanese system of "lifetime employment" should be considered as a powerful means of motivational influence.
A large number of different factors influence wages in Japan. In an enlarged form, we can say that the composition of wages includes three main components: base salary, allowances and bonuses (bonuses paid twice a year - in June and December). Base salary provides a living wage for workers. If this condition is violated, then wages are raised to the subsistence minimum by means of allowances(for group skills, for a family - for a non-working wife and children, for managing people, for overtime work (paid only to ordinary workers and specialists. Managers do not receive such a bonus). Under the optimal salary The Japanese understand it to be such a value that enables a Japanese family to save at least 20% of their income to the bank every month.
The system of payment for work "by seniority" has a significant impact on the system of "advancement by seniority" ("system of seniority"). When an employee is nominated for a managerial position, preference is given to age and work experience. In recent years, education has become increasingly important. But in terms of the importance of factors in determining a candidate for nomination, it ranks third after age and length of service. The system of "signorism" meets the requirements of the principle of leveling. "Everyone will take their respective position in due time."
Working in the company, the younger ones gradually rise through the ranks. In the first year of work, they fall under the care and influence of elders, who carefully monitor their every step. However, the following year, when new employees come to the firm in April, yesterday's newcomers become their guardians. This is how they move up the corporate ladder.
Many Japanese firms are characterized by staff rotation, which consists in the fact that approximately every 3-5 years, personnel are retrained in new specialties. Rotation contributes to the expansion of the horizons of employees, familiarization of employees with related specialties. Often in this way employees are prepared for higher management positions.
Quality management occupies a central place in the operational management of Japanese management. The idea of the need to create a movement aimed at improving the quality of products belongs to the American Deming. However, this idea was developed not in America, but in Japan. The quality movement originated in Japan in 50s. At first, it was expressed in the form of a struggle for the defect-free products, and then resulted in a powerful quality management system.
The basis of the Japanese product quality management system is the concept of "total" quality control within the company, which has acquired the status of a religion. Quality control covers all stages of production. All employees of the company are involved in the control system, including the secretary and the typist. All employees of the company are responsible for quality, therefore they do not look for specific culprits of marriage and defects. In Japan, the services involved in product quality control perform only advisory functions. Each employee can stop the conveyor if a marriage has started.
In all spheres of the Japanese economy, quality groups (circles) currently operate, which, in addition to workers, include craftsmen and engineers. Groups (circles) of quality solve all problems, ranging from technological to socio-psychological.
At the beginning 70s. Vice President of Toyota Motor Company T. It proposed the Kanban labor organization system, which the Americans began to call "just in time", which is not entirely correct, since the time factor is not the main component of this system. The main content of the Japanese Kanban system is, firstly, the rational organization of production, and secondly, the effective management of personnel. The Kanban system got its name from the triangular-shaped metal sign (“kanban” in translation means “tablet”, “sign”) that accompanies the parts during production and movement. All dispatching information is placed on this sign: part number, place of its manufacture, number of parts in the batch and the point of supply of the part for assembly. The essence of the system lies in the fact that at all phases of the production process they abandoned the production of products in large batches and created continuous-line production.
The Kanban system monitors the production of products at the sites by hours and even minutes and sends finished parts to subsequent operations only at the very moment when there is a need for them, and not when they are manufactured. This requirement applies both to the production process itself and to parts (assemblies) stored in warehouses, as well as to parts (assemblies) received from suppliers in the process of production cooperation. Suppliers are forced to adapt to the rhythm of the work of the enterprise-consumer of their products and introduce a similar system. The Kanban system, spreading, covers entire industries.
The United States and some Western European countries used the Kanban system to increase production efficiency. However, it should be noted that this system has not been fully implemented anywhere. This is primarily due to the fact that the system created in Japan is focused on national values.
Challenge from Japan at the end 70s- early 80s gg. throughout the Western world, testifies to the presence of a number of advantages of the Japanese management model compared to the American one.
Quality circles and just-in-time delivery systems originated in America but were not widely adopted there. However, they have produced good results in Japanese firms. At the same time, another American innovation - American methods of managing "human resources" - did not find application in Japan.

At present, Japan occupies a leading position in the world market. One of the main reasons for Japan's rapid success is its human-centered management model. Historical development Japan determined the methods of work and behavior corresponding to the specific features of the national character.

The Japanese consider their human resources to be the main wealth of the country. The Japanese economic system is based on the historically established traditions of group cohesion and the innate aspiration of the Japanese to create high-quality products.

The essence of Japanese management is the management of people. At the same time, the Japanese do not consider one person (personality), like Americans, but a group of people.

In addition, Japan has developed a tradition of submission to the older but the age, the position of which is approved by the group.

As you know, human behavior is determined by its needs. The Japanese put social needs above others (belonging to a social group, the place of an employee in a group, the attention and respect of others), and therefore they perceive remuneration for work through the prism of social needs.

The Japanese worship work, they are often called workaholics. In the hierarchy of values of the Japanese people, work comes first. The Japanese feel satisfaction from a job well done, so they are willing to endure strict discipline, high work tempo, high work stress and overtime. In Japanese factories, workers work in groups, work together, and support each other.

The Japanese management model is focused on the "social man", the concept of which was put forward by the "school of human relations", which replaced Taylorism, which put the material demands and incentives of the "economic man" at the forefront.

Before the development of the capitalist mode of production in Japan, it was characterized by equalizing remuneration for labor, which arose in the rural community and left a deep mark on the Japanese national character. The formation of machine production required the development of a system of labor motivation, taking into account established traditions. The way out was found in the development of a system of remuneration of workers by length of service. When hiring employees, the same amount of remuneration is set, which subsequently increases depending on the length of service at the given enterprise.

The strongest motivator in Japan is the "corporate spirit" of the firm, which refers to merging with the firm and devotion to its ideals. The "corporate spirit" of the company is based on the psychology of the group, which puts the interests of the group above the personal interests of individual employees.

Every Japanese firm consists of many groups, each of which has seniors and juniors, differing in age, length of service and experience. The younger ones in the group unconditionally perceive the authority of the elders, show them signs of attention and respect, and obey the elders. Groups are focused on the goals and objectives of the firm. Working for the purpose of the company, every Japanese understands that he is working for the group and for himself. The Japanese, who highly value group relations, are especially attentive to their position in the group, sensitively react to the change of each person in the group and try not to cross the boundaries outlined for each of them.

In Japan, there is a group decision-making system called “ringi”, according to which the responsibility for making a decision is not personified, for decision the entire group is responsible. The essence of the ringi system is that decisions must be made by consensus. The system requires everyone to make a decision. If someone is against, the proposal is returned to its initiator. Each proposal is discussed in informal groups, the decision is never submitted to a formal discussion without an informal one. This method assumes complete unanimity, but it must be understood that this is not a majority decision. If there is no complete unanimity, the decision is not taken. If the decision is opposed by the opinion of a small minority, he is persuaded to respect the views of the rest.

Large Japanese firms are characterized by a system of "lifetime employment", which covers up to 30% of the total number of employees. These firms guarantee their employees employment not only until they retire, but also in the event of a decline in production and other unforeseen circumstances.

Japanese workers seek to get into firms that practice the "lifetime employment" system. Such a system is very beneficial for both entrepreneurs and employees. Entrepreneurs acquire loyal and dedicated employees who are ready to work for the benefit of the company with the greatest return, while employees experience the satisfaction of having received recognition for their ability, education and level of training. The employee has a feeling of stability in his position in life, confidence in the future. In this regard, the Japanese system of "lifetime employment" should be considered as a powerful means of motivational influence.

The system of "lifetime employment" is closely intertwined with the system of payment for work "by length of service", the essence of which is that the amount of wages directly depends on the continuous length of service. This system of remuneration stems from the respect for elders characteristic of Japanese society.

A large number of different factors influence wages in Japan. In a generalized form, we can say that the composition of wages includes three main components. The first is the base salary, it is determined depending on the age, length of service, professional training, marital status of the employee. In large companies, the base salary is about the same for all permanent employees of the same age and education. Freelance and temporary workers at the same time receive a rate of about two times lower than that of permanent staff. The base rate increases with the length of service in the firm.

The second component of the salary element is additional payments - allowances, bonuses, bonuses, paid not only monthly, but also based on performance for each six months. The bonuses serve to encourage the personal contribution of each worker and the group to which he belongs. This includes: payment overtime, a bonus for improving productivity and quality of work, various kinds of bonuses, the amount of which depends on the results of the company as a whole, as well as lump-sum benefits for those who retire. The value of these allowances can range from 10 to 50% of the base rate.

The third element of the total wages of a Japanese worker are special social benefits, which include allowances for family support, travel to work, rent, medical care, social insurance, etc. The amount of such allowances can be up to 40% of the total payroll.

The current wage system in Japan makes it possible to provide incentives for employees to increase labor productivity and improve their skills even in conditions where work experience is one of the most important factors. A skillful combination of various payments, their constant updating and combination provides an additional binding of an employee to a given company. So, in the case of leaving for another company at the age of 40-45, an employee automatically loses a number of bonuses, which amount to 15% of his salary.

The system of pay for work "by seniority" has a significant impact on the system of "advancement by seniority". When an employee is nominated for a managerial position, preference is given to age and work experience. Recently, education has become increasingly important, but in terms of the importance of factors in determining a candidate for nomination, it ranks third after age and length of service.

An important feature of Japanese management is the concept of continuous learning. The Japanese believe that continuous learning leads to continuous improvement of skills. Japanese firms spend three to four times more on training per worker than American firms. In Japan, continuing education is part of the labor process, on which each employed person spends approximately 8 hours a week, including 4 hours at the expense of work time and 4 hours at the expense of personal time.

Many Japanese firms are characterized by staff rotation, which consists in the fact that approximately every three to five years, personnel are retrained in new specialties. Rotation contributes to the expansion of the horizons of employees, familiarization of employees with related specialties, which contributes to the preparation of employees for higher management positions.

Quality management occupies a central place in the operational management of Japanese management. The quality movement originated in Japan in the 1950s. At first, it was expressed in the form of a struggle for the defect-free products, and then resulted in a powerful quality management system.

The basis of the Japanese product quality management system is the concept of total quality control within the company, which has acquired the status of a religion. Quality control covers all stages of production. All employees of the company are involved in the control system, including the secretary and the typist. Responsibility for quality is borne by all employees of the company, so they do not look for specific perpetrators of the marriage. In Japan, the services involved in product quality control perform only advisory functions. Each employee can stop the conveyor if a marriage has started.

In all areas of the Japanese economy, there are quality circles, which, in addition to workers, include craftsmen and engineers. Quality circles solve all problems, from technological to socio-psychological.

The Japanese quality management system is practically flawless. This is the result of her thoughtfulness and simplicity. The stake on the production of high-quality products is explained both by the national traits and traditions of the Japanese, and by the fact that Japan has practically no raw materials.

In the early 1970s The vice president of the Toyota automobile company proposed the Kanban labor organization system, which the Americans began to call "just in time", which is not entirely correct, since the time factor is not the main component of this system. The main content of the Japanese Kanban system is the rational organization of production and effective personnel management.

The Kanban system got its name from the triangular-shaped metal sign (“kanban” in translation means a sign, a sign) that accompanies the parts during production and movement. All dispatching information is placed on this sign: part number, place of its manufacture, number of parts in the batch and the point of supply of the part for assembly. The essence of the system lies in the fact that at all phases of the production process they abandoned the production of products in large batches and created continuous-line production.

The Kanban system monitors the production of products at the sites by hours and even minutes and sends finished parts to subsequent operations only at the very moment when they are needed there. Suppliers are forced to adapt to the rhythm of the work of the enterprise - the consumer of their products and introduce a similar system.

The Kanban system has a direct impact on the size of warehouse stocks, reducing them to optimal sizes.

The United States and some Western European countries used the Kanban system to improve production efficiency, but this system was not fully implemented anywhere. This can be explained by the fact that the system created in Japan is focused on purely Japanese means of labor motivation and national socio-psychological attitudes.

The Japanese management model is the object of study by American and Western scientists who are trying to understand and use the principles of the Japanese model in the practice of companies in their countries, for which the term "yanonization" was even introduced. They concluded that the success of Japan's leading corporations is based on their ability to manage internal and external relations more efficiently than the vast majority of their Western competitors, which is largely facilitated by the socio-economic conditions of Japan. The "secret" of Japanese success is joint activities of the entire created system as a whole, and not in the specifics of its individual parts.

The Japanese management system is recognized as the most effective in the world and the main reason for its success is the ability to work with people. The Japanese consider their human resources to be the main wealth of the country.

Japanese management constantly uses the most useful management concepts of Western countries, their methods and techniques, adapting them to their national characteristics, thereby preserving and strengthening their values and contributing to the establishment of a special style of thinking and methods inherent only to Japanese managers.

The essence of Japanese management is the management of people. The Japanese model is based on the philosophy of "we are all one family", so the most important task of Japanese managers is to establish normal relations with employees, to form an understanding that workers and managers are one family. Companies that have managed to do this have been the most successful. In addition, Japan has developed a tradition of submission to the elder, whose position is approved by the group.

The main features of the Japanese management system are determined by a number of concepts that are absent in the American model. The most important of these are the system of lifetime employment and the process of collective decision-making. Another important feature of Japanese management is the concept of continuous learning. The Japanese believe that continuous learning leads to continuous improvement of skills. Each person through continuous learning can improve the performance of their work.

One of the distinguishing features of Japanese management is the management of labor resources. Japanese corporations manage their employees in such a way that the latter work as efficiently as possible. The Japanese worship hard work. They are often referred to as "workaholics". In the hierarchy of values of the Japanese people, work comes first.

The Japanese management model is focused on a "social person" who has a specific system of incentives and motives. The formula "enterprise is people" is a sincere conviction of employers. Japanese managers instill in their employees not only technical skills, but also moral and ethical values.

The strongest motivation in Japan is the "corporate spirit" of the firm, which refers to merging with the firm and devotion to its ideals. The "corporate spirit" of the company is based on the psychology of the group, which puts the interests of the group above the personal interests of individual employees, since the company must function as one cohesive team. Thus, management always thinks from the perspective of the group.

Quality management occupies a central place in the operational management of Japanese management. Quality control covers all stages of production. All employees of the company are involved in the control system. In all areas of the Japanese economy, quality groups (circles) are currently operating, which solve all problems, from technological to socio-psychological.

Three main features of Japanese industrial organizations are noteworthy: firstly, lifelong employment, secondly, the effect of seniority on salaries and wages, and thirdly, the organization of trade unions.

Japanese management accepts the union as a legitimate intermediary between management and workers in matters of wages. But because trade unions in Japan are not divided by occupation, but are unions of workers in the same firm, they share management values such as productivity, profitability, and growth. The unions are fully aware that workers can only improve their standard of living by increasing productivity, so they have begun to cooperate with management.

In general, there are fewer complaints and claims against management in Japan for two main reasons: firstly, the Japanese worker does not feel oppressed, and secondly, he considers his work to be more important than rights or beliefs. The origins of this lie in the fact that the managers of Japanese firms pay great attention to the well-being of their workers. This, of course, increases their confidence, both in management and in trade unions.